"we're all in this together"

[eFestivals]

Neil,

Paddydog went off what you actually did say.. The thing is you said the wrong thing and then spent the next 3 pages trying to make yourself look good again by trying to change the argument.

I said (according to paddydog, I've not checked back to double-check) "the average % tax paid by those in the higher tax brackets (earning £44k+ a year) actually pay a lower proportion of their wages in tax".

Paddydog has ONLY addressed the standard income tax regime.

Care to point out where those words of mine mention specifically income tax, and just income tax?

[eFestivals]

So you think it is wrong, while at the same time highlighting how it keeps people in jobs and keeps business ticking along...

Removing this loophole is not something which only has the effect of removing the loophole.

Your mum shorted you of those dot-to-dot puzzles as kid, didn't she?

You think it is wrong, but you will use it your advantage...

Nope, NOT "advantage". It puts me on a level playing field with every other business that does it too.

My business would be disadavantged if I didn't do it. That's a disadvantage that the company cannot afford to carry.

You can't tell the difference between benefits and taxation...

The economic effect of both is equal. Someone with the most basic grasp of economics wo0uld know that.

[paddydog]

I said (according to paddydog, I've not checked back to double-check) "the average % tax paid by those in the higher tax brackets (earning £44k+ a year) actually pay a lower proportion of their wages in tax".

Paddydog has ONLY addressed the standard income tax regime.

Care to point out where those words of mine mention specifically income tax, and just income tax?

[eFestivals]

"Wages in tax". What else could it mean?

It means what it EXPLICITLY says.

It doesn't mean what it doesn't say, what you are idiotically claiming. It does NOT say "Wages in income tax".

Spot the difference?

[eFestivals]

I think that is pretty much a home run... The statement wasn't open ended and ambiguous

You just earned a +1

Ahhh, two people that can't read, and who prefers their self-invented delusions.

No sensible conversation can be had with the deluded, who will only have a debate on what they are fantasising and not on what is actually said.

[paddydog]

I think that is pretty much a home run... The statement wasn't open ended and ambiguous

Edited October 14, 2010 by paddydog

[eFestivals]

I think I've finished here now anyway. I took up the issue because it isn't the first time I've heard someone misguidedly repeat this nonsense. My concern was and is not whether how much tax you pay as a proportion of earnings is right or wrong - that is a separate issue. I simply wanted to set the facts staright - which I've done - and anyone readin the thread can see that. Efestivals have made themselves look somewhat silly in the process, which is a shame, but never mind.

The misguided is you, who can't read.

Please show me where I said I was talking about just income tax? You can't, because I haven't.

Yet you have only looked at this on income tax.

You are insisting on debating something different to what I actually said. The silly one is you.

[eFestivals]

"actually pay a lower proportion of their wages in tax"

maybe he's talking about all taxes: VAT, road tax, coucil tax, everything?

As indeed I was.

It's all a bit too complicated for the simple minded tho.

[paddydog]

"actually pay a lower proportion of their wages in tax"

maybe he's talking about all taxes: VAT, road tax, coucil tax, everything?

Edited October 14, 2010 by paddydog

[eFestivals]

When you are talking about wages / income / salary and someone mentions "tax" then I think it is fair to only consider directly related tax. It was surely in Neils court to clarify his own point outside what is reasonable to presume.

Or is debate on here really that pointless

My words were clear.

If I'd have meant "income tax" I'd have said "income tax".

[eFestivals]

How? If someone earning £20K or £50K spends all of their income - which they are likely to do - they will incur larger tax costs. Bigger house - more council tax; bigger car - more road tax; all disposable income spent on luxuries - more VAT; bigger salary - proportionately more income tax. How is that difficult to comprehend?

Some people earning £50k will spend all of their income.

And some won't.

And some earning £100k will spend all of their income. But it will be a smaller proportion that do than those earning just half of that.

Etc, etc, etc.

How is THAT difficult to comprehend?

[llcoolphil]

When you are talking about wages / income / salary and someone mentions "tax" then I think it is fair to only consider directly related tax. It was surely in Neils court to clarify his own point outside what is reasonable to presume.

Or is debate on here really that pointless

[eFestivals]

oh so we are back to the deliberately open ended and ambiguous accusation then

The only weird accusations are coming from you and paddydog, who are claiming my clear words said something different to what they actually said.

Show me where I said I was referring to just income tax. You can't.

YOU have taken my words, and added in the words "income tax" to them. I've been pointing that out to you over countless pages.

FFS.

[eFestivals]

Yeah but this is were Neil starts to have a point.. The amount of goods received vs tax paid would probably be lower than someone on a lower wage... Even with all these things factored in...

It is very hard to get into because it very much depends on what someone does with there money...

Another open ended and ambiguous debate Neil will apply tight rules to...but won't actually specify the rules

I've specified 'the rules'. The 'rules' are what I've said.

The 'rules' are NOT what your deluded mind wants to believe I've said.

FFS.

Edited October 14, 2010 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

By moving away from what could be reasonably presumed did not help the debate.... It was just another vehicle for you to call someone a c**t...

'Reasonable' would have required it to be said, NOT for you to make it up from nothing.

But even so, I immediately said that I wasn't referring to just income tax. It was immediately clarified for you.

But you've carried on and on and on and on with your deluded version.

FFS.

[eFestivals]

What scares me the most is you walk away from this thinking you handled yourself correctly...

why do you think I think that? I don't give a shit how people think I handled it.

I was merely concentrating in refuting the deluded bollocks that you kept posting.

What a troll...

says the man who has been trolling with his deluded bollocks.

FFS.

[Gre]

Well, yeah - other taxpayers. As is the case with all the options outside of the PAYE regime. But they exist, and they only came to exist exactly for them to be exploited.

[eFestivals]

I was more thinking about customers & creditors who getting ripped off when people asset-shift from company to company to company.

ahhh, that happens of course.

But I was thinking tax avoidance, not out and out crooks.

From a very lazy google (the source isn't even good enough to warrant quoting), I think its about 8 million. Which seems more sensible.

as I posted yesterday (I guess after you'd gone), companies house says "over 2 million", but I'm guessing I got the 30M from something I saw some when in the last few years that said 3M - and I somehow added a zero my head.

But as I also pointed out yesterday, that number doesn't include sole traders/partnerships, etc, which I guessed at around double the companies house number - which comes in around the 8M you quote. I'd say that's probably in the right sort of area.

But I'm definitely right Dividends are subject to Income tax, but at different rates to other income.

I'm not going to question your technical angle on it.

But to me it's a different thing, precisely because it has a different rate.

Up to the higher rate threshold the tax is deemed to have been paid, so the effective rate of tax on the dividend you recieve is Nil.

I'm extremely glad you said that, as the way I'd read it yesterday when I googled was that I should be paying 10% on it (even tho my accountant says nil). So that's my mind fully at rest.

[Gre]

ahhh, that happens of course.

But I was thinking tax avoidance, not out and out crooks.

[feral chile]

Fair enough, I haven't come across it the other way yet

Oh I know, I know, just wanted to throw my oar in

If you want to know the full (and dull) calculation; To work out your taxable income, you gross up the dividend actually received by 10/9. Then after you've worked out your tax payable you take away the tax you're already deemed to have paid - which is the 10% of the gross dividend.

So as long as you're in basic rate the effective tax rate you pay is 0%, and at higher rate the effective rate is 25%.

Fun fun... time for a beer!

[feral chile]

£90 dividend

£10 credit

£100 Gross Taxable Income

32% of the £100 = £32.50

£32.50 - £10 credit = £22.50

£22.50 is 1/4 (25%) of the £90...

So the quick way of working out your tax liability is to multiple the net amount by 25%.

£90 * 0.25 = £22.50

[5co77ie]

I knew it was going to be bad but:

Combined with forecasts about the number of jobs in public sector organisations under threat, almost a million workers could face unemployment, the report warned.

[5co77ie]

Seems the American mortgage system may be corrupt! - there's not much that's easy to link to on this, but it seems more than 4 international banks including HSBC are under investigation as all the paperwork for many US mortgages has not been kept as they were swapped among financial institutions - whilst it's good news for home owners in the USA who may find their mortgages are torn up, it's bad news for the financial institutions and could lead to America's economy stalling, the banks losing trillions and in need of another bail out - which obviously will have no effect here, as Labour who caused the global collapse are no longer in power.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/13/every-state-to-participat_n_761066.html

with a possibility that the $10.6 trillion residential mortgage market may get frozen - leading to American banks having very little financial resources

[eFestivals]

isn't it funny how a tax cut for the rich (the removal of Child Benefit for those earning £44k+) has been the only part of the cuts to public benefit to be revealed ahead of the full details?

That's a strange coincidence eh? They're not going to use that one cut to justify all the other cuts on the poorest, are they?

And isn't it funny how the party that spent the last five years condemning Labour for not financially supporting the military are cutting back on military expenditure?

[eFestivals]

now they're scrapping the Severn tidal energy scheme...

so the world and it's global warming problems will just have to wait

these schemes, apart from being necessary for all kinds of reasons, can actually generate economies

c**ts!!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-somerset-11564284

yep - bleeding stupid. If one of the biggest tidal ranges in the world isn't suitable for a scheme like this, then nowhere is.

I happened to stumble across the fact that carbon capture and storage (CCS) - which is meant to be Britain's saviour from greenhouse gases - will actually use 25% of the power generated by a power station, making coal and CCS an extremely expensive option for power generation.