economic situation is dire

[CrackpotForeigner]

Incidentally, Brasil has just overtaken the UK for 6th place in the world's wealth league... I wonder why.

Because their human resource (population) is 3 times as large and still growing, whilst their natural resource (land size) is 35 times as large?

I'm sure the people living in the favelas of Rio will be very please to hear this statistic though!

Spot on.

Although this raises another point: Referring to a country's human resource is one thing, but when a company does it it's another entirely imo.

What do we do with resources? - Why, we exploit them, and then chuck away what's left. And yet companies quite shamelessly refer to their Human Resources "Teams".

I do find it amazing how AJ Rimmer above seems to be talking proudly about stripping the assets of collapsing communist countries, and without batting an eyelid telling us what a pity it would have been to have to share the rewards with the people of Britain.

Why is it considered okay to think that way?

[Risso]

I have read very little of this thread but wish to make a single point:

During the Labour government of the 60's, income tax was at £1 7s 6d in the pound, or £1.38p on each pound over a certain level. I've met numerous people one might describe as wealth creators, who told me they spent more time working out how not to pay tax than they did making money. Hardly surprising.

When Thatcher came to power, income tax was at 83p in the pound with 15p investment income surcharge... this gave an effective top rate of 98p in the pound.

To the howling of the Labour opposition, Thatcher cut the rate to 40p in the pound and not only did a lot of very rich people move to London in order to benefit from UK tax rates, but a lot of famous English people from whom we never saw a penny came home, such as Michael Caine and Mick Jagger... John Lennon was also on his way but never made it.

Within a year or two, the Thatcher government was receiving more money from top rate payers at 40% than they had been at 98%... well now, there's a thing!

What you all have to decide is, whether you wish to collect more money by keeping the top tax rate competitive, or whether you wish to be poorer and howl like dogs because some people are better off that you are... and anyone who thinks there's a different choice is a fool.

Edit: Two minutes after posting this, I switched on the box and John Redwood was giving the exact same example... though he phrased himself more delicately than me.

Its a good thing we are all in it together isnt it....?!

Lol - yes your so right, People like Michael Cane and the Rolling stones were so hard done by the higher tax rate. They only made about 50 million each instead of 55 million. absolutely terrible no justice what so ever - so unfair, they worked so hard for that money, how can you peanalise sucess blah blah blah. Can you remind me of the minimum wage again...?!

They said that when Gordon Brown put the rate of tax up then this would lead to more people like Footballers leaving and playing abroad because of this. I dont think there is one decent Footballer in the PL who has left soley because of taxation rate.

Yet if the 50 p tax is so unfair for the richest people. Why did so many people join PL teams this year.

The Irony is this the Government have deliberately hyped the deficit up. saying we need to increase indirect taxes.Answer me this:-

- How much in VAT.

- How much is Petrol per liter and how much of that is tax.

- How much is inflation

Of course there is not way these taxes can come down. They are squeezing as much money as they possibly can because of the deficit remember...! Its total nonsense that reducing Vat and Indirect taxes will stimulate the economy according to Gideon hence why they have increased them.

Fast forward to today. We are now being told that there will be a tax break for the wealthiest in society - probably all chums with Scameron and Gideon. - there is plenty of money available and we can afford it.

Its complete Hypocracy -All in it together - b~~~~~~s

Well if we can afford this tax then we can afford to reduce VAT to. Like for Like. After all we are all in it together.

This is purely an ideology that has been created by the richest in Society for the riches in Society.

Not to mention the fact that is would create 3.7 billion in two years. Thats guaranteed money that could go into reducing this so called terrible Defict...!

If the bankers who ruthlessly gambled with billions of our money and lost it, want to move abroad - then let them....! The UK is one of the leading country's in the World in the service industry it would nt be hard to replace them. Its similar process to PL footballers.

Churs.

Awesome post.

[tonyh29]

I have read very little of this thread but wish to make a single point:

During the Labour government of the 60's, income tax was at £1 7s 6d in the pound, or £1.38p on each pound over a certain level. I've met numerous people one might describe as wealth creators, who told me they spent more time working out how not to pay tax than they did making money. Hardly surprising.

When Thatcher came to power, income tax was at 83p in the pound with 15p investment income surcharge... this gave an effective top rate of 98p in the pound.

To the howling of the Labour opposition, Thatcher cut the rate to 40p in the pound and not only did a lot of very rich people move to London in order to benefit from UK tax rates, but a lot of famous English people from whom we never saw a penny came home, such as Michael Caine and Mick Jagger... John Lennon was also on his way but never made it.

Within a year or two, the Thatcher government was receiving more money from top rate payers at 40% than they had been at 98%... well now, there's a thing!

What you all have to decide is, whether you wish to collect more money by keeping the top tax rate competitive, or whether you wish to be poorer and howl like dogs because some people are better off that you are... and anyone who thinks there's a different choice is a fool.

Edit: Two minutes after posting this, I switched on the box and John Redwood was giving the exact same example... though he phrased himself more delicately than me.

Its a good thing we are all in it together isnt it....?!

Lol - yes your so right, People like Michael Cane and the Rolling stones were so hard done by the higher tax rate. They only made about 50 million each instead of 55 million. absolutely terrible no justice what so ever - so unfair, they worked so hard for that money, how can you peanalise sucess blah blah blah. Can you remind me of the minimum wage again...?!

They said that when Gordon Brown put the rate of tax up then this would lead to more people like Footballers leaving and playing abroad because of this. I dont think there is one decent Footballer in the PL who has left soley because of taxation rate.

Yet if the 50 p tax is so unfair for the richest people. Why did so many people join PL teams this year.

The Irony is this the Government have deliberately hyped the deficit up. saying we need to increase indirect taxes.Answer me this:-

- How much in VAT.

- How much is Petrol per liter and how much of that is tax.

- How much is inflation

Of course there is not way these taxes can come down. They are squeezing as much money as they possibly can because of the deficit remember...! Its total nonsense that reducing Vat and Indirect taxes will stimulate the economy according to Gideon hence why they have increased them.

Fast forward to today. We are now being told that there will be a tax break for the wealthiest in society - probably all chums with Scameron and Gideon. - there is plenty of money available and we can afford it.

Its complete Hypocracy -All in it together - b~~~~~~s

Well if we can afford this tax then we can afford to reduce VAT to. Like for Like. After all we are all in it together.

This is purely an ideology that has been created by the richest in Society for the riches in Society.

Not to mention the fact that is would create 3.7 billion in two years. Thats guaranteed money that could go into reducing this so called terrible Defict...!

If the bankers who ruthlessly gambled with billions of our money and lost it, want to move abroad - then let them....! The UK is one of the leading country's in the World in the service industry it would nt be hard to replace them. Its similar process to PL footballers.

Churs.

Awesome post.

I was particularly impressed with its use of nicknames and use of spell checker

[VILLAFC2000]

Taxing 50p in the pound is simply wrong on principle imo. The State should not seek to appropriate 50% of a person's income once their earnings exceed an arbitrary threshold.

Yes your right they should be taxed 60%...!!!

[VILLAFC2000]

Awesome post.

[VILLAFC2000]

Taxing 50p in the pound is simply wrong on principle imo. The State should not seek to appropriate 50% of a person's income once their earnings exceed an arbitrary threshold.

I agree, and the main argument for me in favour of scrapping it is that the actual amount of additional revenue it brings in is probably not worth the cost of collecting it.

I hope they don't scrap it though!

£ 3.5 billion in two years is not worth collecting...?!

[A.J.Rimmer]

I do find it amazing how AJ Rimmer above seems to be talking proudly about stripping the assets of collapsing communist countries, and without batting an eyelid telling us what a pity it would have been to have to share the rewards with the people of Britain.

Why is it considered okay to think that way?

There was no asset stripping of communist countries. Indeed, when communism collapsed it was because these countries had no assets left to speak of. We merely traded with them... though it must be said that something in the communist system made them endemically bad at doing business.

As for sharing the rewards with the people of Britain... we must have a different definition of the word sharing. I'm afraid 98% for the government and 2% for the individual, just isn't quite my idea of fair.

And whilst we are on the subject of FAIR... FAIRNESS in Hong Kong meant that everyone paid just 15% of their income in tax. You earned £100 a year you paid just £15 tax, but if you earned £1,000,000 you paid £150,000 in tax.

That sounds pretty fair to me... but whether you consider it fair or not, perhaps it's time we started learning from how things are done by thoses who consistently out perform us.

[PauloBarnesi]

Question; what is losing us the most money, tax avoidance, the possible reduction of the top rate from 50% to 40%, or government waste?

[CrackpotForeigner]

I do find it amazing how AJ Rimmer above seems to be talking proudly about stripping the assets of collapsing communist countries, and without batting an eyelid telling us what a pity it would have been to have to share the rewards with the people of Britain.

Why is it considered okay to think that way?

There was no asset stripping of communist countries. Indeed, when communism collapsed it was because these countries had no assets left to speak of. We merely traded with them... though it must be said that something in the communist system made them endemically bad at doing business.

Traded? I thought they had no assets to speak of? Bad at doing business? You must have laughed your head off at those muppets.

As for sharing the rewards with the people of Britain... we must have a different definition of the word sharing. I'm afraid 98% for the government and 2% for the individual, just isn't quite my idea of fair.

Tbh, if you've accumulated massive wealth by trading with people who are a) Too naive to obtain a fair deal for themselves, or Selling things in a kind of fire sale where their right to do so is questionable, I'd say 98% is about right.

And whilst we are on the subject of FAIR... FAIRNESS in Hong Kong meant that everyone paid just 15% of their income in tax. You earned £100 a year you paid just £15 tax, but if you earned £1,000,000 you paid £150,000 in tax.

I get it. The idea of charity and compassion for people unable to earn squillions escapes you.

Perhaps it's time we started learning from how things are done by those who consistently out perform us.

Or we could learn from those who are consistently happier than us. Seldom the same groups of people.

[VILLAFC2000]

I am always staggered at the ammount of people who dont earn 150k - no where near who think this is that the higher tax is not progressive.After all this is a tax rate that is good for 98.5% of people...!

Its basically like saying its OK - I will earn less and less for myself and family while you keep earning more and more - thats fine with me - its fair after all.

Its like being a Villa fan and saying sure United should get bigger and bigger they should be able to steal everyone's best players, after all its fair...!

[VILLAFC2000]

I do find it amazing how AJ Rimmer above seems to be talking proudly about stripping the assets of collapsing communist countries, and without batting an eyelid telling us what a pity it would have been to have to share the rewards with the people of Britain.

Why is it considered okay to think that way?

There was no asset stripping of communist countries. Indeed, when communism collapsed it was because these countries had no assets left to speak of. We merely traded with them... though it must be said that something in the communist system made them endemically bad at doing business.

Traded? I thought they had no assets to speak of? Bad at doing business? You must have laughed your head off at those muppets.

As for sharing the rewards with the people of Britain... we must have a different definition of the word sharing. I'm afraid 98% for the government and 2% for the individual, just isn't quite my idea of fair.

Tbh, if you've accumulated massive wealth by trading with people who are a) Too naive to obtain a fair deal for themselves, or Selling things in a kind of fire sale where their right to do so is questionable, I'd say 98% is about right.

And whilst we are on the subject of FAIR... FAIRNESS in Hong Kong meant that everyone paid just 15% of their income in tax. You earned £100 a year you paid just £15 tax, but if you earned £1,000,000 you paid £150,000 in tax.

I get it. The idea of charity and compassion for people unable to earn squillions escapes you.

Perhaps it's time we started learning from how things are done by those who consistently out perform us.

Or we could learn from those who are consistently happier than us. Seldom the same groups of people.

What is progressive and fair about a cleaner in Hong Kong paying proportionately more tax than there multi millionaire boss in Hong Kong...!

F@@k all...!

[snowychap]

I do find it amazing how AJ Rimmer above seems to be talking proudly about stripping the assets of collapsing communist countries, and without batting an eyelid telling us what a pity it would have been to have to share the rewards with the people of Britain.

I wouldn't be that amazed when you consider that a previous post from A.J.Rimmer said the following:

As for the salaries and bonuses... if I were underwritten by the British taxpayer, I'd award myself bonuses of ten times what these boys are getting... only a fool would not.

[Awol]

Taxing 50p in the pound is simply wrong on principle imo. The State should not seek to appropriate 50% of a person's income once their earnings exceed an arbitrary threshold.

Yes your right they should be taxed 60%...!!!

Why stop there comrade? Next up, Yugo's and high rise flats for all!

"Socialism is a philosophy of failure and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery."

[Risso]

Taxing 50p in the pound is simply wrong on principle imo. The State should not seek to appropriate 50% of a person's income once their earnings exceed an arbitrary threshold.

Yes your right they should be taxed 60%...!!!

Why stop there comrade? Next up, Yugo's and high rise flats for all!

"Socialism is a philosophy of failure and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery."

Indeed. Capitalism might not be perfect, but you ask most people from the former Eastern Bloc countries whether they'd like to go back to living in communist countries. About the only people you don't hear whinging about fairness and the entitlement culture are the Poles, who come over here and work their nuts off.

[VILLAFC2000]

Taxing 50p in the pound is simply wrong on principle imo. The State should not seek to appropriate 50% of a person's income once their earnings exceed an arbitrary threshold.

Yes your right they should be taxed 60%...!!!

Why stop there comrade? Next up, Yugo's and high rise flats for all!

"Socialism is a philosophy of failure and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery."

In that case lets pay the Bankers Millions on pounds bonuses for loosing yes loosing Brittons Trillions of pounds - oh wait we have done that...!

Let have a system where we pay Nurses, Doctors, Teachers, Firemen, Police man an average of 25 k per year and lets play Emile Heskey 30 k per week for not even playing.

I have always said it comes down to Ethics and Morals.

Who said I am not a fan of capitalism...?!

Speaking of high rise flats...?! Have you been to London, Liverpool, Birmingham, Swindon, Glasgow, Cardiff, Newcastle ect ect

Ah yes that ridiculous inconsolable word Socialism.

It's hardly clever to reduce it to small-minded envy when a proponent is not themselves poor. (Che Guevara, Salvador Allende and Patrice Lumumba for example, were middle class or even upper middle class).

and "philosophy of failure" sounds like it comes from someone with a fatally superficial "philosophy of success" -success independent from the value of the goal itself. A common symptom of great spiritual poverty. Wants to be number one on top of the pops whether his song is shit or not.

As for yout quote. Thanks for winning against the Nazis, Winston, but thank goodness the British people voted for the government that would bring about the NHS after the war instead!!!

[PauloBarnesi]

So no one is going to step up and answer my question?

[snowychap]

So no one is going to step up and answer my question?

What do you mean by 'losing us the most money'?

[colhint]

Question; what is losing us the most money, tax avoidance, the possible reduction of the top rate from 50% to 40%, or government waste?

Good question.

I think he is asking which is the greater sum of money.

Tax avoidance,

How much more money, (or less) would be collected if 50% tax rate was abolished

and what is the cost of government waste.

I dont know where to look for the figures.

I think the only one that could be defined would be the tax rate. That could be compared to other countries and what generally happened when tax rates were altered. You would think that would happen here

[CrackpotForeigner]

Taxing 50p in the pound is simply wrong on principle imo. The State should not seek to appropriate 50% of a person's income once their earnings exceed an arbitrary threshold.

Yes your right they should be taxed 60%...!!!

Why stop there comrade? Next up, Yugo's and high rise flats for all!

"Socialism is a philosophy of failure and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery."

Indeed. Capitalism might not be perfect, but you ask most people from the former Eastern Bloc countries whether they'd like to go back to living in communist countries. About the only people you don't hear whinging about fairness and the entitlement culture are the Poles, who come over here and work their nuts off.

That quote is complete twaddle. Sounds lovely, but means nothing.

I also think it's worth pointing out that Socialism and Eastern Bloc Communism are not the same thing. One is a general philosophy aspired to and to some extent practised by several successful countries, the other is a generally totalitarian, authoritarian and state-centric recipe for socio-economic disaster.

[blandy]

Taxing 50p in the pound is simply wrong on principle imo. The State should not seek to appropriate 50% of a person's income once their earnings exceed an arbitrary threshold.

That's a strange assertion. You imply you have no issue with some tax being taken, as a percentage of earnings - so in principle you agree with income tax, it's just the level of it that is the thing you disagree with, Awol? That's not really disagreeing with the principle, but with the implementation point(s) and the level at those points.

Personally I think 50% is on the high side for all sorts of reasons, but equally we are where we are. As a nation we need to spend money on various things, health, education, transport and so on, and we either have to borrow it and pay it back (or devalue the currency which ends up being like a tax, in effect as it puts prices up and savings down in value) or raise the money from taxes.

So it's just which taxes - VAT, income tax, stamp duty etc and who pays what amount. Somebody earning above 150 grand, paying half of the money over the 150 grand is broadly speaking a fair target for that level of tax - more so than someone on 15 grand.