George Osborne has warned against driving away the wealthy after Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg called for a temporary tax on the rich.
This is aimed at the Gwapitos in the UK
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/clegg-super...230937992.html
George Osborne has warned against driving away the wealthy after Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg called for a temporary tax on the rich.
This is aimed at the Gwapitos in the UK
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/clegg-super...230937992.html
The Chancellor said he had already taken steps to ensure the UK's highest earners pay more but insisted it was vital to hang on to entrepreneurs who would fuel the economic recovery.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/20...-cut-rich-poor
what a
"Nick Clegg demands emergency tax on Britain's richest people.
Lib Dem leader battles to persuade his Tory coalition partners rich should shoulder greater burden of the economic pain."
"Britain's wealthiest people should face an emergency tax to avoid a breakdown in social cohesion as the country fights an "economic war" caused by a longer than expected recession, Nick Clegg has said."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2...?newsfeed=true
lastlid, for the sake of 'forum harmony' I think these personal digs (between yourself and Gwapito) need to stop now.
I'm sure I'm correct in thinking that nobody else is really interested mate.
Originally Posted by grahamw48
lastlid, for the sake of 'forum harmony' I think these personal digs (between yourself and Gwapito) need to stop now.
I'm sure I'm correct in thinking that nobody else is really interested mate.
Come on Graham. Where's the sense of humour?
I have had to put up with a lot of nonsense too.
Looks like I maybe behind the time
Excuse me for not seeing funny side of you calling me a dickhead brainless...if that was mean't to have beem humorous, excuse me for being the sensitive one
Anyway, im no Harry Enfield and im certainly not in the 150000 k and above tax bracket
Yes, screw the hard working ...makes sense really
Unfortunately (Or maybe it's fortunately - you decide) taxing the rich is one of those good ideas which just doesn't work.
The very rich can afford good accountants to help them avoid tax, can afford to move their assets elsewhere, and will know every loophole. The very rich just don't pay tax (allegedly).
Those it will hurt are the middle earners who don't know how to avoid this, and the working classes, who will find those high flyers more reluctant to invest in the country, or will move elsewhere. Fact is, those who create the jobs aren't low earners.
Armchair politics in this case just doesn't work, and there's frankly no place for envy in politics anyway. Even Labour know better than to raise taxes too high - it's being pragmatic.
Or to put it even another way - yes this is a very old anecdote but it works to illustrate.......
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that’s what they decided to do.
The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. “Since you are all such good customers,” he said, “I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20.”Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his ‘fair share? They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.
And so the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 ( 22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.
“I only got a dollar out of the $20,”declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,” but he got $10!”
“Yeah, that’s right,” exclaimed the fifth man. “I only saved a dollar, too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more than I!”
“That’s true!!” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!”
“Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison. “We didn’t get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!”
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!
And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.
Ha yes. I have to admit to having to read that through twice.
He would do, of course ... wouldn't he? I mean ...... what else would you expect from a Chancellor [read "chancer"] born with a silver spoon in his mouth?
Doubtless, most of our "regulars" - as well as the not so frequent contributors to this site - will have at least noticed an old thread of mine entitled, Osborne & Little. But whether or not anyone bothered tois another matter... because, sadly,
it received only one reply
... in spite of the fact that it revealed some home truths about the man destined to inherit his aristocratic father's vast wealth.
So ... it's no real surprise that he's issued such a warning - since it is hardly likely to be in his long term interests to state otherwise!
Oh. I thought the "Little" in Osborne and Little was you, Arthur.
I see. So he has a disincentive to raise taxes in the way Clegg has requested....He would do, of course ... wouldn't he? I mean ...
Doubtless most of our "regulars" - as well as the not so frequent contributors to this site - will have at least noticed an old thread of mine entitled, Osborne & Little. But whether or not anyone bothered to
So ... it's no real surprise that he's issued such a warning - since it is hardly likely to be in his long term interests to state otherwise!
Oh. I thought the "Little" in Osborne and Little was you, Arthur.... once again,
it ought to be stressed that the latter partner is no relative of mine ... unfortunately.
Well in my opinion it should not be a temporary tax on the rich. It should be permanent. If they want to live here they should contribute more.
Well in my opinion it should not be a temporary tax on the rich. It should be permanent. If they want to live here they should contribute more.Quite right Andy. Or get the flock off to the Isle of Man.
This whole argument is really quite silly because someone earning £1m is going to pay £500k odd in tax.
Someone earning £75k is going to pay £25k in tax.
Saying tax the rich more is stupid because they are already paying considerably more.
I'll bet everyone of us on here if fortunate enough to earn a substantial amount would do their utmost to reduce the tax liability knowing its actually going to a feckless bunch of politicians who in turn spunk that to other politicians by way of foreign aid, wars in countries we don't want or need or simply propping up a bank.. On the other hand many chavs in their Burberry clothes will simply get our tax off the social and spend it down the boozer.
With all that in mind why would you are anyone with an ounce of common sense want to contribute to this society?
Worst still some of our tax is going to idiots who want to obtain our legal aid against the regular man...
As quickly as I can I'm getting out of this country, I don't earn mega loads but I earn enough to pay for my 3 bed semi, my 5 year old car, maintenance to ex wife and cover my ever increasing tax, bills and food costs let alone expensive fuel.
Tax the rich but as suggested unless the laws are severely policed and corporates, parasites from eastern Europe who rip off our social nfrastructure are removed (amongst he many) we are not gong to see things get any better.
Well said.This whole argument is really quite silly because someone earning £1m is going to pay £500k odd in tax.
Someone earning £75k is going to pay £25k in tax.
Saying tax the rich more is stupid because they are already paying considerably more.
I'll bet everyone of us on here if fortunate enough to earn a substantial amount would do their utmost to reduce the tax liability knowing its actually going to a feckless bunch of politicians who in turn spunk that to other politicians by way of foreign aid, wars in countries we don't want or need or simply propping up a bank.. On the other hand many chavs in their Burberry clothes will simply get our tax off the social and spend it down the boozer.
With all that in mind why would you are anyone with an ounce of common sense want to contribute to this society?
Worst still some of our tax is going to idiots who want to obtain our legal aid against the regular man...
As quickly as I can I'm getting out of this country, I don't earn mega loads but I earn enough to pay for my 3 bed semi, my 5 year old car, maintenance to ex wife and cover my ever increasing tax, bills and food costs let alone expensive fuel.
Tax the rich but as suggested unless the laws are severely policed and corporates, parasites from eastern Europe who rip off our social nfrastructure are removed (amongst he many) we are not gong to see things get any better.
but how many of those who earn £1m are paying £500k in tax? or any tax at all ?
... given that many are reputed to have oodles of cash stashed away in offshore tax havens.
Or the tax havens in the IOM?
Or the tax havens in the IOM?... "if the cap fits"<>
!
I wish, Arthur.
Seriously, though ... those Oxbridge-educated, rich kids ARE, by virtue of their privileged upbringing, totally out of touch with what goes on in the real world!
Excellent post Tone...a reputation deservedly sentThis whole argument is really quite silly because someone earning £1m is going to pay £500k odd in tax.
Someone earning £75k is going to pay £25k in tax.
Saying tax the rich more is stupid because they are already paying considerably more.
I'll bet everyone of us on here if fortunate enough to earn a substantial amount would do their utmost to reduce the tax liability knowing its actually going to a feckless bunch of politicians who in turn spunk that to other politicians by way of foreign aid, wars in countries we don't want or need or simply propping up a bank.. On the other hand many chavs in their Burberry clothes will simply get our tax off the social and spend it down the boozer.
With all that in mind why would you are anyone with an ounce of common sense want to contribute to this society?
Worst still some of our tax is going to idiots who want to obtain our legal aid against the regular man...
As quickly as I can I'm getting out of this country, I don't earn mega loads but I earn enough to pay for my 3 bed semi, my 5 year old car, maintenance to ex wife and cover my ever increasing tax, bills and food costs let alone expensive fuel.
Tax the rich but as suggested unless the laws are severely policed and corporates, parasites from eastern Europe who rip off our social nfrastructure are removed (amongst he many) we are not gong to see things get any better.
My gripe on the tax is the middle income being unfairly treated simply because they, being a minority are an easy target...I ask you...is it fair to tax folks 40% top lining 43k upwards same as guys doing 159 k a year..I personally dont.
The only people to have benefited is low income, rightly so and high earners all at the expense of the ever increasing middle income bracket
20% is the top rate of tax over here.
At the expense of living on IOM...naah..sooner pay 50% here on mainland
Now that depends very much on what you are getting paid. There is a break even point. Cross that and it works well. Many people here move here for that reason. And some move here for enough time to qualify for Manx tax but still spend half their life in the UK. It works for a lot of people.
Arthur. Thats how some of em do it. Get the best of both worlds, legally. Wasnt it the last labour chancellor that was hopping up and down about that. And indeed Milliband has echoed the same.
"Ed Miliband declares war today on the UK's secretive offshore tax havens which he says could raise £2.4bn for the Exchequer and help to reduce the deficit.
As Ed Balls, the Shadow Chancellor, signals a major shift in economic strategy by admitting that a Labour government would be unable to reverse all of the coalition's cuts, Mr Miliband will expand on his theme of "fairness in tough times" by making those at the top of society contribute more.
In the Labour leader's sights are the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, which shelter UK residents' cash which would otherwise have to be taxed by HM Revenue and Customs."
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...d-6289938.html
Those unfortunate buggers who are bound to paye I'm afraid mate. The rest can afford a range of tax avoidance schemes to dodge the taxman, however I believe in time they will be sorted out.
We don't have enough money to pay for all the public services so someone has to have the bottle to start accounting for usage of those services and break down the data to make things fairer.
Look at the costs for social care, NHS, police and other social infrastructure like housing. The idiots who get drunk up on fri/sat nights and waste time of the police/a&E departments, they need to start a pay per use, or cart them home and let someone else sober them up.
If I drink myself to death it shouldn't be someone else's responsibility, I'm on thin ice here but like I said we can't afford the levels in use so we have to look at the people who take the pee...
Example - I used to use my broadband a lot they capped it and then raised the price by 100%.
I'm rambling but I know many will get my point, and some will argue privatising the public sector is a bad thing. Problem is we can't have it both ways anymore because we attract too many spongers...
Thanks for that mate.Excellent post Tone...a reputation deservedly sent
My gripe on the tax is the middle income being unfairly treated simply because they, being a minority are an easy target...I ask you...is it fair to tax folks 40% top lining 43k upwards same as guys doing 159 k a year..I personally dont.
The only people to have benefited is low income, rightly so and high earners all at the expense of the ever increasing middle income bracket
Totally agree mate.
Additionally....ANYONE deemed to be drunk in a public place (which IS against the law) should be fined and the money raised used for something worthwhile.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
