Chedward

[Kenilworth]

Hang on a minute .... Is that Slew in the background? ;-)

No Ollie - it would have blue feckin boots on

---------- Post added at 01:10 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:08 PM ----------

Ignoring the rape charge if Evans gets his head down he could score an absolute shed-load in this division......

He will be even more nesh in this division - he has no pace, no vision, cannot read the game and has no ability to head the ball.
The only feature he has got is a good shot on him - but his direction is as misguided as it appears his moral compass to be.

 

[Chapel Allerton]

And so you should be. I am going to start charging for legal opinion on here [/QUOTE]

No you're not. You like pontificating on here too much.

 

[Crouchy]

And so you should be. I am going to start charging for legal opinion on here

No you're not. You like pontificating on here too much. [/QUOTE]

Yes, but he knows fuck all about tax For the record, you lose your personal allowance at the rate of £1 for every £2 earned over £100,000 - so for the current personal allowance of £7,475 you would have all of it removed if you earned £114,950 or more. The £7,475 is effectively taxed at your marginal rate - so in this instance he'll pay an additional £7,475 * 50% = £3,737.50 - enough to pay a barrister for a couple of hours.

 

[Darren]

No you're not. You like pontificating on here too much.

Yes, but he knows fuck all about tax For the record, you lose your personal allowance at the rate of £1 for every £2 earned over £100,000 - so for the current personal allowance of £7,475 you would have all of it removed if you earned £114,950 or more. The £7,475 is effectively taxed at your marginal rate - so in this instance he'll pay an additional £7,475 * 50% = £3,737.50 - enough to pay a barrister for a couple of hours.[/QUOTE]

I never knew that. I presume brought in by the Labour government in a fine piece of squeezing the rich legislation.

As for the barrister quip, I don't know who you associate with, but you could probably buy the soul of your average legal aid barrister for £3737.50.

 

[Crouchy]

I never knew that. I presume brought in by the Labour government in a fine piece of squeezing the rich legislation.

Yes. I hate this sort of thing. Apart from making the calculations more difficult, it's a typically stupid politican-driven idea. They get to tax high earners just a little bit more but can do so at the same time as saying (truthfully) that they haven't changed the tax rates. In fact, someone earning £100,002 pays 60% on the extra £2 when you factor in the removal of £1 of PA. Gordon Brown promised to tidy up tax and make it less complicated, but because politicians are both stupid and cowardly, the situation is worse than ever.

The move to a large PA to take people out of tax is a good one IMHO, but complicating it all at the other end of the scale helps no-one. Pah.

 

[Darren]

Yes. I hate this sort of thing. Apart from making the calculations more difficult, it's a typically stupid politican-driven idea. They get to tax high earners just a little bit more but can do so at the same time as saying (truthfully) that they haven't changed the tax rates. In fact, someone earning £100,002 pays 60% on the extra £2 when you factor in the removal of £1 of PA. Gordon Brown promised to tidy up tax and make it less complicated, but because politicians are both stupid and cowardly, the situation is worse than ever.

The move to a large PA to take people out of tax is a good one IMHO, but complicating it all at the other end of the scale helps no-one. Pah.

I can't see its that complicated. Would it be any better to make the top rate 51% or 52% (whatever the equivalent would be)?

 

[Crouchy]

I can't see its that complicated. Would it be any better to make the top rate 51% or 52% (whatever the equivalent would be)?

It's not complicated in a rocket-science sense but it's just stupid. It has been done this way to avoid changing headline rates because of the cowardice of politicians. It would be easier to bring the 50% band in from £150,000 to, say, £145,000 or whatever. Instead, the fundamental principle that you can earn some money tax free is removed.

What happens is this:

You earn some tax free. You then earn some taxed at 20%. You then earn some taxed at 40%. You then enter a zone where you are taxed at a notional 40% on what you earn, but also where the money you thought was tax free is also now taxed at 40%, but the amount of the tax free money that is now taxed depends upon how much you have earned. You then drop out of this zone and earn money taxed at 40%. Finally you earn money taxed at 50%.

The concepts aren't terribly difficult, but it's just another way in which the rules defy logic and are needlessly more complicated than they need to be. (and when I talk about the complexity of the tax system, I mean the whole lot, not just this bit. This is still relatively simple, unlike, say VAT)

 

[Darren]

It's not complicated in a rocket-science sense but it's just stupid. It has been done this way to avoid changing headline rates because of the cowardice of politicians. It would be easier to bring the 50% band in from £150,000 to, say, £145,000 or whatever. Instead, the fundamental principle that you can earn some money tax free is removed.

What happens is this:

You earn some tax free. You then earn some taxed at 20%. You then earn some taxed at 40%. You then enter a zone where you are taxed at a notional 40% on what you earn, but also where the money you thought was tax free is also now taxed at 40%, but the amount of the tax free money that is now taxed depends upon how much you have earned. You then drop out of this zone and earn money taxed at 40%. Finally you earn money taxed at 50%.

The concepts aren't terribly difficult, but it's just another way in which the rules defy logic and are needlessly more complicated than they need to be. (and when I talk about the complexity of the tax system, I mean the whole lot, not just this bit. This is still relatively simple, unlike, say VAT)

I take your point, but I think politicians have been a bit less cowardly over tax in recent years. For ages, The Labour government dare not raise the top tax rate because of the mythical history of Denis Healey turning our noble entrepeneurs into paupers by taxing them at extortionate rates. What with the recession, it finally got around to raising the top rate and low and behold it turns out to be quite popular.

 

[Crouchy]

I take your point, but I think politicians have been a bit less cowardly over tax in recent years. For ages, The Labour government dare not raise the top tax rate because of the mythical history of Denis Healey turning our noble entrepeneurs into paupers by taxing them at extortionate rates. What with the recession, it finally got around to raising the top rate and low and behold it turns out to be quite popular.

The Tories will scrap it as soon as they feel they can get away with it. 50% (which is really 52% because of NIC) is a long way from 98% tax rates.

My personal view is that the big scandal isn't the tax rates we impose on the rich, but the catastrophic waste of much of what is collected.

 

[Pinchy]

I take your point, but I think politicians have been a bit less cowardly over tax in recent years. For ages, The Labour government dare not raise the top tax rate because of the mythical history of Denis Healey turning our noble entrepeneurs into paupers by taxing them at extortionate rates. What with the recession, it finally got around to raising the top rate and low and behold it turns out to be quite popular.

...With those who don't have to pay it!

 

[Darren]

...With those who don't have to pay it!

Only around 300,000 people pay it, which is about 1% of taxpayers or 0.5% of the population as a whole.

 

[axel smeets]

...With those who don't have to pay it!

I don't always think that punitive higher tax rates are the way forward, but I wouldn't complain if I earned enough to pay 50% tax on it.

 

[Deleted member 2102]

Only around 300,000 people pay it, which is about 1% of taxpayers or 0.5% of the population as a whole.

Damn the tyranny of the majority.

 

[Darren]

Damn the tyranny of the majority.

Yes, that just what the people who were against the 1832 reform bill said. Give the plebs the vote and they will just vote to take money off the rich...

 

[Deleted member 2102]

Yes, that just what the people who were against the 1832 reform bill said. Give the plebs the vote and they will just vote to take money off the rich...

It was meant tongue in cheek - however are we not supposed to have sufficient checks and balances in a pluralist polity to protect minority groups from populist legislation? Given the current policy paralysis that is afflicting the Western World those objecting to the reform acts seem quite far sighted!

 

[Darren]

It was meant tongue in cheek - however are we not supposed to have sufficient checks and balances in a pluralist polity to protect minority groups from populist legislation? Given the current policy paralysis that is afflicting the Western World those objecting to the reform acts seem quite far sighted!

There's a whole massive debate going back to Socrates about individual rights v democratic decision making. I don't think anyone would suggest that democratic decisions are 100% sacred (had Hitler won a free and fair election on a policy of exterminating Jews, would that have made it ok to him to go ahead with that policy?), it all depends where you draw the line and I draw it a long way this side of 50% tax rates for people earning over £150K a year!

 

[Nick Jansky]

...With those who don't have to pay it!

Wealthy Americans & Europeans have been queuing up to say they should be contributing much more than they currently are to digging the world out of the mess it's in. Not in this country though, funny that......

I think the 50% tax rate is more symbolic than anything, and I would happily see it go, to be replaced by a property tax. I see taxing wealth rather than income as being very much the way forward.

 

[Deleted member 2102]

Wealthy Americans & Europeans have been queuing up to say they should be contributing much more than they currently are to digging the world out of the mess it's in. Not in this country though, funny that......

I think the 50% tax rate is more symbolic than anything, and I would happily see it go, to be replaced by a property tax. I see taxing wealth rather than income as being very much the way forward.

I would certainly tax capital gains on property instead of taxes on labour. The Lib Dem mansion tax is pretty typical of most of their policies, stupid. At least the UK government hiked taxes (last time round) for people who could choose whether to pay the new tax as opposed to the Greeks who have just screwed over those who had no choice but to pay higher taxes ie the poorest.

 

[Nick Jansky]

as opposed to the Greeks who have just screwed over those who had no choice but to pay higher taxes ie the poorest.

Didn't the UK government do exactly the same thing to the poor with the VAT hike?

 

[Deleted member 2102]

Didn't the UK government do exactly the same thing to the poor with the VAT hike?

Yes but at least VAT is paid by all, the Greeks have raised income tax for only the poorest and left the middle class and rich carry on as before.

 

[Crouchy]

I don't always think that punitive higher tax rates are the way forward, but I wouldn't complain if I earned enough to pay 50% tax on it.

But you might. I know quite a few people who earn that sort of money (I don't, incidentally). Most of them don't need the money they would save by paying 40% tax instead of 50% tax, but they just feel that taking 50% of what they have is just a bit much. They will more or less put up and shut up at 40% but at 50% they get annoyed. Essentially they feel that the Government is taking the piss.

Someone earning the UK mean salary of about £23k a year might have little sympathy but there is no doubt that there is a tipping point at which the wealthy start taking more active steps to avoid tax and at which tax revenues start to fall, not rise.

It's all very well taxing them until "the pips squeak" but it's actually counter-productive. My younger self would be very sad that I have come to support this hypothesis, but my experience in finance for 20 years tells me it is true.

 

[Deleted member 2102]

But you might. I know quite a few people who earn that sort of money (I don't, incidentally). Most of them don't need the money they would save by paying 40% tax instead of 50% tax, but they just feel that taking 50% of what they have is just a bit much. They will more or less put up and shut up at 40% but at 50% they get annoyed. Essentially they feel that the Government is taking the piss.

Someone earning the UK mean salary of about £23k a year might have little sympathy but there is no doubt that there is a tipping point at which the wealthy start taking more active steps to avoid tax and at which tax revenues start to fall, not rise.

It's all very well taxing them until "the pips squeak" but it's actually counter-productive. My younger self would be very sad that I have come to support this hypothesis, but my experience in finance for 20 years tells me it is true.

I would agree Crouchy. I do pay the 50%+ band of tax and this year was the first year I have ever looked to reduce my tax bill. The fact that it was coupled with changes to tax relief on pension contributions made it especially difficult to swallow.

 

[judge]

just had to double check the title of this thread

 

[Deleted member 2102]

just had to double check the title of this thread

I retract what I said, Ched must pay the 50% rate. Thats must be a good thing.

 

[Darren]

But you might. I know quite a few people who earn that sort of money (I don't, incidentally). Most of them don't need the money they would save by paying 40% tax instead of 50% tax, but they just feel that taking 50% of what they have is just a bit much. They will more or less put up and shut up at 40% but at 50% they get annoyed. Essentially they feel that the Government is taking the piss.

Someone earning the UK mean salary of about £23k a year might have little sympathy but there is no doubt that there is a tipping point at which the wealthy start taking more active steps to avoid tax and at which tax revenues start to fall, not rise.

It's all very well taxing them until "the pips squeak" but it's actually counter-productive. My younger self would be very sad that I have come to support this hypothesis, but my experience in finance for 20 years tells me it is true.

Ah yes, the Laffer Curve.

Apparently though, the general (non politically motivated) research suggests that the marginal rate at which tax revenues actually start to decrease is around 70%

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve

 

[Pinchy]

Only around 300,000 people pay it, which is about 1% of taxpayers or 0.5% of the population as a whole.

Yes, I know. I'm one of them and it hurts. It's all very well to tax the rich but this tax coupled with the large 40% band and erosion (to nil in my case) hits middle income people who have worked extremely hard, disproportionately.

In January I shall pay the taxman the equivalent of a tidy lottery win. Because I pay tax on money earned before I get it(work in progress) it is very difficult to manage outgoings. I don't mind paying more tax than most but I bitterly resent paying a substantially larger portion of my income.

Anyway, enough of that shite; this is a football forum.

RAPFA demands lower taxes on real ale and proper football!

 

[Deleted member 2102]

Ah yes, the Laffer Curve.

Apparently though, the general (non politically motivated) research suggests that the marginal rate at which tax revenues actually start to decrease is around 70%

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve

No it doesn't.

 

[broomhillblade]

After all the debate, Ched is on the bench today and will no doubt get a run out.

That will perhaps surprise a few of our fans. At least it puts an end to the speculation.

 

[moDtheGod]

The speculation about the rate at which tax revenues actually start to decrease?

 

[Nick Jansky]

I would agree Crouchy. I do pay the 50%+ band of tax and this year was the first year I have ever looked to reduce my tax bill. The fact that it was coupled with changes to tax relief on pension contributions made it especially difficult to swallow.

The alternatives to tax avoidance are either paying it & shutting up, or pissing off to live elsewhere in the world. It's not as if you are a nurse or a refuse collector, or somebody who is actually contributing something of worth to society. Same goes for the barrister, Pinchy. You wouldn't be missed, you haven't "worked harder" than other people on this forum, many of whom will be socially useful, and no, paying 50% tax on your income OVER £150,000 doesn't hurt you, no matter how much you say it does. If you can't make ends meet on your net income then you clearly have a problem of some sort.