Obscene

[Reggie Strayshun 0]

[quote user="Houston Canary"]If the big parties thought they could get more votes by promising to jack up taxes, they would be campaigning on that theme. .[/quote].........which, of course is why your ''if you don''t like it-rearrange it'' , is easy to say in theory. Less so, in practice !

[nutty nigel 7,528]

The taxation issue is a red herring as far as footballers are concerned. Their contracts are negotiated on the basis of what they will "take home". The tax is effectively paid by their employers which is the case for most people. If the high rate is returned to 50p then it won''t be long before the extra tax is again paid by the employers. Tax exiles would usually be people who receive large sums through royaltys and the like which they have no negotiating control over.

 

Bums on seats is another red herring. Man Utd would sell the same tickets whether Rooney played for them or Chelsea. It''s the merchandise and tv rights that give footballers their value. Rooney''s days of being able to negotiate another big contract may be coming to an end as the next generation come through.

 

 

[Houston Canary 0]

.......which, of course is why your ''if you don''t like it-rearrange it'' , is easy to say in theory. Less so, in practice !

Exactly in practice. But practice means actually doing something. If you want Rooney to pay more taxes, get involved. If yours is a popular opinion, your party will win and Rooney''s taxes will go up.

Does the government really need more money?

[lowlyfendweller 0]

When a big rock band sells out a stadium and get paid loads, nobody seems to care, its the same thing, just that PL gigs get recorded and the whole world is interested.

[Reggie Strayshun 0]

[quote user="Houston Canary"].......which, of course is why your ''if you don''t like it-rearrange it'' , is easy to say in theory. Less so, in practice !

Exactly in practice. But practice means actually doing something. If you want Rooney to pay more taxes, get involved. If yours is a popular opinion, your party will win and Rooney''s taxes will go up.

Does the government really need more money?[/quote]An interesting subject to debate, HC, but, I fear, one for another forum ....!

[Reggie Strayshun 0]

[quote user="lowlyfendweller"]When a big rock band sells out a stadium and get paid loads, nobody seems to care, its the same thing, just that PL gigs get recorded and the whole world is interested.[/quote]Which of course is why the whole ''bums on seats'' issue is certainly not a red herring.It all has to start somewhere, and if your rock band had not put bums on seats in small local venues, sold lots of CDs, then they would not be doing big stadium gigs in the first place.In the same way, MU have to attract the Rooneys of this world to set the ball rolling, win trophies and put enough bums on seats  (both literally and figuratively speaking) so that they become (and stay) a global brand.In fact , it''s very relevant to MU at the moment. They know that the signings they make over the next few months (starting with Mata) will have a HUGE bearing on their ''bum on seat count'' over the next 10 years. And, at the level they are playing, it''s going to cost them big bucks in fees AND wages.

[Rock The Boat 1,329]

quote user="Green and Yellow fellow"Maybe players should get taxed more so their money is put back into society. In France, clubs are liable for 75% tax fees on salaries that exceed 1m euros./quote

Sure go ahead and tax people who''s only crime is that they are good at what they do.

Let''s copy France where all the really clever French leave the country so that the French government ends up with NO tax receipts from these people.

And lower taxed countries such as the UK benefit from those tax receipts from the smart people who left France and so we end up putting that extra money into our society. In other words, the poorer people in this country win through lower taxes.

Jeez you labour people just don''t get the real world do you?

[PurpleCanary 5,557]

[quote user="Rock The Boat"]quote user="Green and Yellow fellow"Maybe players should get taxed more so their money is put back into society. In France, clubs are liable for 75% tax fees on salaries that exceed 1m euros./quote

Sure go ahead and tax people who''s only crime is that they are good at what they do.

Let''s copy France where all the really clever French leave the country so that the French government ends up with NO tax receipts from these people.

And lower taxed countries such as the UK benefit from those tax receipts from the smart people who left France and so we end up putting that extra money into our society. In other words, the poorer people in this country win through lower taxes.

Jeez you labour people just don''t get the real world do you?[/quote]George, I know your next Budget is a little way off but frankly I think it is high time you eliminated taxation on the interest from Gilts. Without at least a move in that direction I would seriously have to look at rebalancing my portfolio with a shift away from UK Government Bonds to Estonian equities.

[ricardo 7,384]

I have always found that most people are in favour of tax increases for other people.

[Hairy Canary 696]

I think some are missing the point. I wasn''t suggesting Rooney''s taxes should go up. The complaint was that his came down! Nobody else other than the megga rich have had a tax CUT.

Jez. You Tory people just don''t see it. Even where you''re part of the group being shafted.

[QHcanary 0]

"I think some are missing the point. I wasn''t suggesting Rooney''s taxes should go up. The complaint was that his came down! Nobody else other than the megga rich have had a tax CUT.

Jez. You Tory people just don''t see it. Even where you''re part of the group being shafted."

The Laffer curve.

Heard of it?

[ron obvious 1,502]

I''m a bit of a pragmatist on this. It''s very difficult to keep squeezing the rich, as they are rich enough to find ways round it.

This wealth redistribution lark isn''t as easy as you might think ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLkhx0eqK5w

[nutty nigel 7,528]

If big earner negotiated his contract at the time of the 50p tax rate then it was negotiated on the amount he would receive after tax. The tax is incidental and in reality paid by his employer. But when the government abolish this high rate of tax the big earner gets a windfall and money which he hasn''t really earnt.

 

 

[Houston Canary 0]

Of course he has earned it. Now he gets to keep more of it.

[nutty nigel 7,528]

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

 

 

[drurys testamonials V 15 0]

[quote user="Les"]300k, nice if u can get it.Take me 18 years to earn that amount, sheeshDoes that put it into perspective??I think it does.[/quote]I think it was once cited wages were high as a player''s playing career is shorter than that of the average worker.Given the current workplace and economic climate, I think many footballers last longer in football than a large number of the average workforce.

[Monty13 2,231]

One of the richest sporting leagues in the world, the NFL, has a squad wage cap. Watching a lot of american sport at the minute I can''t help feeling that (in the NFL and NBA at least) they have a very fair system which generates a good competition in which teams can go from being the whipping boys to worldbeaters in the space of two or three seasons and vice versa.

I can''t ever see such drastic change to the finance of football though unfortunately.

As for the other debate, I saw a very good comedy sketch once where an MP was arguing for a massive salary increase on the basis that if they were paid 3 or four times more, they wouldn''t have idiots like him as MPs. Can''t help but feel it was actually a very serious point.

As for the 50p tax I personally don''t feel anyone should be paying more in tax (with NI) than they are actually earning. It just seems wrong to me even if I''ll never personally be in that bracket. It also helps breed a tax dodging mentality to those that are imo. It''s all right though because I''m sure the labour party has our best interests at heart and its not just a cheap political vote grab....to be fair most party''s policies are,

[nutty nigel 7,528]

[quote user="Monty13"] It''s all right though because I''m sure the labour

party has our best interests at heart and its not just a cheap political vote

grab....to be fair most party''s policies are,[/quote]

 

Indeed they do. Regardless of whether it''s direct taxation or indirect

taxation the people who earn what they need to live their lives will pay the

same. I remember other political vote grabs where direct taxation was reduced in

order to give people "choice". However indirect taxation rose to take that

choice away. At the end of the day those who earn enough they need to live their

lives will always pay a bigger proportion of their income in tax than others

regardless of the method.

 

 

Despite what Houston says when the 50p was abolished many in that tax bracket got a windfall because their salaries had been negotiated on what they''d have left after paying 50p.

 

 

[Monty13 2,231]

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?

[QHcanary 0]

"One of the richest sporting leagues in the world, the NFL, has a squad wage cap. Watching a lot of american sport at the minute I can''t help feeling that (in the NFL and NBA at least) they have a very fair system which generates a good competition in which teams can go from being the whipping boys to worldbeaters in the space of two or three seasons and vice versa.

I can''t ever see such drastic change to the finance of football though unfortunately."

It''s fine having a squad salary cap when the best players in a given league have nowhere else they can play their sport and earn anywhere near the amount they do now.

Introduce that here and you''ll see players buggering off to Russia, or some other footballing backwater, as there''s no way it will be rolled out for all of the biggest leagues around the world.

If we want to keep seeing top players in the premier league, then the wages are gong to have to be attractive enough to dissuade them from going abroad, no matter how unpalatable the sums may seem to joe public.

[nutty nigel 7,528]

[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.

 

 

[Monty13 2,231]

I totally agree QH, that''s why I said I can''t see it happening. It would take FIFA and at a minimum UEFA to bring it in and enforce it to make such a thing work and I just can''t see it happening.

[Monty13 2,231]

Oh I can''t have any idealism in British politics Nutty, when this is the sort of tired carp the opposition to what should be an unpopular cutting govt. comes up with I despair. I agree entirely with the sentence following.

As for the rest, of course I''d want a pay rise, I wouldn''t get one though. Neither would my wife at her work or any of my friends I can think of. There''s no more money in the pot at most businesses and institutions. They don''t run their balance sheets with a rainy day fund in case the govt ups income tax. If your contract says x amount its not your employers problem if the govt decides to take a bigger slice. It is however a problem if they are competing to employ you against other countries where you wouldn''t have to pay as much income tax. Then i suppose they may offer to pay you more to keep you but I doubt many of us are that desirable!

[ricardo 7,384]

[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.

[Monty13 2,231]

Nail, head Ricardo. I also don''t think this is a vote winner, anyone taken in by it would almost certainly be voting labour anyway.

[ricardo 7,384]

[quote user="Monty13"]Nail, head Ricardo. I also don''t think this is a vote winner, anyone taken in by it would almost certainly be voting labour anyway.[/quote]It will no doubt be popular since very few of us will have to pay the 50% rate. Unfortunately for the rest of us flat rate tax payers, we will find it hard to avoid our share while the super rich can easily up sticks and go somewhere else. If a government robs Peter to pay Paul they can always rely on the votes of Paul.I just wish one political party would at least be honest and tell us the real cost of the services we would all like to see. From what I can see we all want more than we are prepared to pay for and spending a third more than we actually pay in taxation. It''s a recipe for disaster and it''s our children and grandchildren who will be left with the bill.

[ron obvious 1,502]

" ..... From what I can see we all want more than we are prepared to pay for and spending a third more than we actually pay in taxation. It''s a recipe for disaster and it''s our children and grandchildren who will be left with the bill."

This, absolutely this, & should be hammered home to every politician at every opportunity.

Unfortunately it''s a fundamental problem with democracy. ALL parties buy votes, one way or another. It would be nice to think you could win by appealing to people''s rationality & sense of moral responsibility, but there''s been little sign of it yet.

[Hairy Canary 696]

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.

[ricardo 7,384]

[quote user="ron obvious"]" ..... From what I can see we all want more than we are prepared to pay for and spending a third more than we actually pay in taxation. It''s a recipe for disaster and it''s our children and grandchildren who will be left with the bill."

This, absolutely this, & should be hammered home to every politician at every opportunity.

Unfortunately it''s a fundamental problem with democracy. ALL parties buy votes, one way or another. It would be nice to think you could win by appealing to people''s rationality & sense of moral responsibility, but there''s been little sign of it yet.[/quote]I think democracy is lost when there are more recipients than contributors and we are getting close to that point now. It can''t go on forever and what can''t go on, won''t go on. There will eventually be a reckoning but they are all still trying to kick the can just a little bit further down the road.

[Monty13 2,231]

I don''t know Ricardo, I''m not quite so cynical to believe that it will be more popular than with it''s target audience. I think most reasonable people will see it for what it is.

" ..... From what I can see we all want more than we are prepared to pay for and spending a third more than we actually pay in taxation. It''s a recipe for disaster and it''s our children and grandchildren who will be left with the bill."

Yep. Unfortunately I''m not quite 30 so I definitely feel part of the generation paying let alone my children!

I also feel especially hard done by to be paying while wondering why even though our combined income is above average we can barely afford a 3 bed house. It''s a generation divide now days as well as class!