Jump to content

economic situation is dire


Recommended Posts

Once you get into millions per year, there's almost no one who really either justifies that kid of money, or who needs it.

oh i agree the the people being paid millions is immoral ..the problem is £100k + sees you being taxed at 50% and that is where a lot of company directors / owners fall into and I just can't agree that this makes them so wealthy that they should by taxed at that sort of rate ..

Are you sure you are taxed 50 % of your 100k.

Are you saying that if you earned 150 000 per year you would be taxed £75 000 and not 30 000..?

You might want to check you calculations sun beam.

He hasn't done any calculations "sun beam", and actually you want to check yours. On £150,000 salary, PAYE would be about £53K, and NI would be about £7K, giving a total tax and NI of £60K. As you earn more than £150K, you'd be paying a marginal rate of 50%. Or at least people would, if it wasn't such a ridiculously easy tax to avoid.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Could I consider the goods that banks do...?! Is that a joke...! The banks are motivated by one thing and one thing only – Greed. don’t even pretend that they are some saints that have been hard done by, Do not play that card. The banks have gambled with people’s life savings and as a result millions of people have suffered. While the fat cats at the top have got away Scott free where is the justice in that.

One of the best policies introduced to this country as voted by the public was the minimum wages. This was not introduced by the banks, the trade unions fought for this right for a long time.

And fair play to the trade unions for that! I have never, ever suggested that the trade unions don't do a great deal of good. I have also never suggested that banks are saints who have been hard done by. I do not think that at all. But banks do provide a function in our society that is as necessary as trade unions which is something it might be wise to appreciate. All of this is obviously entirely beside the point. Both banks and trade unions are, essentially, agents with inavoidably biased agendas who principally have the same right to influence politcal decisions. Who is more worth listening to for advice as a different question all together. I'd say both sides are worth listening to.

The banking industry probably has done good., its good to be able to save up somewhere, its good to give people jobs, but its also full of greed, and greed that has led to possibly the biggest meltdown of the last few decades, gambling with other peoples money and false investments etc, which has led to banks going bust, banks being bailed out (( BY US) and bank staff, (( not the massively wealthy ones, but the £15k a yearers) losing their jobs and careers..... all the while, those bankers in the city have continued to enjoy massive figure bonuses, to pass the buck and to still think of their own gains, rather than the horrific decisions, they and their colleagues have taken in the last few years to get us in this mess.......what should happen is those earning the 100k bonuses should be taxed at at a higher % on these bonuses, still a hefty addition to their anual salary, some earned so much in bonuses that their drive to succeed and earn the most left them playing with fire and **** up massively but when the going got tough, they refused to hold their hands up...... thats the part that annoys me.

Wrong – There are two basic ways in which to reduce the deficit that has been deliberately hyped by this current government...?

One – cuts

Two – increase income.

That is exactly what I just said.

When there are billions and billions of pounds outstanding from tax evasion and 100 billion pounds being spent on Trident. Then maybe our income revenue streams should be re analysed. Have you thought about why this current governments has Barely mentioned going after the missing billions through Tax evasion. Is it really worth paying 100 billion pounds (this is money I can’t even complement the value of) on something we have never ever ever ever used....?!!!

I have no desire to defend the current government. I absolutely detest tax avoidance so I agree with you that this should be looked into very closely indeed. But I can only speculate that filling tax loopholes is not enough to balance the budget. As usually I believe it's a very good idea to look at both sides and make compromises. I won't take side in the Trident debate but just as your example with the military operation in Libya Trident is not strictly a long term budget commitment.

Oh but Trident is...! We spend 100 billion on Trident according to Clegg – Having said that its probably bull (The irony) and you won’t take a side on it for something we have never used. The deficit is 200 billion. Its harder to calculate Tax evasion but the current Torie estimate are between 30 – 40 billion. Seeing as the Toies governments pals owe a lot of this money its probably a very conservative estimate...! (get it) ha ha. You could probably double these predictions.

"The deficit = £180bn"

"Tax avoidance by the super-rich = Worth £100bn PER YEAR"

"Trident = £100bn (according to Clegg) "

"You sure theres no alternative"?

How much were we debt with after the second world war and when did we finish paying that off...?

That's just not relevant! Debt isn't the big problem!

The big picture is relavent – I am not going around in circles again

See previous answer.

In which the solutions presented require no systemic change at all.

The point it there is to much wealth at the top which is shared by two fewer people so it does not matter mainly about figures.

Of course it matters about the figures. I would agree that the top 1 per cent owning 70 per cent is too much but I'm not necessarily in favour of a perfectly even distribution either.

What ratio would you like to see...?

Out of interest where do you stand politically...? Left, Right, centre or not at all.

That depends on the issue, the situation and the context. I'm often left, occasionally slightly to the right but predominantly I'm somewhere in the middle. I don't support any specific political party though with the possible exception of a strong preference for the Democratic party (as the much lesser of two evils) in the US. I am generally sceptical of partisan politics.

One thing’s for sure this has been a great debate...!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Once you get into millions per year, there's almost no one who really either justifies that kid of money, or who needs it.

oh i agree the the people being paid millions is immoral ..the problem is £100k + sees you being taxed at 50% and that is where a lot of company directors / owners fall into and I just can't agree that this makes them so wealthy that they should by taxed at that sort of rate ..

Are you sure you are taxed 50 % of your 100k.

Are you saying that if you earned 150 000 per year you would be taxed £75 000 and not 30 000..?

You might want to check you calculations sun beam.

He hasn't done any calculations "sun beam", and actually you want to check yours. On £150,000 salary, PAYE would be about £53K, and NI would be about £7K, giving a total tax and NI of £60K. As you earn more than £150K, you'd be paying a marginal rate of 50%. Or at least people would, if it wasn't such a ridiculously easy tax to avoid.

Calm down seagull.

on 100 k you would be taxed 30 k.

What percentage of 150 k is 53. I don't make it 50%.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • VT Supporter
The banking industry probably has done good., its good to be able to save up somewhere, its good to give people jobs, but its also full of greed, and greed that has led to possibly the biggest meltdown of the last few decades, gambling with other peoples money and false investments etc, which has led to banks going bust, banks being bailed out (( BY US) and bank staff, (( not the massively wealthy ones, but the £15k a yearers) losing their jobs and careers..... all the while, those bankers in the city have continued to enjoy massive figure bonuses, to pass the buck and to still think of their own gains, rather than the horrific decisions, they and their colleagues have taken in the last few years to get us in this mess.......what should happen is those earning the 100k bonuses should be taxed at at a higher % on these bonuses, still a hefty addition to their anual salary, some earned so much in bonuses that their drive to succeed and earn the most left them playing with fire and **** up massively but when the going got tough, they refused to hold their hands up...... thats the part that annoys me.

Now we more or less agree.

Oh but Trident is...! We spend 100 billion on Trident according to Clegg – Having said that its probably bull (The irony) and you won’t take a side on it for something we have never used. The deficit is 200 billion. Its harder to calculate Tax evasion but the current Torie estimate are between 30 – 40 billion. Seeing as the Toies governments pals owe a lot of this money its probably a very conservative estimate...! (get it) ha ha. You could probably double these predictions.

"The deficit = £180bn"

"Tax avoidance by the super-rich = Worth £100bn PER YEAR"

"Trident = £100bn (according to Clegg) "

"You sure theres no alternative"?

I'll just take your numbers for granted for the sake of argument.

Over how many budget years is the cost of Trident distributed? Again for the sake of argument let's just say ten years. 100/10= £10bn/year.

Let's just say that you manage to close EVERY loophole and add another £100bn worth of revenue.

10bn + 100bn = 110bn. If the deficit is £180bn where do you find the remaining £70bn?

This is all grossly simplistic btw. But it's just to give a general idea.

The big picture is relavent – I am not going around in circles again

What big picture? I'm just trying to tell you that how much debt Britain could carry after WWII has nothing to do with how big a deficit you can handle now!

What ratio would you like to see...?

That is obviously impossible to answer.

One thing’s for sure this has been a great debate...!

:cheers:

Link to post
Share on other sites

To make my analogy a little more precise: Let's say I have been spending more money than I've earned and I try to cut down my everyday spending to avoid ending up in unservicable debt and eventual personal bankruptcy. Then I learn that my brother needs two thousand pounds for something that is aboslutely vital for him. It is okay for me to put a small dent in my own finances to help out my brother. It is after all not a long term commitment. I can not, on the other hand, continue my everyday spending. Furthermore, if I had decided not to spend the money on my brother it would not have meant I would have avoided cutting two thousand pounds off my annual personal expenditure. If I continue commiting to that over spending the problem would still be there next year and the year after and so on and so on.

Do you issue your own currency, raise your own taxes and so on?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Or at least people would, if it wasn't such a ridiculously easy tax to avoid.

An unsurprising comment from someone who relishes in the crusade of relieving the UK taxpayer of as much revenue as he possibly can. link.

Or perhaps a point HMRC et al. may want to take note of when drafting their next anti-avoidance schemes?
Link to post
Share on other sites

Or at least people would, if it wasn't such a ridiculously easy tax to avoid.

An unsurprising comment from someone who relishes in the crusade of relieving the UK taxpayer of as much revenue as he possibly can. link.

You won't find many Manx residents feeling sorry for the UK government.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I see the tories are pursuing the half arsed labour hs2 proposal.

why don't they realise that it won't work at all?

unless it's going via major stations in major cities and also stopping at the likes of LHR, BHX and MAN then it's a waste of money.

a rail network is only really an alternative if it's integrated properly.

almost as pointless as crossrail.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Will anyone be able to afford to use thiks hs2 line anyway

Rail fares are astronomical and hs2 will raise the bar even higher no doubt

it will be for business mainly where they will be footing the costs. their cost vs benefit will probably make it worthwhile.

in an ideal world you'd want it going

heathrow, euston, bhx international, new street, manchester international, man picadilly, newcastle, edinburgh/glasgow (and probably via EDI or GLA as well).

so logisitically some of those connections might be a bit tricky, but majority should be okay to do.

you'll never get rid of domestic flights anyway, so the "plane stupid" cretins will never get their ideal. well I think they want all short haul flights stopped which is beyond retarded.

perhaps when we have trains powered by CERN maybe.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guess it's economy related but did anyone watch the Energy programme on BBC1 last night ?

I wasn't watching closely but it appears that currently 1KW of electricity costs £78 to produce

under the new Green /low carbon options 1kw of electricity will cost £170 to produce

Govt blaming energy companies , energy companies blaming government (past and present) ... regardless the public foots the bill of course

estimate from Uswitch was that by 2020 average UK home energy bill will be £3200 a year ....

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guess it's economy related but did anyone watch the Energy programme on BBC1 last night ?

I wasn't watching closely but it appears that currently 1KW of electricity costs £78 to produce

under the new Green /low carbon options 1kw of electricity will cost £170 to produce

Govt blaming energy companies , energy companies blaming government (past and present) ... regardless the public foots the bill of course

estimate from Uswitch was that by 2020 average UK home energy bill will be £3200 a year ....

£3200 per year?

oh the joys. to be honest pre payment meters are quite cool. the house we currently rent had them in before we moved in. kept them as it's quite a good way of keeping on top of things.

SOMEHOW it works out cheaper than our old place which was economy 7. work that out....

Link to post
Share on other sites
The banking industry probably has done good., its good to be able to save up somewhere, its good to give people jobs, but its also full of greed, and greed that has led to possibly the biggest meltdown of the last few decades, gambling with other peoples money and false investments etc, which has led to banks going bust, banks being bailed out (( BY US) and bank staff, (( not the massively wealthy ones, but the £15k a yearers) losing their jobs and careers..... all the while, those bankers in the city have continued to enjoy massive figure bonuses, to pass the buck and to still think of their own gains, rather than the horrific decisions, they and their colleagues have taken in the last few years to get us in this mess.......what should happen is those earning the 100k bonuses should be taxed at at a higher % on these bonuses, still a hefty addition to their anual salary, some earned so much in bonuses that their drive to succeed and earn the most left them playing with fire and **** up massively but when the going got tough, they refused to hold their hands up...... thats the part that annoys me.

Now we more or less agree.

Good good

Oh but Trident is...! We spend 100 billion on Trident according to Clegg – Having said that its probably bull (The irony) and you won’t take a side on it for something we have never used. The deficit is 200 billion. Its harder to calculate Tax evasion but the current Torie estimate are between 30 – 40 billion. Seeing as the Toies governments pals owe a lot of this money its probably a very conservative estimate...! (get it) ha ha. You could probably double these predictions.

"The deficit = £180bn"

"Tax avoidance by the super-rich = Worth £100bn PER YEAR"

"Trident = £100bn (according to Clegg) "

"You sure theres no alternative"?

I'll just take your numbers for granted for the sake of argument.

Over how many budget years is the cost of Trident distributed? Again for the sake of argument let's just say ten years. 100/10= £10bn/year.

Let's just say that you manage to close EVERY loophole and add another £100bn worth of revenue.

10bn + 100bn = 110bn. If the deficit is £180bn where do you find the remaining £70bn?

I would spread the deficit plans over double the time that has currently been set.

I would increase the tax on the banks and bankers bonuses.

Get rid of trident.

This is all grossly simplistic btw. But it's just to give a general idea.

The big picture is relavent – I am not going around in circles again

What big picture? I'm just trying to tell you that how much debt Britain could carry after WWII has nothing to do with how big a deficit you can handle now!

What ratio would you like to see...?

That is obviously impossible to answer.

One thing’s for sure this has been a great debate...!

:cheers:

May I ask what your background is – Have you lived in Norway all your life...?

Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of use Terms of Use, Cookies We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.

Â