You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Surprised no-one's mentioned the Tories' abysmal record on crime...me, from t'BNP thread:
In fact, if you care to cast your beady eye over this PDF:You'll see that there's a long consistent rise in British Crime Survey crime between 1981 and 1995 (which are of course the years of Thatcherism) and then a long consistent fall since 1995. In other words, we're only just now getting back down to the level of crime under the penultimate Labour government and before Maggie **** it all up. So much for the Tories' claim to being tough on crime.
Just realised I said penultimate - should have said last, obviously.
Actually, I think he was saying that he [i]would[/i] blame a sticky keyboard, but wasn't going to, as it was [i]user error[/i] rather than faulty equipment.
Honest and sincere. A Tory would have carried on blaming the equipment...
Of course, he could have a sticky keyboard, we don't know that.
Mine is absolutely filthy. I could probably make a meal out of all the crumbs that have fallen inside it. I think I'll take it apart and clean it later.
Some suggest that high tax rates scare of the rich leaving the country poorer overall....
Financially worse off but society will benefit from losing such greedy selfish people.
"Walking alone through the picket line somewhat harder. Never fight a battle you can't win."
I'd rather live one day as a lion than a lifetime as a donkey. Oh, and cock off, you tory arse weasel 🙂
Financially worse off but society will benefit from losing such greedy selfish people.
So rich people are all greedy and selfish? Fantastic!
There was a series on the box recently about the Norman conquest. At the end of it they showed how William had divvied up the spoils between himself, the church and his nobles. That was a thousand years ago..... Unfortunately, the fact is that those spoils to a great extent remain in those self same hands or those of their direct descendants.
Like it or not, conservative with a small c means "One favoring traditional views and values." So a vote for Dave is likely to favour those at the top of the heap rather than the rest of us IMHO. Being Baronet Dave does suggest that he may have a vested interest in that view don't you think?
So rich people are all greedy and selfish?
No, just the ones who don't want to contribute. Hope that clears it up.
contribute to what?
Yawn.
Some suggest that high tax rates scare of the rich leaving the country poorer overall....
I think it would mainly be rich people suggesting that, [url= http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/news/article.html?in_article_id=420989&in_page_id=2 ]but not all of them.[/url]
However, I don't care if higher taxes do scare off the rich and leave the country poorer overall (by which I guess you mean on average?), good riddance. Having rich people around doesn't help the poor, it just makes them feel poorer.
So we don't need entrepreneurs here? What's rich anyway?
So rich people are all greedy and selfish? Fantastic!
People who aren't happy just being very comfortably off are greedy and selfish, yup.
So rich people are all greedy and selfish? Fantastic!
Reading fail!
The ones that would baulk at paying high levels of tax (on that part of their income over and above the threshold) on income over £150k? and as a result leave the country.
Then yes I agree they could be termed "greedy and selfish"
So we don't need entrepreneurs here? What's rich anyway?
You think entrepreneurs start off rich?
You think most rich people are entrepreneurs?
The ones that would baulk at paying high levels of tax (on that part of their income over and above the threshold) on income over £150k? and as a result leave the country.
It's all shite anyway. Phil Collins said he'd **** off to Switzerland and he still hasn't.
Some suggest that high tax rates scare of the rich leaving the country poorer overall....
Evidence?
"some people" claim they have fairies at the bottom of their garden.
People base their decisions on more than marginal tax rates.
Having rich people around doesn't help the poor, it just makes them feel poorer.
I don't know what you're getting at there. I'm pretty frickin far from rich, but I don't hate people with money in that same way I don't hate people without money. I suppose I'm just not the jealous type.
I don't hate people with money - but all the evidence shows that a smaller gap between rich and poor = a healthier, happier society. And that goes for the rich as well as the poor strangely enough.
Sadly I do not fall into the category of people who were paying 83% tax and nor do I fall into the category of people who will be paying the new higher tax rate that Labour have introduced. I don't think I have mny knickers in a twist over the issue though. 😕 And I can appreciate that you would rather have had the choice BM of whatever carrer you wanted as an alternative to being pushed into it. I guess my point was we will never know what choices we would have had if Labour had remained in power. There may well have been different issues that came along under a different government that would have taken your right to choose away or forced you into doing something different.
Enlightened use of the word scum to describe Mrs T. Well done. Fine discoursive style. Not that I am a Cameron devotee but I think the idea that he is only "out for the rich" is not the most balanced view of Tory policies. To be honest I am still entirely sure which way I will vote. Each of the main parties has some policies of note that resonate with me. However, and this will be no big surprise based on some of my previous postings, I will not be voting for Labour. I do not respect Gordon Brown and the way he mangled the nations finances under his reign of "prudence" (I think the perfect gift for him would be a dictionary) and I think he is rather too desperate to hold onto power at the expense of any credibility, amongst other things. However, I see no need to lable him scum, or to eagerly await his demise so I can have a party to celebrate.
tory arse weasel
😆
That's got to be up there with 'Nazi Cock Monkey'!
Many people evade tax illegally and may of them aren't rich - so the fact a few rich people decide to live somewhere with less tax is just human nature.
rightplacerighttime - WTF?
You want rich people to go? Some of those are entrepreneurs. The country will lose their tax so the country will be worse off financially in that respect. But you're obviously so socialist that the idea of anyone having any more than you is just appalling right? Even if they're self made? Even if they're on Dragon's Den? Lovely people....
Talkemada - I try to be an equal opportunity insulter you know!
Backhander,
Affluenza by Oliver James is a good book on this subject.
Unfortunately, when our society places so much value on the right house, the right car, the right clothes, the right phone etc. and then invites people to borrow the money to buy these things (so long as they pay back with interest) then that creates social unrest and unhealthy competition for material wealth, as well as concentrating wealth in the hands of the lenders.
Of course the sting in the tail is that those few who get to the top of the heap re' material possessions generally don't achieve the satisfaction they thought they would before they got there.
when our society places so much value on the right house, the right car, the right clothes, the right phone etc.
Yes, but these pressures don't come from those with money, quite the contrary, its usually the poorer end of the scale who believe they need these things. If you look at the majority of the rich in this country they don't go around showing off all their possessions.
You want rich people to go?
I don't want them to go, I want them to pay their fair share. But if they'd rather go then that's fine by me.
Follow the link in my previous post. Rich people (generally) don't pay taxes like we do. They employ tax advisors who do a very good job of keeping their payments down.
Actually I quite like Duncan Bannatyne - he says [url= http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8575626.stm ]this[/url] about non-doms and the tax system.
BTW, I'm quite happy with my lot. I do interesting work, have a nice end of terrace house that's just big enough, lovely wife, lovely kids, and a reasonable amount of time to do things I enjoy. How could anyone have [b]more[/b] than me?
But what's their fair share? Whatever tax regime is in place?
Yes, but these pressures don't come from those with money, quite the contrary, its usually the poorer end of the scale who believe they need these things.
Those pressures come from marketing, magazines, TV, newspapers etc - who do you think owns/controls them?
If you look at the majority of the rich in this country they don't go around showing off all their possessions.
It's not so much what rich individuals do (although there are plenty who flaunt their wealth) it's the way society responds to them and the inequality between top and bottom. People see footballers earning 50 k a week and doing stupid things with it in Hello magazine and think that that is a great way to live. But we can't all live that way, which makes a lot of people unhappy. I'ts not too difficult to see how that works is it? There is loads of research in this area - read Affluenza.
Those pressures come from marketing, magazines, TV, newspapers etc - who do you think owns/controls them?
The devil?
I don't think your point is valid. You could say that for any product advertised. The area of our society that puts the pressures on for the perfect material goods is the very same area who can't afford these items.
But what's their fair share? Whatever tax regime is in place?
Good question.
I'm not sure. But it's been suggested that the CEO of a company should earn no more than 20 times the salary of the lowest paid worker. That seems "fair" to me.
As for those who start their own businesses - more tricky - but we can flesh out the finer details once I'm nearer to seizing power.
The area of our society that puts the pressures on for the perfect material goods is the very same area who can't afford these items.
You are categorically wrong.
You are categorically wrong [b]IMO[/b]
fixed it for you.
Yes, but these pressures don't come from those with money, quite the contrary, its usually the poorer end of the scale who believe they need these things. If you look at the majority of the rich in this country they don't go around showing off all their possessions.
😯
Wrong on so many levels.
Wrong on so many levels [b]IMO[/b].
fixed it for you
Yes, but these pressures don't come from those with money, quite the contrary, its usually the poorer end of the scale who believe they need these things. If you look at the majority of the rich in this country they don't go around showing off all their possessions. All in my misguided opinion of course!
Thanks
Not a problem
Chaps - we seem to have gone off on a bit of a tangent (in my humble opinion, of course). Cant we just get back to accusing edukator of being a tory arse weasel?
Haven't read any of his posts but i am easily swayed so yes, you tory weasel arse you.
As for those who start their own businesses - more tricky - but we can flesh out the finer details once I'm nearer to seizing power.
ahem
"[i]"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men."[/i]
I think that is very demeaning to arses and weasels to be called a Tory 😉
backhander
I'm afraid I'll be one of those who votes for whoever is likely to rid us of Brown et al. Not ideal but that's my opinion.
And you should really answer talkemada; why is your keyboard sticky? Left handed websites? I do hope your not in work.
Afraid I do the same but opposite most likely to beat a Tory and yes not that satisfactory a state of affairs for either of us. I am pro PR though and probably vote Green or for a left wing party like say Lib dems 😯 if my vote really counted.
it's been suggested that the CEO of a company should earn no more than 20 times the salary of the lowest paid worker. That seems "fair" to me.
Why? Need some logic for that. I know some countries have smaller ratios than others, and that does seem a good thing, but I'm not aware of any legislation about income - of course that 20x thing is before tax so it's not quite the same thing. We live in a market driven world so salaries are decided on that basis.
BTW, what does seem unfair to me is taking home less than 50% of any part of income. I also hate tax on capital which includes council tax IMO.
Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men.
Blair? At least Branson's nice....
"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men."
I love that Ghandi quote.
Agreed junkyard.
It's a bit crap really. I'm not actually anti labour traditionally. Blair, brown, balls, mandelson etc just really boil my p1ss. Just bullies IMO. My local labour MP is also a tool, the tory one seems to actually give a sh1t about local issues (at the moment at least) instead of just trying to get as much wasteminster time as possible. Otherwise I'd quite like to vote green too.[b]
BTW, what does seem unfair to me is taking home less than 50% of any part of income.
Why? Need some logic for that.
Yes I know that is a stupid question, but I'm just following your lead.
Because I don't think the state should benefit more than the employee from a pay rise.
[i]tory arse weasel[/i]
I've never voted Tory in my life, I'm just paraphrasing some of the "labour economics and industrial relations" lectures I attended and applying the wisdom to the period of history we're talking about. I do quite like "tory arse weasel" though, if I add it to "pseudo frog" which is another apt thing I get called on another forum it makes "tory arse weasel pseudo frog". Excellent. Do you think the moderators would let me adopt it?
...Only if you take back everything you said about Scargill 😉
The following is included in the constitution of John Lewis
The pay of the highest paid Partner will be no more than
75 times the average basic pay of non-management Partners,
calculated on an hourly basis.
In the absence of wealth tax (or capital tax if you prefer) the rich get richer and the poor poorer Tiger. That benefits neither the rich nor the poor as another poster mentioned a page back. A fair tax system taxes income and wealth, and above all, inclome derived from wealth which the current UK system does very badly given the number of exemptions and loop holes.
I've lost interest in this thread, so I think it's time for some pictures:
[img] 
[/img]
[img] 
[/img]
[img] 
[/img]
Excellent, now can you do 'nazi cock monkey?'.
Coming right up...
[img] 
[/img]
[img] 
[/img]
[img] 
[/img]
Interestingly, Googling for images for 'Tory' came up with more grot than 'arse' or 'cock'.....
In the absence of wealth tax (or capital tax if you prefer) the rich get richer and the poor poorer Tiger.
Well not sure why the poor have to get poorer but the rich get richer if they carry on earning which is fine isn't it? We then grab a load of it when they die. 🙂
"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men."I love that Ghandi quote.
[i] Ghandi !!!! [/i] 😆 🙄
Because if you don't tax wealth you have to tax income more to get the same tax revenue so the poor pay more tax and get poorer. The rich on the other hand are relatively unconcerned by income tax and PAYE. Most of their increase in wealth comes from accumulating assets which increase in value and on which they pay capital gains tax at a much lower rate than the poor pay income tax, only 18% at present and that only above a high threshold.
ermm tiger-roach - we don't grab very much of the rich's money at all; they're accountant has squirreled it off-shore waaaaaaay before inheritance tax comes along, that's if they were paying an tax due to their non-dom status.
Hmmmm the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer ermmm ever heard of Wat Tyler or just google 'economic riots'...
Well not sure why the poor have to get poorer but the rich get richer if they carry on earning which is fine isn't it? We then grab a load of it when they die.
I'm afraid the poor do have to get poorer for the rich to get richer. Our economy is based on debt. As most of us start with nothing, we have to borrow money to do anything (don't get picky - I'm generalising) we then have to pay back that money with interest to the people we borrowed it from. There are various ways this can happen, but essentially it ends up with the poor being obligated to the rich. The odd poor person may end up rich, but generally not.
On the other hand, Islam doesn't allow usury, so maybe we'd be better off in an Islamic state?
The odd poor person may end up rich
But with tighter policing we can stop that. 😉
"new money" is so vulgar isn't it.
"new money" is so vulgar isn't it
Just not in keeping with a [s]old[/s] new Britain 😉
what does seem unfair to me is taking home less than 50% of any part of income
So you are not concerned that the richest one percent of adults globally own 40% of the entire worlds assets? The richest 10% 85 % of these assets and the bottom 50% own just over 1`%. This seems fair and reasonable to you then? Have they really worked that hard that they deserve all of that wealth/money? Are the rest really that lazy?Does it seem fair that they have billions of pounds they can never spend whilst other people have nothing? Often these people are starving and their children the victims of child labour?Really you are more concerned with having vast sums of your own personal wealth protected. If that is really the case then your moral compass is pointing to avaricious self centred assh0le.?
😆 - don't hold back Junkyard, tell 'em how you [i]really[/i] feel. 😛
(I quite agree though - use of the word 'fair' there is pretty ironic)
"new money" is so vulgar isn't it.
As before, the simple fact is that the old money seems to stay put and not get spent somehow. So in short Junkyards theory above is worsened by the fact that the influence/financial might/power is in fundamentally the same hands that it was in 1000 years ago. Personally, I have no issue with wealth or who has it beyond the simple desire that everyone on day one starts off with a reasonably flat playing field. Regretably for the vast majority of us this is simply not the case.
I think the point you highlight Junkyard is valid, certainly for extreme wealth.
However, i think for someone who earns £200,000 a year, which IMO doesn't fit in with your extreme above, to see £25000 of that £50000 over the £150000 threshold just lost to tax, seems rather extreme to me.
Who is anyone to say that this person hasn't worked damned hard for that money? There total tax and national insurance bill would be in the region of £80,000.
Now, where do you stop / start tax brackets is another question, and one I don't have an answer for.
So a total income tax burden of 30 - 33% is not reasonable for a very wealthy individual? Most of whom would not pay anything like that due to employing slick accountants to assist them in avoiding it in every way possible.
Who should pay this instead? Given that raising a similar amount elsewhere would almost automatically mean that those lower done the earnings scale and less able to pay would have to pay more?
what does seem unfair to me is taking home less than 50% of any part of incomeSo you are not concerned that the richest one percent of adults globally own 40% of the entire worlds assets?
Seems to be some confusion between income and assets. Are you Gordon Brown by any chance?
Defining what is reasonable is not something i am in a position to state in all honesty. Everyone will have their differing opinion on this.
However IMO, yes, it is too much. To give-up £80,000 out of the £200,000 I had earned is too much. Thats a total tax liability of 40% on everything (and lets not try and separate tax from NI!).
Other people I am sure would disagree and I am not going to tell them they are wrong.
As a side, IMO earning £200k a year does not make someone "very wealthy".
You really think earning 250 k a year wont put you in the top 10 % of world earners ? You think that 10 times the average wage in one of the 7 richest countries in the world is not excessive? I suspect you are wrongHowever, i think for someone who earns £200,000 a year, which IMO doesn't fit in with your extreme above, to see £25000 of that £50000 over the £150000 threshold just lost to tax, seems rather extreme to me.
Seems to be some confusion between income and assets. Are you Gordon Brown by any chance?
Nice line 😆
I could not get the figure for income but I suspect they are similar in nature. People with assets tend to make the most money don’t they? Will quickly Google before leaving work
edit: As i said, not everyone will have the same view point.
Junkyard - communism is a lovely idea I'm sure.
However, i think for someone who earns £200,000 a year, which IMO doesn't fit in with your extreme above, to see £25000 of that £50000 over the £150000 threshold just lost to tax, seems rather extreme to me.
I wouldn't lose any sleep over it if I were you, I'm sure they'll manage ok.
I never mentioned communism why the reluctance to defend your own view rather than mention something I never mentioned? ...I hope it is the fact you are ashamed and embarassed about what you said and no longer wish to defend it 😉
INCOME FACTS
Almost half the world — over three billion people — live on less than $2.50 a day
At least 80% of humanity lives on less than $10 a day – your [roughly] $1000 dollar a day salary of £250K does fit excessive surely?
The poorest 40 percent of the world’s population accounts for 5 percent of global income. The richest 20 percent accounts for three-quarters of world income
Household income or consumption by percentage share: lowest 10%: 2.5%
highest 10%: 29.5% (2003 est.) – that is from the CIA factbook apparently
[img] 
[/img]
Need to be over $40k dollars per annum to be top 1 % of world in income
Here
http://www.globalrichlist.com/how.html
Look if you want to help the world's poor then do so but the tax we pay mostly stays in this country.
You are comparing taxation and salaries within Britain. You can not compare it against the worlds worst earners. Otherwise, on a scale, you would say an average salary of £30k a year is excessive in comparison.
LHS,are you saying that you would find it hard to get by on takehome pay of just £120 k ?
And when you say 'worked damn hard' just how hard would that be? Would it be as hard say as psychiatric nurse, or a bomb disposal expert, or an underwater welder, or a trawlerman, etc, etc.
See, it's a meaningless thing to say.
Its not meaningless to say at all.
By your rational, it would mean that no matter what career path you took, as long as you work hard at it then you should all earn the same money?
I think if you move a little further geographically east you will find the lifestyle you are looking for! 😉
You are comparing taxation and salaries within Britain. You can not compare it against the worlds worst earners. Otherwise, on a scale, you would say an average salary of £30k a year is excessive in comparison.
Well I think people would do well to realise that living on 30k a year makes you a very well off person by world standards. Plenty of people even in this country manage just fine on an awful lot less.
Because I don't think the state should benefit more than the employee from a pay rise
The state is all of us. We are the beneficiaries overall of taxation. It's called sharing the wealth. Is that so bad?
As for the wealth gap - rich people getting a lot richer, poor people getting a bit richer - the wealth gap widens, but why is this bad?
Yeah but £30k goes a lot further in many places than it does here - the US for a start.