Steven Posted 6 March 2006 Posted 6 March 2006 I think its gay what the government spens money on... it shud be 10% tax for everyone, all hospitals dentistry, etc privatised and roads shudnt be rebuilt after 2 years of use (wtf leicester council?) See how crime reduces after because everyone will have more money anyway... That does more to comabt crime than any Law.
Head Honcho Posted 6 March 2006 Posted 6 March 2006 50%? what a fking joke no wonder there are so many people living lives on benefits when you get penalised for trying hard all your life to earn a good salary So a guy with £100,000 a year pays 50,000 post tax these people really haven't got a clue and it's obvious our political system has become such an 'all pleasing party'. Policies are no longer set on what's best for everyone, but what will get them the vote. Someone earning £100k will pay nowhere near £50k tax, anything they earn over £100k is taxed at 50% they pay the same tax as the rest of us on the first £100k. Sorry Nationwider didn't see your post!
Head Honcho Posted 6 March 2006 Posted 6 March 2006 I wonder how many will take the time and trouble to read that. And how many might be humble enough to change their outlook. I don't really see the passage as being about religion. It is about humanity. Giving for the greater good and without being judgemental, giving and not counting the cost, I guess. No I did take the time to read the verse, but tell me! What relevance does it have to today's society? In Biblical times if you were poor, you were poor and you stayed poor. Today everybody has the chance of a good education, regardless of class! Those who choose not to benefit from that education, should not be allowed to bleed the welfare state dry for the rest of their lives. All it takes is a bit of ambition and some social responsibility! These spongers have none of that! So please tell me, why should the state fund their apathy?
Jon the Hat Posted 6 March 2006 Posted 6 March 2006 An interesting perspective on taxes... Although I'm not saying the rates are valid for the UK the principal regarding who pays the most tax still holds. ------------------------------------------------------ Tax Cuts in plain language Let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand. Suppose that every day, ten men go out for dinner. The bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this: The first four men - the poorest - would pay nothing; the fifth would pay $1, the sixth would pay $3, the seventh $7, the eighth $12, the ninth $18, and the tenth man - the richest - would pay $59. That's what they decided to do. The ten men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement - until one day, the owner threw them a curve (in tax language a tax cut). "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20." So now dinner for the ten only cost $80.00. The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still eat for free. But what about the other six - the paying customers? How could they divvy up the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his "fair share?" The six men realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, Then the fifth man and the sixth man would end up being PAID to eat their meal. So the restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay. And so the fifth man paid nothing, the sixth pitched in $2, the seventh paid $5, the eighth paid $9, the ninth paid $12, leaving the tenth man with a bill of $52 instead of his earlier $59. Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to eat for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. "I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man who pointed to the tenth. "But he got $7!" "Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man, "I only saved a dollar, too . . . It's unfair that he got seven times more than me!". "That's true!" shouted the seventh man, "why should he get $7 back when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!" "Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison, "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!" The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next night he didn't show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered, a little late what was very important. They were FIFTY-TWO DOLLARS short of paying the bill! Imagine that! And that, boys and girls, journalists and college instructors, is how the tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up at the table anymore. Where would that leave the rest? Unfortunately, most taxing authorities anywhere cannot seem to grasp this rather straightforward logic!
The People's Hero Posted 6 March 2006 Posted 6 March 2006 An interesting perspective on taxes... Although I'm not saying the rates are valid for the UK the principal regarding who pays the most tax still holds. ------------------------------------------------------ Tax Cuts in plain language Let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand. Suppose that every day, ten men go out for dinner. The bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this: The first four men - the poorest - would pay nothing; the fifth would pay $1, the sixth would pay $3, the seventh $7, the eighth $12, the ninth $18, and the tenth man - the richest - would pay $59. That's what they decided to do. The ten men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement - until one day, the owner threw them a curve (in tax language a tax cut). "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20." So now dinner for the ten only cost $80.00. The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still eat for free. But what about the other six - the paying customers? How could they divvy up the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his "fair share?" The six men realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, Then the fifth man and the sixth man would end up being PAID to eat their meal. So the restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay. And so the fifth man paid nothing, the sixth pitched in $2, the seventh paid $5, the eighth paid $9, the ninth paid $12, leaving the tenth man with a bill of $52 instead of his earlier $59. Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to eat for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. "I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man who pointed to the tenth. "But he got $7!" "Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man, "I only saved a dollar, too . . . It's unfair that he got seven times more than me!". "That's true!" shouted the seventh man, "why should he get $7 back when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!" "Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison, "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!" The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next night he didn't show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered, a little late what was very important. They were FIFTY-TWO DOLLARS short of paying the bill! Imagine that! And that, boys and girls, journalists and college instructors, is how the tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up at the table anymore. Where would that leave the rest? Unfortunately, most taxing authorities anywhere cannot seem to grasp this rather straightforward logic! Very good.
Sparky Posted 6 March 2006 Posted 6 March 2006 pmsl! :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: Phil Collins is a complete cretin. I remember him saying he'd leave the country if Labour won the election in '96 (along with Frank Bruno oddly enough). Why are you still here Phil phil collins is not here , he lives in switzerland and has done for years now
The People's Hero Posted 6 March 2006 Posted 6 March 2006 phil collins is not here , he lives in switzerland and has done for years now How very neutral of him. Could it be that his music will become even MORE middle of the road as a result?
Magictv Posted 6 March 2006 Posted 6 March 2006 How very neutral of him. Could it be that his music will become even MORE middle of the road as a result? bedum dum tish. basil brush thing. And on the subject of tax, I am only 16 so i only earn 12 a week on me paper round but personnally I think there shuoldnt be such a massive increase in tax for those who earn more, basically the percentage rates shuold be 'flatter' if you get what i mean. ie. they should be like 10%, 13%, 17%, 23% as opposed to 5%, 13%, 23%, 59% if that makes any sense to anyone. what a confusing post by me and what a good post by john the hat for coming up with the meal anology.
Lemon Harpic Posted 6 March 2006 Posted 6 March 2006 It's a fair comment... but most people who earn good money have worked very hard for it. Depends on what you mean by 'good money'. The people who make the most money are those who make others do the work and simply appropriate the profits generated for themselves. The rich are the biggest parasites out there. Fück 'em all.
Lemon Harpic Posted 6 March 2006 Posted 6 March 2006 And that, boys and girls, journalists and college instructors, is how the tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up at the table anymore. Sucks to be rich. Maybe we should start a collection for this oppressed minority?
Strokes Posted 6 March 2006 Posted 6 March 2006 Sucks to be rich. Maybe we should start a collection for this oppressed minority? I wonder if you would still hold this opinion if you CAME into some money and everyone wanted a slice of your pie
Leicester City Posted 6 March 2006 Posted 6 March 2006 Sort out the benefit system. If people really wanted to find jobs, they could. Why not give jobs to people, not like in workhouses but I'm sure the government can find jobs to pay people to do. If they turn down the work, they are, in my opinion not entitled to benefits. You nasty piece of shit.
Leicester City Posted 6 March 2006 Posted 6 March 2006 Some people can't work for medical reasons and those people have to put up with people like you having a go at them. Some people would love to be able to get out and get a job but not everybody can. You really are a nasty piece of shit. You always have been and i think you always will be. I hope you come down with something and can't work for few months. What will you do then? You piece of crap.
Jon the Hat Posted 6 March 2006 Posted 6 March 2006 bedum dum tish. basil brush thing. And on the subject of tax, I am only 16 so i only earn 12 a week on me paper round but personnally I think there shuoldnt be such a massive increase in tax for those who earn more, basically the percentage rates shuold be 'flatter' if you get what i mean. ie. they should be like 10%, 13%, 17%, 23% as opposed to 5%, 13%, 23%, 59% if that makes any sense to anyone. what a confusing post by me and what a good post by john the hat for coming up with the meal anology. I didn't write it, a mate blogged it a few months ago, I remebered it a pasted it in.
Jon the Hat Posted 6 March 2006 Posted 6 March 2006 Sucks to be rich. Maybe we should start a collection for this oppressed minority? Earning £100k a year does not make you rich. Tax at 50% plus NI at 10% is a 60% tax band. So for every pound you earn over £100k you get 40p. I'm a firm believer in a fair tax system. I don't believe we have one right now. Currently middle income people pay a greater % of their income in tax overall, as council tax and so on is not means tested. However if I earn 100k a year (not yet...) I will obviously pay a lot more tax in £ terms than someone who earns £30k. I am also more likely to own my own home and not require any benefits, spend more on goods and therefore pay more VAT, provide for my own health care and therefore be less of a burden on the NHS, pay tuition fees for my kids, and pay into a private pension for my retirement. I will probably have enough cash left over to pay for a Nursing homes if i need it. I don't don't follow the logic which says you should pay a higher percentage on more earnings. All this does is increase the salaries companies have to pay, and makes them less competitive. Lets get one thing clear - it doesn't raise more tax. The 40% tax band has created an industry of "tax planning" whereby high earners find ways around paying tax. So they end up paying less than they would under a system where 24% goes all the way up to the millions. If you incentivise dubious tax evasive planning then you should expect it to happen. Take away the incentive and it will reduce.
TrickyTrev Posted 6 March 2006 Posted 6 March 2006 pmsl! :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: Phil Collins is a complete cretin. I remember him saying he'd leave the country if Labour won the election in '96 (along with Frank Bruno oddly enough). Why are you still here Phil To be fair to Phil, the one redeeming feature he does have is he DID move to Switzerland after the '97 general election. Earning £100k a year does not make you rich Yes it does. it shud be 10% tax for everyone, all hospitals dentistry, etc privatised and roads shudnt be rebuilt after 2 years of use Research suggests we would need a flat tax level of 22% in order to sustain the current level of government spending. If you incentivise dubious tax evasive planning then you should expect it to happen. Take away the incentive and it will reduce. lol You are not that naive are you? You really think the super rich evade tax because they think the sytem is unfair or do they do it because they want to keep as much money as they can for themselves. The only way we could stop tax evasion is turn into a tax haven and thankfully that aint gonna happen. Some people can't work for medical reasons and those people have to put up with people like you having a go at them. Some people would love to be able to get out and get a job but not everybody can. You really are a nasty piece of shit. You always have been and i think you always will be. I hope you come down with something and can't work for few months. What will you do then? You piece of crap. Here, here. If anyone here is made redundent and has to spend months lookign for a new job be thankful you live in a country with a job seekers allowance. A country that cares about ALL of its people even when they are not at their most succesful.
Leicester City Posted 6 March 2006 Posted 6 March 2006 Thank you for supporting me. I don't only mean that, but medical problems mean some people can't get jobs. Might be physical reasons or mental reasons. But there is always a reason. Some people abuse the system but MOST people have genuine problems. Some people don't deserve to live- some people who post on here!
Jon the Hat Posted 6 March 2006 Posted 6 March 2006 To be fair to Phil, the one redeeming feature he does have is he DID move to Switzerland after the '97 general election. Yes it does. Research suggests we would need a flat tax level of 22% in order to sustain the current level of government spending. lol You are not that naive are you? You really think the super rich evade tax because they think the sytem is unfair or do they do it because they want to keep as much money as they can for themselves. The only way we could stop tax evasion is turn into a tax haven and thankfully that aint gonna happen. Here, here. If anyone here is made redundent and has to spend months lookign for a new job be thankful you live in a country with a job seekers allowance. A country that cares about ALL of its people even when they are not at their most succesful. It's not just the super rich that use tax planning. Many succesfull professional people do, and if you made it more expensive to manage the schemes than the tax saving then they wouldn't bother. Believe me tax accountants are expensive to hire. Unless you are saving a hefty amount it isn't worth it. I'll say again - earning £100k doesn't make you rich. I'm sitting next a bloke who earns £100k, and he drove to work today in a £650 H reg Volvo. He lives in a nice four bedroom house with his wife and kids. He is not however rich by any stretch of the imagination. I expect you think it is fair to pay inheritance tax on property of £275k too.
Head Honcho Posted 6 March 2006 Posted 6 March 2006 To be fair to Phil, the one redeeming feature he does have is he DID move to Switzerland after the '97 general election. Yes it does. Research suggests we would need a flat tax level of 22% in order to sustain the current level of government spending. lol You are not that naive are you? You really think the super rich evade tax because they think the sytem is unfair or do they do it because they want to keep as much money as they can for themselves. The only way we could stop tax evasion is turn into a tax haven and thankfully that aint gonna happen. Here, here. If anyone here is made redundent and has to spend months lookign for a new job be thankful you live in a country with a job seekers allowance. A country that cares about ALL of its people even when they are not at their most succesful. The problem is though that we have generations of the same family on the dole and not one of them has ever had a job and never will! I'm all for giving people jobseekers allowance, but if you haven't found a job within 6 months, you ain't looking and therefore you should get nothing!
Head Honcho Posted 6 March 2006 Posted 6 March 2006 Thank you for supporting me. I don't only mean that, but medical problems mean some people can't get jobs. Might be physical reasons or mental reasons. But there is always a reason. Some people abuse the system but MOST people have genuine problems. Some people don't deserve to live- some people who post on here! What are you on about? People with medical problems get sickness benefit and fair enough! ..............but what about the wasters who've been on the dole for over 5 years! Whats their excuse? Why should we fund their do nothing lifestyle?
The People's Hero Posted 6 March 2006 Posted 6 March 2006 You nasty piece of shit. Erm... did you actually read what I posted? I'm getting at the people who play the system. Those who genuinely cannot find work, the government should do more for them, offer them work. If they turn that down, they should not be entitled to benefits. Seems about right to me. So, care to elaborate on your post?
davieG Posted 6 March 2006 Posted 6 March 2006 The problem is though that we have generations of the same family on the dole and not one of them has ever had a job and never will! I'm all for giving people jobseekers allowance, but if you haven't found a job within 6 months, you ain't looking and therefore you should get nothing! Unless you've been unemployed for more than six months how would you know? I was made redundant after continuous employment for 34 years, because I had some savings and took some of my pension early I didn't receive a penny in unemployment payments. Why am I telling you that? Well it shows I had a big incentive to find a job, well after 100's of applications and about ten ackowledgements and not a single interview I finally, after 2 long years got a part-time job that paid peanuts. I think that proves your statement to be complete and utter bolloxs.
The People's Hero Posted 6 March 2006 Posted 6 March 2006 I think a number of you have missed the point. It wasn't a dig at people who are genuinely looking for work and are having problems in finding it. In fact, that was made quite clear in my original post. I have a problem with those who expect something for nothing and would turn down the chance to work if offered it. Personal pride comes before that for me.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.