Money will be tight

[cromwell]

So why were you ripping the poor lass off Ollie?

You were employing her, why didn't you pay her a living wage?

You can't read a post,or choose not to.....a bit rich condemning others when you are a self confessed  rip off merchant being paid by hm govt (us) then avoiding doing anything productive.

This is where you don't understand, why would anyone sneer at someone trying their best who is struggling. This is what happens, people point to one or maybe a handful of genuine cases to disprove that the vast majority of unemployed can actually work but choice not to, Smurf categorically refused to accept this.

Im guessing Borky is if a similar mindset to me, if we absolutely couldn't work all benefits would go on housing and fuel bills. 90% of food would come from growing your own, shooting/snaring Rabbits, Pigeons and Ducks. The one thing I wouldn't do is attend a food bank.

And people point to a handful of people they've come across with giant tv and sky and make out they're all the same.

Please point out how a a single partly disabled woman living in a flat can grow her own food and
don't be citing allotments they cost beyond what benefits would pay,shoot or snare wild life  she's not Davy bloody Crockett,try going out and about with a gun you'd soon have armed response on your case.

[Nick]

Cobblers you and Nick look down your beaks,I had a woman who was single trying to keep a roof on her head who worked for me,Itold my bosses therate they paid her was abysmal and shameful,I bailed her out on more than one occasion,she could've gone on benefits and been better off,either way you'd sneer.

This is where you don't understand, why would anyone sneer at someone trying their best who is struggling. This is what happens, people point to one or maybe a handful of genuine cases to disprove that the vast majority of unemployed can actually work but choice not to, Smurf categorically refused to accept this. 

Im guessing Borky is if a similar mindset to me, if we absolutely couldn't work all benefits would go on housing and fuel bills. 90% of food would come from growing your own, shooting/snaring Rabbits, Pigeons and Ducks. The one thing I wouldn't do is attend a food bank. 

[Borchester]

Cobblers you and Nick look down your beaks,I had a woman who was single trying to keep a roof on her head who worked for me,Itold my bosses therate they paid her was abysmal and shameful,I bailed her out on more than one occasion,she could've gone on benefits and been better off,either way you'd sneer.

So why were you ripping the poor lass off Ollie?

You were employing her, why didn't you pay her a living wage?

[cromwell]

What about inverting the tax rate with folk paying lower rates the more they earn?

Look at it this way. The poor do f**k all to help themselves (which is why they are poor), but they gobble up most of the nation's resources in terms of healthcare, housing and everything else. And if they do get a couple of quid they spend it on drink and 300 inch TVs and such, never on their own or children's education.

So sod them. They only waste the money they have. Let them pay for the NHS and other services they abuse

Cobblers you and Nick look down your beaks,I had a woman who was single trying to keep a roof on her head who worked for me,Itold my bosses therate they paid her was abysmal and shameful,I bailed her out on more than one occasion,she could've gone on benefits and been better off,either way you'd sneer.

[srb7677]

What about inverting the tax rate with folk paying lower rates the more they earn?

Try winning an election with that in your manifesto,

[patman post]

Re requests that posts should adhere to the subjects of the threads, let's hope money doesn't get so tight that we can't afford to get that way too...

[Nick]

Your figures seem to assume abolition of the ceiling on NI contributions as well as a top rate of 50%. I have called for the abolition of this ceiling before it is true as well as for merging NI and Income tax. But I would not go so far as a top combined rate of 63%, especially at as comparatively low a level as 100k.

Here is what I would advocate re a combined NI/ Income Tax rate. I think the basic rate threshold should be increased to about 20k, so that no one working full time or less on the living wage or less pays any tax. Then a combined rate of 33% up to 50k, 43% up to 100k, and 50% above that level. And as many loopholes closed as possible, eg the one where company directors pay themselves a dividend rather than a salary to avoid the higher rates of income tax. I would also make it mandatory that, with the exclusion of the first 20k, everyone pays at least 25% of their income in tax whatever allowances and loopholes they exploit, by law.

I would not go any further on taxing earned income than that, though there is a case for higher taxes on unearned, non-productive income. As far as taxing wealth is concerned, I would introduce a land value tax, abolish the countil tax and replace it with a tax on individuals which takes account of earnings or wealth, and impose stiff taxes on second homes. With the possible exception of the latter these taxes would not be set at an punitively high level. I would impose punitive taxes on land banking, where property developers hang on to land rather than building on it to keep prices artificially high. The devil would be in the detail of that of course, though the aim would be to ensure that it is always more economical to build than not build.

And your struggling student would be struggling a lot less with grants and free tuition. And when someone becomes a high earner why shouldn't they pay a high earner's rate of tax? I am all for taxing them a lot less when they are a struggling student,

Let's go back to Mr rich guy who has paid your massive tax bill his whole life and now curled his toes up, leaving his estate to his son. You're now going fleece him with your he's a rich git tax cause he has a few quid. Following in his dads footsteps he's making a decent living after he worked his arse off to get a decent job, you're hitting him with your 50% tax and pulling his pants down on the property his parents left him that he paid your exorbitant tax on. 

In the meantime he bought a terraced house that he rents out, you've just hit him with yet more tax on his second home and he has had to put the rent up by £200 a month and now you're out on your ear cause you no longer can afford it. 
As I said before when Mr C told me off, it that's taxing the rich til they bleed I'm a monkeys uncle. 

[Nick]

What about inverting the tax rate with folk paying lower rates the more they earn?

Look at it this way. The poor do f**k all to help themselves (which is why they are poor), but they gobble up most of the nation's resources in terms of healthcare, housing and everything else. And if they do get a couple of quid they spend it on drink and 300 inch TVs and such, never on their own or children's education.

So sod them. They only waste the money they have. Let them pay for the NHS and other services they abuse

I don't remember posting that Mr B. 😉 

[Borchester]

Your figures seem to assume abolition of the ceiling on NI contributions as well as a top rate of 50%. I have called for the abolition of this ceiling before it is true as well as for merging NI and Income tax. But I would not go so far as a top combined rate of 63%, especially at as comparatively low a level as 100k.

Here is what I would advocate re a combined NI/ Income Tax rate. I think the basic rate threshold should be increased to about 20k, so that no one working full time or less on the living wage or less pays any tax. Then a combined rate of 33% up to 50k, 43% up to 100k, and 50% above that level. And as many loopholes closed as possible, eg the one where company directors pay themselves a dividend rather than a salary to avoid the higher rates of income tax. I would also make it mandatory that, with the exclusion of the first 20k, everyone pays at least 25% of their income in tax whatever allowances and loopholes they exploit, by law.

I would not go any further on taxing earned income than that, though there is a case for higher taxes on unearned, non-productive income. As far as taxing wealth is concerned, I would introduce a land value tax, abolish the countil tax and replace it with a tax on individuals which takes account of earnings or wealth, and impose stiff taxes on second homes. With the possible exception of the latter these taxes would not be set at an punitively high level. I would impose punitive taxes on land banking, where property developers hang on to land rather than building on it to keep prices artificially high. The devil would be in the detail of that of course, though the aim would be to ensure that it is always more economical to build than not build.

And your struggling student would be struggling a lot less with grants and free tuition. And when someone becomes a high earner why shouldn't they pay a high earner's rate of tax? I am all for taxing them a lot less when they are a struggling student,

What about inverting the tax rate with folk paying lower rates the more they earn?

Look at it this way. The poor do F@@@ all to help themselves (which is why they are poor), but they gobble up most of the nation's resources in terms of healthcare, housing and everything else. And if they do get a couple of quid they spend it on drink and 300 inch TVs and such, never on their own or children's education.

So sod them. They only waste the money they have. Let them pay for the NHS and other services they abuse

[srb7677]

No, they're a poor penniless student living off dried noodles and wracking up massive student debt, the minute they start earning a decent wage you focus you're green eyed monster at them and take 63% away.

As for tuition fees, they've helped Oxbridge to get back into the top 5 universities in the world, whereas the highest rated Scottish university is Glashow at #81.

Your figures seem to assume abolition of the ceiling on NI contributions as well as a top rate of 50%. I have called for the abolition of this ceiling before it is true as well as for merging NI and Income tax. But I would not go so far as a top combined rate of 63%, especially at as comparatively low a level as 100k.

Here is what I would advocate re a combined NI/ Income Tax rate. I think the basic rate threshold should be increased to about 20k, so that no one working full time or less on the living wage or less pays any tax. Then a combined rate of 33% up to 50k, 43% up to 100k, and 50% above that level. And as many loopholes closed as possible, eg the one where company directors pay themselves a dividend rather than a salary to avoid the higher rates of income tax. I would also make it mandatory that, with the exclusion of the first 20k, everyone pays at least 25% of their income in tax whatever allowances and loopholes they exploit, by law.

I would not go any further on taxing earned income than that, though there is a case for higher taxes on unearned, non-productive income. As far as taxing wealth is concerned, I would introduce a land value tax, abolish the countil tax and replace it with a tax on individuals which takes account of earnings or wealth, and impose stiff taxes on second homes. With the possible exception of the latter these taxes would not be set at an punitively high level. I would impose punitive taxes on land banking, where property developers hang on to land rather than building on it to keep prices artificially high. The devil would be in the detail of that of course, though the aim would be to ensure that it is always more economical to build than not build.

And your struggling student would be struggling a lot less with grants and free tuition. And when someone becomes a high earner why shouldn't they pay a high earner's rate of tax? I am all for taxing them a lot less when they are a struggling student,

[Nick]

During any years of hard slog they will be paying the same taxes as anyone else in the same circumstances. Once they become rich they will pay the same taxes as other rich people. What's the problem? Going to uni does not exempt you from your tax obligations, though I happen to think that tuition fees should be abolished anyway, with those who study being helped that way.

No, they're a poor penniless student living off dried noodles and wracking up massive student debt, the minute they start earning a decent wage you focus you're green eyed monster at them and take 63% away. 

As for tuition fees, they've helped Oxbridge to get back into the top 5 universities in the world, whereas the highest rated Scottish university is Glashow at #81. 

[srb7677]

It's going round in circles cause you're not addressing the question.
14 years of hard slog and paying for their education to get where they are. Doesn't count for anything in your eyes, you just see the salary and not the history.

During any years of hard slog they will be paying the same taxes as anyone else in the same circumstances. Once they become rich they will pay the same taxes as other rich people. What's the problem? Going to uni does not exempt you from your tax obligations, though I happen to think that tuition fees should be abolished anyway, with those who study being helped that way.

[Nick]

I addressed the point about disincentivisation which was actuallly the central one. You are attempting to introduce divergent points designed to demonstrate how hard done by long suffering rich people are. Pity you have less sympathy for anyone who is genuinely struggling

As for how long it takes to get rich, that very much varies. Not long at all if you are born into it. And no one would pay any high earners' tax until they became a high earner, by which time of course any debt would soon be repaid. So what's your issue?

And I still think this conversation is destined to go nowhere except around in circles.

It's going round in circles cause you're not addressing the question. 
14 years of hard slog and paying for their education to get where they are. Doesn't count for anything in your eyes, you just see the salary and not the history. 

[srb7677]

You have NEVER addressed it. Show me where you have ever mentioned how long it takes to get to a big salary and the debt involved in getting there?

I addressed the point about disincentivisation which was actuallly the central one. You are attempting to introduce divergent points designed to demonstrate how hard done by long suffering rich people are. Pity you have less sympathy for anyone who is genuinely struggling

As for how long it takes to get rich, that very much varies. Not long at all if you are born into it. And no one would pay any high earners' tax until they became a high earner, by which time of course any debt would soon be repaid. So what's your issue?

And I still think this conversation is destined to go nowhere except around in circles.

[Nick]

On the contrary. I have just addressed it.

But you and I keep going round in circles when it comes to taxing the better off and will never agree, so it is rather fruitless continuing, to be honest.

You have NEVER addressed it. Show me where you have ever mentioned how long it takes to get to a big salary and the debt involved in getting there?