A quick question...

[violet]

besides...what the future tax rates are going to be is not even relevant to this argument.the point i was trying to make is that there isn't a flat tax rate for high earners.and i was highlighting this by using the current tax system.if you want to have a discussion about changing tax rates. then that's a seperate discussion.edit: and let me point out again as you obviously are not grasping this. i was talking about the CURRENT tax system. yes this is changing in a few days. but it has not changed yet. as i said... come back in a few days and then we can have that conversation.

[Bacardi_Up]

besides...what the future tax rates are going to be is not even relevant to this argument.the point i was trying to make is that there isn't a flat tax rate for high earners.and i was highlighting this by using the current tax system.if you want to have a discussion about changing tax rates. then that's a seperate discussion.

Fair enough.I knew what you were getting at don't get it twisted. Hence why I am in agreement...But still I win I win I win.

[violet]

besides...what the future tax rates are going to be is not even relevant to this argument.the point i was trying to make is that there isn't a flat tax rate for high earners.and i was highlighting this by using the current tax system.if you want to have a discussion about changing tax rates. then that's a seperate discussion.

Fair enough.I knew what you were getting at don't get it twisted. Hence why I am in agreement...But still I win I win I win.

lol...really you don't.because my current tax figures were still accurate.you unnecessarily detered me from my original point. by unnecessarily pointing out that tax rates will soon change.thinking that i don't know anything about tax besides what is read on the front page of a newspaper.

[Bacardi_Up]

besides...what the future tax rates are going to be is not even relevant to this argument.the point i was trying to make is that there isn't a flat tax rate for high earners.and i was highlighting this by using the current tax system.if you want to have a discussion about changing tax rates. then that's a seperate discussion.

Fair enough.I knew what you were getting at don't get it twisted. Hence why I am in agreement...But still I win I win I win.

lol...really you don't.because my current tax figures were still accurate.

You current figures where accurate BUT I did say that the figures have changed and I don't know whether they were coming into effect in the next tax year or the year after.YOU disagreed saying I was wrong. YOU then googled it and said the only change was the 22% band was changed to 20% in rebuttal to my claims that the 10% band was also going to be eliminated.I got that link and proved you wrong.Hence why I WIN I WIN I WIN!

[Guest Sean Ash]

and sean ash...the policies that you suggested earlier on in this thread would also never work.the tax system that you proposed is laughable at best.

Can you tell me how I will die?What the numbers are for next weeks national lottery>?Come on mystic meg..show me!

it's simple logic.if you knew anything about politics, business or economics then you would understand this.you can't cut off all the money coming in and then increase the money going out.and how can you put a straight 50% tax on incomes over £100kand 40% straight tax on incomes of £50-99kyou will deter people from wanting to be high earners. there will be a shortage of professionals like doctors, dentists, lawyers, investment bankers etc. because no one will work that hard to be earning the same as if they could do a mediocre job.people would probably start emmigrating from the country.

Ah ha ha ha...That tax system is so laughable and yes I can comment since I am doing an economics degree.It was pretty much summed up above. It would lead to an increased dependency upon the welfare state. People's time is trade off between work and leisure, if their working time is not worth as much to them in real terms because of increased taxation then they have an increased propensity to trade working time for leisure time. Thus if people are working less there will be a downturn in economic activity, which means there will be less taxation revenue for the government, which will lead to recession which will lead to unemployment and like I said an increased dependency upon the welfare state.Less tax revenue + increased welfare dependency = a budget deficit, which means the government will have to borrow as part of the PSNCR (public sector net requirement). Increasing national debt. If this were to continue the rate of inflation would increase and thus prices nationally would increase which will lead to further economic impacts both on the domestic and international level.In essence Ashman.... YOU CHAT sh*t RUDEBOY!!!But on a sociological note you propose punishing people for their success essentially, you can talk of greed and hypocrisy but the fact remains that if you had the choice of being rich, middle class or poor you would choose to be rich. What is preventing you from being rich is your lack of work ethic, education and intelligence. That is not the fault of society, riches don't just land in ones lap, you have to work hard to reach such a social and financial position especially from working class backgrounds like yours and mine. You however are not interested in working for it unlike me, the blame lies squarely with you.

Oh, so we are both Students, aiming to eventually work, yet you say "You however are not interested in working for it unlike me". silly man.I think my tax system works out. For someone studying for a degree in economics, you could have seen that there were no major tax rises at all, in fact, if anything, my taxes were lower for those that earned less and those that earned a lot (as in over 100k p.a), actually paid the higher tax. 40% stayed as it is for 40k-99k average earners, however, the well off (that earn over 100k p.s), pay more in taxes and rightly so.This would not send people packing.. This will make sure that there is a social blalnce. Those on less will be able to enjoy their earnings, those rich will be able to enjoy theirs.To think how many multi millionaire footballers and football executives we have in this country, the current tax system benefits them, whilst low earners work so hard just to get by and they struggle. Why is it that, the wealthy self, seems permitted to expand and grow, yet the poor self, remain stuck in a catch 22 system where they can never reach above a certain barrier?My system will bring social balance.

see i can see from this statement that you don't even understand the current tax system.people earning £40-99k don't get a straight tax of 40%.they get 10% tax on the first £2,230then from there up to £34,600 you get taxed 22%and then you get taxed 40% on only that part of your earnings that are over £34,600.so if i earn £50k. i don't get taxed 40% on the whole £50k.i only get taxed 40% on the £15,400 that i earn above £34,600.just in case you can't grasp what that means...the total tax someone who earns £50k pays is £13,504.and your proposed tax system would increase this to £20,000.

This is another way the government try to blind us with figures because if your income is between £34,600 and £99,000 that amounts to 40% on the whole of your income minus roughly £6500.Which isn't much discount compared to forty percent of your whole income. If you earn £99,000, thats £39,600 tax minus a measley £6500. You would still end up paying more than £33,000. My tax system would increase it yes, however it would be exponentially increased in proportion to the individuals income.

[violet]

besides...what the future tax rates are going to be is not even relevant to this argument.the point i was trying to make is that there isn't a flat tax rate for high earners.and i was highlighting this by using the current tax system.if you want to have a discussion about changing tax rates. then that's a seperate discussion.

Fair enough.I knew what you were getting at don't get it twisted. Hence why I am in agreement...But still I win I win I win.

lol...really you don't.because my current tax figures were still accurate.

You current figures where accurate BUT I did say that the figures have changed and I don't know whether they were coming into effect in the next tax year or the year after.YOU disagreed saying I was wrong. YOU then googled it and said the only change was the 22% band was changed to 20% in rebuttal to my claims that the 10% band was also going to be eliminated.I got that link and proved you wrong.Hence why I WIN I WIN I WIN!

your whole argument is invalid as you are talking about future tax changes in an argument about tax as a concept. ie. tax bands as opposed to flat tax rates.i clearly stated in my post about tax figures that i was referring to the CURRENT tax system. i.e the tax system for the year 2007/08 in which we still CURRENTLY reside.you then tried to argue that my figures were wrong and spoke of future tax changes in the present tense. "you ARE taxed this... and you ARE taxed that" the changes you stated have not yet been put into effect and therefore are irrelevant in a discussion of the CURRENT tax system.this is besides the point anyway...the fact that you are wrong about this is not the total extent of how msguided your argument is...the main fault in your argument...that invaidates your WHOLE point...is that my original comment was made in the context of a discussion about tax as a CONCEPT. in particular the difference between tax bands and how they apply to particular portions of a persons income as oppose to flat rates of tax applying to a persons entire income. and this conceptual point was illustrated by reference to current tax bands, which is most appropriate.your whole argument is invaid as you were talking about the details of future tax rates. in the context of a discussion about how tax rates apply. consequently any point made therein is invalid, as virtue of it being a part of this misguided argument.you have only suceeded in side stepping the issue that i made with my original post and in doing so you didn't even have the decency to be correct with the statements you were making. i.e. misunderstanding that we are in the 2007/08 tax year. so even though you only sought to undermine an incidental and peripheral aspect of my argument, which did not detract from my argument substantively you didn't even succeed in doing this correctly.please refrain from doing this in future and please ensure that you understand the arguments people are making before you embark on these 'point-scoring' exercises of trying to undermine minor and irrelevant details of someones wider point.but if you do insist on venturing down this slippery slope then at least make sure that the irrelevant points you are making are accurate in themselves. i.e. the correct tax bands for the CURRENT tax year.if you then insist on moving the discussion outside of it's scope and changing into a discussion about future tax bands for the next tax year and the year after that, then start a new thread and discuss them with due intent.

[Guest Sean Ash]

please refrain from doing this in future and please ensure that you understand the arguments people are making before you embark on these 'point-scoring' exercises of trying to undermine minor and irrelevant details of someones wider point.

But what may be minor to you may not be to me.

[Fearless-Guy]

you must be bored you could have said all that in one sentence

[Guest Sean Ash]

and another thing..Yes, my rates might seem 'too high' but to be honest, this country has taken a good bashing and it is going to take a while to recuperate.I did say that I wanted to bring back nationalisation for housing and electricity.I want to use this money to repurchase the many assets that we have lost over the years.Workers will pay the price but they will be rewarded by not having to pay for a TV License, whilst those who are on benefits, will have to take a cut to pay this fee. Do not forget that when the public buy back electricy, the rates will be so much cheaper that people will be saving a lot.I could lie to you and say that I will slash tax rates by 10% blah blah blah..But I will not lie to people. I will not do what these governments are currently doing and have been doing for many years.. I don't like being lied to so I will not lie to others.It will be hard at first, but once we have got back on our feet and the public are brought back into decent ownership, Then the country will benefit EVEN MORE!The way things are currently going, inflation is a son of a bitch and it will continue too go that way = no solutionMy plan is to bring the solution forward and get this country back where it belongs, with a strong economy.

[8BALL]

You running for Prime Minister or something?

[violet]

and sean ash...the policies that you suggested earlier on in this thread would also never work.the tax system that you proposed is laughable at best.

Can you tell me how I will die?What the numbers are for next weeks national lottery>?Come on mystic meg..show me!

it's simple logic.if you knew anything about politics, business or economics then you would understand this.you can't cut off all the money coming in and then increase the money going out.and how can you put a straight 50% tax on incomes over £100kand 40% straight tax on incomes of £50-99kyou will deter people from wanting to be high earners. there will be a shortage of professionals like doctors, dentists, lawyers, investment bankers etc. because no one will work that hard to be earning the same as if they could do a mediocre job.people would probably start emmigrating from the country.

Ah ha ha ha...That tax system is so laughable and yes I can comment since I am doing an economics degree.It was pretty much summed up above. It would lead to an increased dependency upon the welfare state. People's time is trade off between work and leisure, if their working time is not worth as much to them in real terms because of increased taxation then they have an increased propensity to trade working time for leisure time. Thus if people are working less there will be a downturn in economic activity, which means there will be less taxation revenue for the government, which will lead to recession which will lead to unemployment and like I said an increased dependency upon the welfare state.Less tax revenue + increased welfare dependency = a budget deficit, which means the government will have to borrow as part of the PSNCR (public sector net requirement). Increasing national debt. If this were to continue the rate of inflation would increase and thus prices nationally would increase which will lead to further economic impacts both on the domestic and international level.In essence Ashman.... YOU CHAT sh*t RUDEBOY!!!But on a sociological note you propose punishing people for their success essentially, you can talk of greed and hypocrisy but the fact remains that if you had the choice of being rich, middle class or poor you would choose to be rich. What is preventing you from being rich is your lack of work ethic, education and intelligence. That is not the fault of society, riches don't just land in ones lap, you have to work hard to reach such a social and financial position especially from working class backgrounds like yours and mine. You however are not interested in working for it unlike me, the blame lies squarely with you.

Oh, so we are both Students, aiming to eventually work, yet you say "You however are not interested in working for it unlike me". silly man.I think my tax system works out. For someone studying for a degree in economics, you could have seen that there were no major tax rises at all, in fact, if anything, my taxes were lower for those that earned less and those that earned a lot (as in over 100k p.a), actually paid the higher tax. 40% stayed as it is for 40k-99k average earners, however, the well off (that earn over 100k p.s), pay more in taxes and rightly so.This would not send people packing.. This will make sure that there is a social blalnce. Those on less will be able to enjoy their earnings, those rich will be able to enjoy theirs.To think how many multi millionaire footballers and football executives we have in this country, the current tax system benefits them, whilst low earners work so hard just to get by and they struggle. Why is it that, the wealthy self, seems permitted to expand and grow, yet the poor self, remain stuck in a catch 22 system where they can never reach above a certain barrier?My system will bring social balance.

see i can see from this statement that you don't even understand the current tax system.people earning £40-99k don't get a straight tax of 40%.they get 10% tax on the first £2,230then from there up to £34,600 you get taxed 22%and then you get taxed 40% on only that part of your earnings that are over £34,600.so if i earn £50k. i don't get taxed 40% on the whole £50k.i only get taxed 40% on the £15,400 that i earn above £34,600.just in case you can't grasp what that means...the total tax someone who earns £50k pays is £13,504.and your proposed tax system would increase this to £20,000.

This is another way the government try to blind us with figures because if your income is between £34,600 and £99,000 that amounts to 40% on the whole of your income minus roughly £6500.Which isn't much discount compared to forty percent of your whole income. If you earn £99,000, thats £39,600 tax minus a measley £6500. You would still end up paying more than £33,000. My tax system would increase it yes, however it would be exponentially increased in proportion to the individuals income.

you are saying that this is a 'measely' amount as if to say a person who earns £50k wouldn't notice if they were taking home £30,000 after tax (due to a 40% flat rate) as oppose to approx. £37,000 (under conventional tax bands).maybe you won't understand because you don't work for your money, you get it handed to you by the government (from the taxes in question might i point out) but an increase of £6,500 in tax is very steep, even to a 'rich' person.because in essence a person who earns £50k doesn't really earn £50k. they earn the right to say they earn £50k, but in fact they only really earn approx. £37,000.

[Guest Sean Ash]

Another thing..those businesses that do leave this country, will never again be welcomed here.. not even in 200 years time.Those that are willing to contribute to help save this country, will the one's in receipt of rewards i.e housing, cheaper bills, future tax cuts, full nationality as well as other benefits.THE PROBLEM WE HAVE IN BRITAIN TODAY IS;This country gives a lot of sh*t away for NOTHING! People are taking the piss out of this country and I will not stand for this any further.I want to encourage and help people back into the profession they desire.Those that are unwilling to work because 'they cannot be asked' will not receive benefits after 1 year. They will be carefully assessed.The sick have a choice. They can work or not.. up to them. If they contribute, then we are thankful for their input. If not? it is understandable.

[Guest Sean Ash]

and sean ash...the policies that you suggested earlier on in this thread would also never work.the tax system that you proposed is laughable at best.

Can you tell me how I will die?What the numbers are for next weeks national lottery>?Come on mystic meg..show me!

it's simple logic.if you knew anything about politics, business or economics then you would understand this.you can't cut off all the money coming in and then increase the money going out.and how can you put a straight 50% tax on incomes over £100kand 40% straight tax on incomes of £50-99kyou will deter people from wanting to be high earners. there will be a shortage of professionals like doctors, dentists, lawyers, investment bankers etc. because no one will work that hard to be earning the same as if they could do a mediocre job.people would probably start emmigrating from the country.

Ah ha ha ha...That tax system is so laughable and yes I can comment since I am doing an economics degree.It was pretty much summed up above. It would lead to an increased dependency upon the welfare state. People's time is trade off between work and leisure, if their working time is not worth as much to them in real terms because of increased taxation then they have an increased propensity to trade working time for leisure time. Thus if people are working less there will be a downturn in economic activity, which means there will be less taxation revenue for the government, which will lead to recession which will lead to unemployment and like I said an increased dependency upon the welfare state.Less tax revenue + increased welfare dependency = a budget deficit, which means the government will have to borrow as part of the PSNCR (public sector net requirement). Increasing national debt. If this were to continue the rate of inflation would increase and thus prices nationally would increase which will lead to further economic impacts both on the domestic and international level.In essence Ashman.... YOU CHAT sh*t RUDEBOY!!!But on a sociological note you propose punishing people for their success essentially, you can talk of greed and hypocrisy but the fact remains that if you had the choice of being rich, middle class or poor you would choose to be rich. What is preventing you from being rich is your lack of work ethic, education and intelligence. That is not the fault of society, riches don't just land in ones lap, you have to work hard to reach such a social and financial position especially from working class backgrounds like yours and mine. You however are not interested in working for it unlike me, the blame lies squarely with you.

Oh, so we are both Students, aiming to eventually work, yet you say "You however are not interested in working for it unlike me". silly man.I think my tax system works out. For someone studying for a degree in economics, you could have seen that there were no major tax rises at all, in fact, if anything, my taxes were lower for those that earned less and those that earned a lot (as in over 100k p.a), actually paid the higher tax. 40% stayed as it is for 40k-99k average earners, however, the well off (that earn over 100k p.s), pay more in taxes and rightly so.This would not send people packing.. This will make sure that there is a social blalnce. Those on less will be able to enjoy their earnings, those rich will be able to enjoy theirs.To think how many multi millionaire footballers and football executives we have in this country, the current tax system benefits them, whilst low earners work so hard just to get by and they struggle. Why is it that, the wealthy self, seems permitted to expand and grow, yet the poor self, remain stuck in a catch 22 system where they can never reach above a certain barrier?My system will bring social balance.

see i can see from this statement that you don't even understand the current tax system.people earning £40-99k don't get a straight tax of 40%.they get 10% tax on the first £2,230then from there up to £34,600 you get taxed 22%and then you get taxed 40% on only that part of your earnings that are over £34,600.so if i earn £50k. i don't get taxed 40% on the whole £50k.i only get taxed 40% on the £15,400 that i earn above £34,600.just in case you can't grasp what that means...the total tax someone who earns £50k pays is £13,504.and your proposed tax system would increase this to £20,000.

This is another way the government try to blind us with figures because if your income is between £34,600 and £99,000 that amounts to 40% on the whole of your income minus roughly £6500.Which isn't much discount compared to forty percent of your whole income. If you earn £99,000, thats £39,600 tax minus a measley £6500. You would still end up paying more than £33,000. My tax system would increase it yes, however it would be exponentially increased in proportion to the individuals income.

you are saying that this is a 'measely' amount as if to say a person who earns £50k wouldn't notice if they were taking home £30,000 after tax (due to a 40% flat rate) as oppose to approx. £37,000 (under conventional tax bands).maybe you won't understand because you don't work for your money, you get it handed to you by the government (from the taxes in question might i point out) but an increase of £6,500 in tax is very steep, even to a 'rich' person.because in essence a person who earns £50k doesn't really earn £50k. they earn the right to say they earn £50k, but in fact they only really earn approx. £37,000.

I previously paid my taxes and my National insurance.. I done my back in at work and developed sciatica.Therefore, since I paid my NATIONAL INSURANCE, I am entitled to claim what I like until I am fit and well.What, do you think your taxes pay for me? lol What is it you want?earn 50k a year and pay no tax?expect it all on a plate? ha! and you call me a scrounger.

[Guest ShabbzE3]

SEAN YOU GOT SOME POINTS STILL

[violet]

please refrain from doing this in future and please ensure that you understand the arguments people are making before you embark on these 'point-scoring' exercises of trying to undermine minor and irrelevant details of someones wider point.

But what may be minor to you may not be to me.

first of all this post was not directed at you.and if i'm the person making the point, then i think that entiles me to decide which parts of the point were substantive and which parts of the point were merely incidental as a means of elucidating the wider point.

[violet]

and sean ash...the policies that you suggested earlier on in this thread would also never work.the tax system that you proposed is laughable at best.

Can you tell me how I will die?What the numbers are for next weeks national lottery>?Come on mystic meg..show me!

it's simple logic.if you knew anything about politics, business or economics then you would understand this.you can't cut off all the money coming in and then increase the money going out.and how can you put a straight 50% tax on incomes over £100kand 40% straight tax on incomes of £50-99kyou will deter people from wanting to be high earners. there will be a shortage of professionals like doctors, dentists, lawyers, investment bankers etc. because no one will work that hard to be earning the same as if they could do a mediocre job.people would probably start emmigrating from the country.

Ah ha ha ha...That tax system is so laughable and yes I can comment since I am doing an economics degree.It was pretty much summed up above. It would lead to an increased dependency upon the welfare state. People's time is trade off between work and leisure, if their working time is not worth as much to them in real terms because of increased taxation then they have an increased propensity to trade working time for leisure time. Thus if people are working less there will be a downturn in economic activity, which means there will be less taxation revenue for the government, which will lead to recession which will lead to unemployment and like I said an increased dependency upon the welfare state.Less tax revenue + increased welfare dependency = a budget deficit, which means the government will have to borrow as part of the PSNCR (public sector net requirement). Increasing national debt. If this were to continue the rate of inflation would increase and thus prices nationally would increase which will lead to further economic impacts both on the domestic and international level.In essence Ashman.... YOU CHAT sh*t RUDEBOY!!!But on a sociological note you propose punishing people for their success essentially, you can talk of greed and hypocrisy but the fact remains that if you had the choice of being rich, middle class or poor you would choose to be rich. What is preventing you from being rich is your lack of work ethic, education and intelligence. That is not the fault of society, riches don't just land in ones lap, you have to work hard to reach such a social and financial position especially from working class backgrounds like yours and mine. You however are not interested in working for it unlike me, the blame lies squarely with you.

Oh, so we are both Students, aiming to eventually work, yet you say "You however are not interested in working for it unlike me". silly man.I think my tax system works out. For someone studying for a degree in economics, you could have seen that there were no major tax rises at all, in fact, if anything, my taxes were lower for those that earned less and those that earned a lot (as in over 100k p.a), actually paid the higher tax. 40% stayed as it is for 40k-99k average earners, however, the well off (that earn over 100k p.s), pay more in taxes and rightly so.This would not send people packing.. This will make sure that there is a social blalnce. Those on less will be able to enjoy their earnings, those rich will be able to enjoy theirs.To think how many multi millionaire footballers and football executives we have in this country, the current tax system benefits them, whilst low earners work so hard just to get by and they struggle. Why is it that, the wealthy self, seems permitted to expand and grow, yet the poor self, remain stuck in a catch 22 system where they can never reach above a certain barrier?My system will bring social balance.

see i can see from this statement that you don't even understand the current tax system.people earning £40-99k don't get a straight tax of 40%.they get 10% tax on the first £2,230then from there up to £34,600 you get taxed 22%and then you get taxed 40% on only that part of your earnings that are over £34,600.so if i earn £50k. i don't get taxed 40% on the whole £50k.i only get taxed 40% on the £15,400 that i earn above £34,600.just in case you can't grasp what that means...the total tax someone who earns £50k pays is £13,504.and your proposed tax system would increase this to £20,000.

This is another way the government try to blind us with figures because if your income is between £34,600 and £99,000 that amounts to 40% on the whole of your income minus roughly £6500.Which isn't much discount compared to forty percent of your whole income. If you earn £99,000, thats £39,600 tax minus a measley £6500. You would still end up paying more than £33,000. My tax system would increase it yes, however it would be exponentially increased in proportion to the individuals income.

you are saying that this is a 'measely' amount as if to say a person who earns £50k wouldn't notice if they were taking home £30,000 after tax (due to a 40% flat rate) as oppose to approx. £37,000 (under conventional tax bands).maybe you won't understand because you don't work for your money, you get it handed to you by the government (from the taxes in question might i point out) but an increase of £6,500 in tax is very steep, even to a 'rich' person.because in essence a person who earns £50k doesn't really earn £50k. they earn the right to say they earn £50k, but in fact they only really earn approx. £37,000.

I previously paid my taxes and my National insurance.. I done my back in at work and developed sciatica.Therefore, since I paid my NATIONAL INSURANCE, I am entitled to claim what I like until I am fit and well.What, do you think your taxes pay for me? lol What is it you want?earn 50k a year and pay no tax?expect it all on a plate? ha! and you call me a scrounger.

where did i say that i had a problem with taxes???i don't. i think they are a necessary evil.but i just don't approve of YOUR proposed tax system.

[violet]

stop assuming that just because someone earns more than you that their money is not valuable to them.if someone earns £50k or more, then it is safe to assume that they work a lot harder than the average person, they work long hours under a lot of stress and pressure. they have probably studied for a number of years and do work that contributes significantly to the economy. the reason people are paid high amounts, is to offset the aforementioned 'cost' (long hours etc.) in order to make it profitable to pursue such professions. if we remove this incentive it would be detrimental to society as a whole. including yourself.i suggest that you read a book of political philosophy. in particular John Rawls and his conecept of 'justice as fairness' which promptsn you to consider policies from behind a veil of ignorance. whereby you are hypothetically unaware of your own social circumstances (class, earning potential, qualifications etc.). this eradicates bias of the type of which you are displaying. for example, if you did not know what position you were going to occupy in society. would you still advocate the policies which you do. not knowing whether you could end up being one this so called 'rich' people to whom £7000 is a 'measely' sum. or would you be cursing the people who's lifestyle you were subsidising through the welfare system?

[Bacardi_Up]

Rah Violet accept your loss to me, I wasn't in disagreement with you I was merely making corrections to your figures based upon changes that will come into effect in 8 DAYS! The fact that you were completely unaware of the changes to the tax system that are coming into effect in such a short time is reason enough to concede defeat.This is the last post I will make in reference to this matter.*Smugly walks off into the distance*

[violet]

Rah Violet accept your loss to me, I wasn't in disagreement with you I was merely making corrections to your figures based upon changes that will come into effect in 8 DAYS! The fact that you were completely unaware of the changes to the tax system that are coming into effect in such a short time is reason enough to concede defeat.This is the last post I will make in reference to this matter.*Smugly walks off into the distance*

my figures didn't need corrections. they were correct for the current tax year, which is what i was talking about.i was aware that the tax system would be changing. but it seems i am the only one out of the two of us who can grasp the concept that the changes are not yet in effect.it is good for you that that is the last post you will make. i wouldn't want you embarrass yourself any further.

[YGNB]

Who the f*ck is violet anyway

[Bacardi_Up]

Rah Violet accept your loss to me, I wasn't in disagreement with you I was merely making corrections to your figures based upon changes that will come into effect in 8 DAYS! The fact that you were completely unaware of the changes to the tax system that are coming into effect in such a short time is reason enough to concede defeat.This is the last post I will make in reference to this matter.*Smugly walks off into the distance*

my figures didn't need corrections. they were correct for the current tax year, which is what i was talking about.i was aware that the tax system would be changing. but it seems i am the only one out of the two of us who can grasp the concept that the changes are not yet in effect.it is good for you that that is the last post you will make. i wouldn't want you embarrass yourself any further.

You didn't even know the 10% tax bad would be eliminated when discussing the changes so no I wasn't embarrassed.You did a quick google and didn't even get all the info.Anyway let's just agree to disagree.It should be us against Ashman, we shouldn't be fighting amongst each other.Unity is the way. Peace!

[violet]

Rah Violet accept your loss to me, I wasn't in disagreement with you I was merely making corrections to your figures based upon changes that will come into effect in 8 DAYS! The fact that you were completely unaware of the changes to the tax system that are coming into effect in such a short time is reason enough to concede defeat.This is the last post I will make in reference to this matter.*Smugly walks off into the distance*

my figures didn't need corrections. they were correct for the current tax year, which is what i was talking about.i was aware that the tax system would be changing. but it seems i am the only one out of the two of us who can grasp the concept that the changes are not yet in effect.it is good for you that that is the last post you will make. i wouldn't want you embarrass yourself any further.

You didn't even know the 10% tax bad would be eliminated when discussing the changes so no I wasn't embarrassed.You did a quick google and didn't even get all the info.Anyway let's just agree to disagree.It should be us against Ashman, we shouldn't be fighting amongst each other.Unity is the way. Peace!

i didn't google anything...as i said before my brother is doing revenue law and so there is loads of tax information in my house.but yes we can agree to disagree.

[Guest Sean Ash]

and sean ash...the policies that you suggested earlier on in this thread would also never work.the tax system that you proposed is laughable at best.

Can you tell me how I will die?What the numbers are for next weeks national lottery>?Come on mystic meg..show me!

it's simple logic.if you knew anything about politics, business or economics then you would understand this.you can't cut off all the money coming in and then increase the money going out.and how can you put a straight 50% tax on incomes over £100kand 40% straight tax on incomes of £50-99kyou will deter people from wanting to be high earners. there will be a shortage of professionals like doctors, dentists, lawyers, investment bankers etc. because no one will work that hard to be earning the same as if they could do a mediocre job.people would probably start emmigrating from the country.

Ah ha ha ha...That tax system is so laughable and yes I can comment since I am doing an economics degree.It was pretty much summed up above. It would lead to an increased dependency upon the welfare state. People's time is trade off between work and leisure, if their working time is not worth as much to them in real terms because of increased taxation then they have an increased propensity to trade working time for leisure time. Thus if people are working less there will be a downturn in economic activity, which means there will be less taxation revenue for the government, which will lead to recession which will lead to unemployment and like I said an increased dependency upon the welfare state.Less tax revenue + increased welfare dependency = a budget deficit, which means the government will have to borrow as part of the PSNCR (public sector net requirement). Increasing national debt. If this were to continue the rate of inflation would increase and thus prices nationally would increase which will lead to further economic impacts both on the domestic and international level.In essence Ashman.... YOU CHAT sh*t RUDEBOY!!!But on a sociological note you propose punishing people for their success essentially, you can talk of greed and hypocrisy but the fact remains that if you had the choice of being rich, middle class or poor you would choose to be rich. What is preventing you from being rich is your lack of work ethic, education and intelligence. That is not the fault of society, riches don't just land in ones lap, you have to work hard to reach such a social and financial position especially from working class backgrounds like yours and mine. You however are not interested in working for it unlike me, the blame lies squarely with you.

Oh, so we are both Students, aiming to eventually work, yet you say "You however are not interested in working for it unlike me". silly man.I think my tax system works out. For someone studying for a degree in economics, you could have seen that there were no major tax rises at all, in fact, if anything, my taxes were lower for those that earned less and those that earned a lot (as in over 100k p.a), actually paid the higher tax. 40% stayed as it is for 40k-99k average earners, however, the well off (that earn over 100k p.s), pay more in taxes and rightly so.This would not send people packing.. This will make sure that there is a social blalnce. Those on less will be able to enjoy their earnings, those rich will be able to enjoy theirs.To think how many multi millionaire footballers and football executives we have in this country, the current tax system benefits them, whilst low earners work so hard just to get by and they struggle. Why is it that, the wealthy self, seems permitted to expand and grow, yet the poor self, remain stuck in a catch 22 system where they can never reach above a certain barrier?My system will bring social balance.

see i can see from this statement that you don't even understand the current tax system.people earning £40-99k don't get a straight tax of 40%.they get 10% tax on the first £2,230then from there up to £34,600 you get taxed 22%and then you get taxed 40% on only that part of your earnings that are over £34,600.so if i earn £50k. i don't get taxed 40% on the whole £50k.i only get taxed 40% on the £15,400 that i earn above £34,600.just in case you can't grasp what that means...the total tax someone who earns £50k pays is £13,504.and your proposed tax system would increase this to £20,000.

This is another way the government try to blind us with figures because if your income is between £34,600 and £99,000 that amounts to 40% on the whole of your income minus roughly £6500.Which isn't much discount compared to forty percent of your whole income. If you earn £99,000, thats £39,600 tax minus a measley £6500. You would still end up paying more than £33,000. My tax system would increase it yes, however it would be exponentially increased in proportion to the individuals income.

you are saying that this is a 'measely' amount as if to say a person who earns £50k wouldn't notice if they were taking home £30,000 after tax (due to a 40% flat rate) as oppose to approx. £37,000 (under conventional tax bands).maybe you won't understand because you don't work for your money, you get it handed to you by the government (from the taxes in question might i point out) but an increase of £6,500 in tax is very steep, even to a 'rich' person.because in essence a person who earns £50k doesn't really earn £50k. they earn the right to say they earn £50k, but in fact they only really earn approx. £37,000.

stop assuming that just because someone earns more than you that their money is not valuable to them.if someone earns £50k or more, then it is safe to assume that they work a lot harder than the average person, they work long hours under a lot of stress and pressure. they have probably studied for a number of years and do work that contributes significantly to the economy. the reason people are paid high amounts, is to offset the aforementioned 'cost' (long hours etc.) in order to make it profitable to pursue such professions. if we remove this incentive it would be detrimental to society as a whole. including yourself.i suggest that you read a book of political philosophy. in particular John Rawls and his conecept of 'justice as fairness' which promptsn you to consider policies from behind a veil of ignorance. whereby you are hypothetically unaware of your own social circumstances (class, earning potential, qualifications etc.). this eradicates bias of the type of which you are displaying. for example, if you did not know what position you were going to occupy in society. would you still advocate the policies which you do. not knowing whether you could end up being one this so called 'rich' people to whom £7000 is a 'measely' sum. or would you be cursing the people who's lifestyle you were subsidising through the welfare system?

you're missing my point completely. When I said measley, my point is that the government are blinding us with figures and pretending to charge less tax while actually youre still paying close to 40%.However my proposal will be to charge the high earners more but I have not given you the full figures so you cannot possibly disagree with me.

[Guest Sean Ash]

SEAN YOU GOT SOME POINTS STILL

WHY THANK YOU SEAN.ATLEAST SOMEONE UNDERSTANDS ME.

[Guest Sean Ash]

and sean ash...the policies that you suggested earlier on in this thread would also never work.the tax system that you proposed is laughable at best.

Can you tell me how I will die?What the numbers are for next weeks national lottery>?Come on mystic meg..show me!

it's simple logic.if you knew anything about politics, business or economics then you would understand this.you can't cut off all the money coming in and then increase the money going out.and how can you put a straight 50% tax on incomes over £100kand 40% straight tax on incomes of £50-99kyou will deter people from wanting to be high earners. there will be a shortage of professionals like doctors, dentists, lawyers, investment bankers etc. because no one will work that hard to be earning the same as if they could do a mediocre job.people would probably start emmigrating from the country.

Ah ha ha ha...That tax system is so laughable and yes I can comment since I am doing an economics degree.It was pretty much summed up above. It would lead to an increased dependency upon the welfare state. People's time is trade off between work and leisure, if their working time is not worth as much to them in real terms because of increased taxation then they have an increased propensity to trade working time for leisure time. Thus if people are working less there will be a downturn in economic activity, which means there will be less taxation revenue for the government, which will lead to recession which will lead to unemployment and like I said an increased dependency upon the welfare state.Less tax revenue + increased welfare dependency = a budget deficit, which means the government will have to borrow as part of the PSNCR (public sector net requirement). Increasing national debt. If this were to continue the rate of inflation would increase and thus prices nationally would increase which will lead to further economic impacts both on the domestic and international level.In essence Ashman.... YOU CHAT sh*t RUDEBOY!!!But on a sociological note you propose punishing people for their success essentially, you can talk of greed and hypocrisy but the fact remains that if you had the choice of being rich, middle class or poor you would choose to be rich. What is preventing you from being rich is your lack of work ethic, education and intelligence. That is not the fault of society, riches don't just land in ones lap, you have to work hard to reach such a social and financial position especially from working class backgrounds like yours and mine. You however are not interested in working for it unlike me, the blame lies squarely with you.

Oh, so we are both Students, aiming to eventually work, yet you say "You however are not interested in working for it unlike me". silly man.I think my tax system works out. For someone studying for a degree in economics, you could have seen that there were no major tax rises at all, in fact, if anything, my taxes were lower for those that earned less and those that earned a lot (as in over 100k p.a), actually paid the higher tax. 40% stayed as it is for 40k-99k average earners, however, the well off (that earn over 100k p.s), pay more in taxes and rightly so.This would not send people packing.. This will make sure that there is a social blalnce. Those on less will be able to enjoy their earnings, those rich will be able to enjoy theirs.To think how many multi millionaire footballers and football executives we have in this country, the current tax system benefits them, whilst low earners work so hard just to get by and they struggle. Why is it that, the wealthy self, seems permitted to expand and grow, yet the poor self, remain stuck in a catch 22 system where they can never reach above a certain barrier?My system will bring social balance.

see i can see from this statement that you don't even understand the current tax system.people earning £40-99k don't get a straight tax of 40%.they get 10% tax on the first £2,230then from there up to £34,600 you get taxed 22%and then you get taxed 40% on only that part of your earnings that are over £34,600.so if i earn £50k. i don't get taxed 40% on the whole £50k.i only get taxed 40% on the £15,400 that i earn above £34,600.just in case you can't grasp what that means...the total tax someone who earns £50k pays is £13,504.and your proposed tax system would increase this to £20,000.

This is another way the government try to blind us with figures because if your income is between £34,600 and £99,000 that amounts to 40% on the whole of your income minus roughly £6500.Which isn't much discount compared to forty percent of your whole income. If you earn £99,000, thats £39,600 tax minus a measley £6500. You would still end up paying more than £33,000. My tax system would increase it yes, however it would be exponentially increased in proportion to the individuals income.

you are saying that this is a 'measely' amount as if to say a person who earns £50k wouldn't notice if they were taking home £30,000 after tax (due to a 40% flat rate) as oppose to approx. £37,000 (under conventional tax bands).maybe you won't understand because you don't work for your money, you get it handed to you by the government (from the taxes in question might i point out) but an increase of £6,500 in tax is very steep, even to a 'rich' person.because in essence a person who earns £50k doesn't really earn £50k. they earn the right to say they earn £50k, but in fact they only really earn approx. £37,000.

YEEEE BRUVVV OG 2K8 BRUVVA SE6 BRAP BRAP YEEE BRUVVV