Obscene

[ricardo 7,347]

[quote user="Hairy Canary"]Yes QH I have heard of the Laffer curve. Thanks for asking.

It doesn''t explain why tax cuts for the wealthy bring in more income but somehow doesn''t apply to the rest of us. Also its principal concerns punitive rates and really has nothing to do with figures around 45%.

The point I was trying to make is that for the country to pull in the same direction to get rid of the deficit everyone has to "be in this together". That can''t be done if one group in society are given a tax cut when others are facing increases.

As it happens I''m all for a low tax economy with less state intervention but that doesn''t excuse unfair government policy from whichever hue.[/quote]I think we''d all agree with that but Gordon''s Browns antics over raising the top rate to 50% rate for the last 39 days of his reign had nothing to do with fairness and everything to do with a political stunt. At the very least everybody should be able to see that piece of hypocrisy for what it really was.

[nutty nigel 7,509]

[quote user="ricardo"][quote user="nutty nigel"]

[quote user="Monty13"]I''m sorry nutty, I''m lost, you actually believe that

Labour has our best interests at heart with this and they aren''t just chasing

votes with a perceived populist policy? "because their salaries had been

negotiated on what they''d have left after paying 50p" wheres your evidence for

this Nutty? while i''m not lucky enough to know any top earners nearly all my

friends get paid salary''s and every one of them its a pre tax figure they

agreed. Why are the rich different?[/quote]

 

No I don''t believe they have our best interests at heart any more than those

who cut income tax had our best interests at heart. In both cases they had our

votes at heart. I''ll leave the political idealistic stuff to you younger people.

I''ve long since lost the desire to change the world much preferring to accept

what I can''t change and trying to make what difference I can within it.

 

Of course peoples salaries are negotiated by spending power. If they suddenly

put income tax up to 40% you''d want a pay rise wouldn''t you? Unless indirect

taxation came back down again to compensate.

 

 

[/quote]Since you''re an expert at all this tax stuff Nutty, can you

tell me why Labour think a 45% tax isn''t high enough when they only had a 40%

top rate for all but 39 days of their 13 years in Government?Or do you

think Mr Brown put it up to 50% as just a political ruse so they could say ya

boo those baby eating Tories are looking after the rich again when they dropped

it 5%. People have very short memories don''t they.[/quote]

 

Rickyyyyyyy.. I think you confuse my dislike of Fatcha to make the assumption

that I can tell you why the Labour Party make decisions in government. I have no

idea why Brown did that. Maybe he knew they''d lose the next election so took a

backhander from Cameron so that the Tories could look good cutting it again.

It''s no different to the income tax cuts for all back in the day. This was a

purely a vote winner. Most of us ended up paying the same amount of tax

indirectly. No government can afford to give tax cuts in reality.

 

Playing around with this top 5% to win votes is no different to the scare

mongering about benefit fraud at the other end of the scale to win votes. Human

nature is what it is whether you are Labour or Tory. Rich or poor. I wonder

which percentage is higher out of those who commit benefit fraud or MPs who

fiddle their expenses or high earners who fiddle their tax. At the end of the

day with human nature what it is I would imagine the percentage is the same

but most money is probably lost from tax fiddling.

 

 

[Monty13 2,229]

"so took a backhander from Cameron so that the Tories could look good cutting it again"

Are you for real Nutty?

[QHcanary 0]

[quote user="Hairy Canary"]Yes QH I have heard of the Laffer curve. Thanks for asking.

It doesn''t explain why tax cuts for the wealthy bring in more income but somehow doesn''t apply to the rest of us. Also its principal concerns punitive rates and really has nothing to do with figures around 45%.

The point I was trying to make is that for the country to pull in the same direction to get rid of the deficit everyone has to "be in this together". That can''t be done if one group in society are given a tax cut when others are facing increases.

As it happens I''m all for a low tax economy with less state intervention but that doesn''t excuse unfair government policy from whichever hue.[/quote]

The point is that there''s a level of taxation that will produce maximum tax take for the government. I''m sure there''s some leeway on where that point will lie country to country, but its fairly widely seen as being somewhere lower than the 50% that Ed Ballsup is currently trying to buy votes with.

If you cut the top rate of tax you''re trying to attract the (relatively) wealthy into the country. People who will create wealth by providing jobs. Cut the lower rates of tax and of course it will help the lower paid, but it will cost the country overall as the workers who occupy that band don''t typically have the option of just upping sticks and moving here. That''s ignoring the economic migrants from Eastern Europe who want to come here anyway.

If you think a system that taxes the "wealthy" even more, when the top 1% of earners pay 30% of taxes on 13% of the overall income, despite consuming far less in public services, is remotely fair then I think you need a reality check.

Note...I am NOWHERE NEAR a top 1%er.

[nutty nigel 7,509]

[quote user="Monty13"]"so took a backhander from Cameron so that the Tories could look good cutting it again"

Are you for real Nutty?[/quote]

 

If you''re pretending you took that literally then I doubt you are.

 

 

[Monty13 2,229]

Good post QH. I do love the way the word fair is banded about in a manner in which to some it means they are owed something by someone else.

If we had a truly fair taxation system we would all be paying proportionally the same percentage of our earnings in tax. I can''t think of a way it could be fairer than that?

[Hairy Canary 668]

Goodness me. Third time lucky.

I was not advocating that Rooneys tax should go up I was making the point that it was CUT!

Note. Neither am I :-)

[nutty nigel 7,509]

What may be fair from your perspective of the world may be unfair from someone elses. What I believe would be fair would be increase what can be earned before tax after which everyone should be taxed at the same rate. Not saying it should be done. Just saying I think it''s fairer.

 

 

[Hairy Canary 668]

Speechless Monty!

[Monty13 2,229]

I agree Nutty, not sure that''s technically fair but morally I''d be all for it.

But how much more of a tax free increase do we need? 10k isn''t a bad start for everyone to not be taxed, but after that point you either bring everyone down to the lower tax band or if you raise the base tax rate effectively your main earning population gets a tax hike while your rich get a reduction!

It''s very difficult process to achieve but I''m glad we have started by raising the tax threshold to 10k and helping out the poorest.

[Monty13 2,229]

Haha I didn''t say I''d be for it! I just said from an objective viewpoint if we all paid proportionately the same percentage of our earnings would that not be deemed fair?!

Of course in a socially responsible society we need to look after the poorest earners, but personally I don''t feel this apparent desire to see off those who earn more than me as well.

[Monty13 2,229]

And Hairy Rooney''s still paying 5% more tax by rate than he was this time 4 years ago. So while it is a cut, it''s not restored the previous rate.

[nutty nigel 7,509]

The boys do the sums I guess Monty. When income tax was cut they must have done the sums to be pretty confident of raising enough through indirect taxation. But with sooooo much of that now it must be difficult if not impossible to do such sums. If you earn just enough to live to your standard then you are probably taxed heaviest of all because after the allowance you are effectively taxed twice on all the rest of your money.

 

 

[Monty13 2,229]

Again I agree Nutty, tax on fuel being the biggest killer to most low earners. But there is a difference between necessities and luxuries that often gets ignored when people argue this.

[nutty nigel 7,509]

Yes there is. Which is why I used the phrase "live to your standard". But who''s judge and jury about necessities and luxuries? 

 

 

[QHcanary 0]

[quote user="Hairy Canary"]Goodness me. Third time lucky.

I was not advocating that Rooneys tax should go up I was making the point that it was CUT!

Note. Neither am I :-)[/quote]

I know you didn''t say it should go up. The 50% comment was just a dig at Ed Balls, who I think is a pillock of the highest order.

Why should Rooney''s tax be cut if its going to produce a better overall result for the country?

As an aside...

Why did Labour introduce the 50% bracket 39 days before the election? If they think it was such a good idea then the 13 years or so they failed to do so makes them look like morons. It was done purely as a way of having a dig at the Tories when they were fixed into dropping the rate back down to a level still higher than labour kept for 13 years.

I''ve still never seen a labour voter actually answer that last point, because there''s do defence for it I suppose.

[Monty13 2,229]

Well "living to your standard" surely makes the individual the judge, and as individuals we often think things are necessities when in reality life would go on without them.

I have people working for me who don''t earn very much but in their eyes having an iphone or (more relevant to here) skysports is a necessity. But it is incredibly difficult for someone to draw a line and say what things are black and white.

[Hairy Canary 668]

We''ll that''s right QH. I certainly wouldn''t be looking to defend that. As someone who has no political affiliation and makes his mind up who to vote for at election time depending on policy, I often despair at the paucity of political integrity.

[Yellow Wal 314]

Monty13 wrote the following post at 26/01/2014 10:12 PM:

Well "living to your standard" surely makes the individual the judge, and as individuals we often think things are necessities when in reality life would go on without them.

I have people working for me who don''t earn very much but in their eyes having an iphone or (more relevant to here) skysports is a necessity. But it is incredibly difficult for someone to draw a line and say what things are black and white.

And at that point the whole argument is back where it started.

The people who don''t earn very much working for you feel they deserve some of the luxurious necessities of life.

Perhaps if Sky did not pay so much for the privilege of screening Premiership football and Mr Rooney was, as a result, not paid as much, then those working for you, who do not earn very much, would not get themselves in as much financial difficulty because they might be able to afford Skysport a bit easier,

Although the many tax replies have been interesting the main point was that the excessive wages of some professional footballers have to be paid by someone, and they are quite often paid by people who cannot afford to.

[nutty nigel 7,509]

It''s impossible Monty. We see gimmicks like an MP who proves he can live on just a few quid a week for a fortnight but during that fortnight he knows he will soon be back to his own standard. One person may think Sky Sports is a neccessity but you''d be hard pressed to make that one stick in very poor countries. But then this is the country we are living in and despite what people would like us to think it''s a rich country.

 

 

[QHcanary 0]

Sorry Hairy. It probably sounded like I was saying you voted labour.

I''d never level that particular slur at anyone who hasn''t admitted to doing so.

[nutty nigel 7,509]

[quote user="Yellow Wall"]Monty13 wrote the following post at 26/01/2014 10:12 PM:

Well "living to your standard" surely makes the individual the judge, and as individuals we often think things are necessities when in reality life would go on without them.

I have people working for me who don''t earn very much but in their eyes having an iphone or (more relevant to here) skysports is a necessity. But it is incredibly difficult for someone to draw a line and say what things are black and white.

And at that point the whole argument is back where it started.

The people who don''t earn very much working for you feel they deserve some of the luxurious necessities of life.

Perhaps if Sky did not pay so much for the privilege of screening Premiership football and Mr Rooney was, as a result, not paid as much, then those working for you, who do not earn very much, would not get themselves in as much financial difficulty because they might be able to afford Skysport a bit easier,

Although the many tax replies have been interesting the main point was that the excessive wages of some professional footballers have to be paid by someone, and they are quite often paid by people who cannot afford to.[/quote]

 

And I seem to remember that a government told us test match cricket would always be available on terrestrial tv. However the game of cricket themselves sold out to sky for more money.

 

 

[Houston Canary 0]

Not so Houston. Salaries are not negotiated for how much they are before tax. They''re negotiated for what they are worth after tax.

Yes so. The salary is based on the expected contribution of the player to the team. If more or less is taken by the government, it doesn''t matter. It''s earned by the player, not the government, so it IS his money even if he never sees it. Without that contract, the government wouldn''t be able to hijack whatever per cent. It''s ALL earned by the player.

[Monty13 2,229]

"But then this is the country we are living in and despite what people would like us to think it''s a rich country."

Quite so Nutty, while there is definitively social inequality in this country it pails in comparison to other countries around the globe as well as our very western sense of "living in poverty" in this country.

Being in the forces I have had the privilege of visiting many countries around the world, while we would expect some to be poorer by our standards Brazil in particular was a real shock to me. Huge gaps in social equality and a landscape where brand new skyscrapers vied with shanty towns. I don''t think I have ever been somewhere where the gap between those with and those without was so great and so nakedly obvious.

[Lord Horn 0]

[quote user="QHcanary"]Clubs are businesses, not charities. Why would they drop ticket prices when they''re filling the stadium more or less every game? There doesn''t seem to be a particular shortage of young fans at carrow rd, so I''d say there''s not a real problem with pricing the next generation of fans out of the game. Rooney''s wages are presumably worth the outlay to Man Utd. If he''s worth it, why shouldn''t he get it? If they''re not willing to pay what he thinks he''s worth then he can move on.[/quote]

Interesting point relating to the next generation, as I know a number of youngsters who have had to give up watching when they leave the financial cushion of youth and are confronted with adult prices.  So, not a given that they will automatically be there for the future.

[Hairy Canary 668]

That''s interesting Monty. Genuine curiosity - have you any idea what sort of tax system/rates they have?

[Monty13 2,229]

Got me curious hairy so I went and had a look.

here''s a good english explanation:

http://brazil.angloinfo.com/money/income-tax/

It''s a similar system to ours with a tax free base and a tiered progression, although it tops out 27.5%.

Uk average wage is 27,000 and obv our tax free allowance moves to 10k in April.

Brazillian average wage is around £6,000 from what i could find out looking on sites, but i''m not 100% sure, there tax free limit is around £5000.

If those figures are correct then percentage wise poorer Brazilians are paying much less income tax than poorer brits, and also rich Brazilians are paying far less tax than rich brits. But those poor Brazilians are really blo0dy poor.

[Monty13 2,229]

oops no reading again that cant be right. the tax free limit is around £6000. I may have been reading the average brazilian wage wrong. I thought it was monthly but it might be weekly making it roughly 21,000 pounds but that seems high to me.

Whatever the figures i still stand by my last sentence!

[nutty nigel 7,509]

Some interesting points about Brazil Monty and some of what you say is coming to light through the World Cup and how some communities are being hidden from the media having been displaced for the new stadiums. At this point I''d just like to point out that some people believe Redmond has an outside chance of making it to Brazil. Time will tell but adding this should keep the self-appointed forum moderators off our case.

 

Comparing income tax across the world means nothing. Back in the 70s I seem to remember the top rate of income tax was around 80% and the basic rate was around 33%. Fatcha changed all that and successive governments reduced the top rate to around 40% and the basic rate to around 20%. But the governments didn''t suddenly lose all that money because they moved the goal posts around and made up the difference and more through indirect taxation. So if you want to compare different countries you''d need to compare all taxation which is far more difficult.