Makes you proud to be British

[CL]

Bloody hell Anti. You really do get wound up don't you!? That's 3 times you've gone back on your word now and I wasn't even putting any effort into winding you up.

You've already admitted that I rile you in a way that no-one else on the forum does (and that was down to your misinterpretation of my posts!) so maybe you haven't "won" (what does that mean anyway?) after all. Think about it.

Consider this though, I responded to your PM and you replied without satisfactorily addressing any of the points raised because you know that you misinterpreted me and you're wrong.

The only valid point that you did raise was that you wouldn't like your kids reading some of the stuff on the forums (and I admitted going overboard). Since then, you've started a P*ssed thread and talked about your brother Sh*gging half of Northern Ireland which to borrow a phrase from CL, makes you a hypocrite.

I won't be responding to any replies as I've got my fingers in my ears and I'm shouting "La la la la la la la" at the top of my voice . You're a weak debater and no amount of deflection (e.g the movie Shag) is gonna change that when your arguments are shown to be flawed.

This has got to be one of the funniest responses ever. Oh and I won't be commenting on this again!

[noel]

How it would work for me is that instead of me having to pay around 50% of my income in tax and have the State decide what is best to do with that money, even if it is not best for me, that I keep that tax and use it to fend for myself.
I pay for eduction, health, pension, refuse, security......

The way that the country is progressing, we will eventually have more tax taken from us and receive a food parcel every week, with the contents allocated by the State - as they always know best

Orwell is well and truly here.

50% tax. That's exceptionally generous of you. I'd check my accountant if I were you.

But seriously, I share some of your concerns.

And it's only going to get worse. Even the Conservatives had been saying that the public spending (and therefore the tax burden) would increase over the course of the next parliament if they were to be elected. They've only changed this due to the need to reduce our staggering level of national borrowing.

When you compare it to some other countries, the UK is not that bad (relatively of course - you may still think it's really bad). There's an article here saying that we pay 36% of the GDP in tax, whereas Denmark pay 48%. It's quite interesting as it says people in Sweden, which also pays a huge amount in tax, seem to trust their government to give that money back efficiently. It's an interesting concept.

[TheHeathens]

50% tax. That's exceptionally generous of you. I'd check my accountant if I were you.

But seriously, I share some of your concerns.

And it's only going to get worse. Even the Conservatives had been saying that the public spending (and therefore the tax burden) would increase over the course of the next parliament if they were to be elected. They've only changed this due to the need to reduce our staggering level of national borrowing.

When you compare it to some other countries, the UK is not that bad (relatively of course - you may still think it's really bad). There's an article here saying that we pay 36% of the GDP in tax, whereas Denmark pay 48%. It's quite interesting as it says people in Sweden, which also pays a huge amount in tax, seem to trust their government to give that money back efficiently. It's an interesting concept.

If Witton earns over £150,000 the rate of higher rate tax is increasing to 50% from April coupled with the tiered removal of the personal allowance over £100,000.

Interesting fact: No British government has ever successfully cut public spending. That makes tax rises even more inevitable and the tories can blame it on Labour for getting the country in this mess.

[noel]

If Witton earns over £150,000 the rate of higher rate tax is increasing to 50% from April coupled with the tiered removal of the personal allowance over £100,000.

Yes, but he would have to earn many millions for the average tax rate for his earnings to approach 50%. Are you a secret multimillionaire WP?

[TheHeathens]

Yes, but he would have to earn many millions for the average tax rate for his earnings to approach 50%. Are you a secret multimillionaire WP?

True, but without knowing Witton's tax status then we couldn't say.

If I asked you what rate of tax you pay, you wouldn't say that you pay 0% on £6475, 20% on £37,400, 40% on the next £106,125 and 50% above that would you?

He could (pretty sure he doesn't) derive his income from a Trust - the Trust rate is increasing to 50% with no personal allowance or tiered tax structure.

However, as Witton said 50% of his income, then you're right and I'm just being pedantic (no change there!)

[Witton Park]

I said 50% of my income is taken in tax.

Basic Rate Tax @ 20%
Higher Rate Tax @ 40% (over £34800)
National Insurance typically 11%

That's the direct taxation on income.

Then we have Council Tax, VAT, Tax on Fuel, Tax on Alcohol, Tax on Air Travel, Insurance Tax, Road Tax, Betting and Gaming Duties, Tobacco, Savings Tax.......

So work it out and 50% is about the typical tax take from an average earner.

Tax was forecast to be 37.3% of the GDP for 2008/9 but remember that the tax take is skewed because the 37.3 is not paid by everyone. The typical middle income earner is carrying proportionately more.

Of a UK adult population of around 50 million, it is estimated that there
will be 30.6 million taxpayers in 2008–09. Around 3.6 million of these will
pay tax at the higher rate, providing 55.8% of total revenue.

So if 3.6 million are accounting for 55.8% of revenue, that means that 27 million are only accounting for 44.2%.

[Antisocial]

This has got to be one of the funniest responses ever. Oh and I won't be commenting on this again!

Its not bad is it. Second best public tirade I have had, had a couple good PM's before now as well. I hope you appreciate how I have kept the pressure off you a bit recently - you owe me a pint of Radox!

[noel]

So work it out and 50% is about the typical tax take from an average earner.

Fair enough. I wasn't sure if you were including other taxes in your estimation.

So if 3.6 million are accounting for 55.8% of revenue, that means that 27 million are only accounting for 44.2%.

To go back to one of the many debates we have had on this thread. This is a reason why having huge-salaried bankers in this country is useful for the economy. They pay huge amounts of tax on their bonuses, meaning that the rest of can get away with paying less.

[Witton Park]

To go back to one of the many debates we have had on this thread. This is a reason why having huge-salaried bankers in this country is useful for the economy. They pay huge amounts of tax on their bonuses, meaning that the rest of can get away with paying less.

I've been in positions from Full Salary to Full commission/Bonus. I can tell you that when it is the latter you are relying on, there is a much greater tendancy to take risks and cut corners.
I think the main issue with the banks is not the huge Gross Income that can be gained, but that the proportion to be gained from bonuses is so high that the whole system was geared to risk taking.

As someone fully behind the free market, I have to question how any bankers, particularly at an organisation like RBS, can be in line for performance related bonuses in the current climate in view of their current situation.
That suggests to me that the contracts are ill thought out.

[noel]

I've been in positions from Full Salary to Full commission/Bonus. I can tell you that when it is the latter you are relying on, there is a much greater tendancy to take risks and cut corners.
I think the main issue with the banks is not the huge Gross Income that can be gained, but that the proportion to be gained from bonuses is so high that the whole system was geared to risk taking.

As someone fully behind the free market, I have to question how any bankers, particularly at an organisation like RBS, can be in line for performance related bonuses in the current climate in view of their current situation.
That suggests to me that the contracts are ill thought out.

Absolutely. If you pay bonuses based on short-term profits with no provision for long-term growth or company stability, you'll end up with a very profitable company in the short-term that's sailing towards distaster in the long-term.

I think the problem is that it's very hard to define how you would pay bonuses (based on individual performance) that reflect long-term stability. I'm sure the banks thought they had it right, and that more money today would equal more money tomorrow.

Anyway, this is straying onto CL's "get all your cash out of the bank" thread. Where were we with the BNP?