I know what I meant to say, I just haven't explained it very well

To put it in simple terms why should a wealthy person pay 40p tax for every £ they earn when a lower paid person pays only 20p?

I do appreciate its not quite as straightforward as that but hopefully you can see where I am coming from.

 

This government would have done better to ensure that big companies like Tesco and Vodaphone pay the FULL amount of tax owed.

Instead, the HMRC go after the little guy: it took my youngest over a YEAR to get back £600 they owed him, and you would NOT believe how many obstacles they put in his way before they would pay it back.

Yet Vodaphone and Tesco?

Oh, sorry, forgot, MY lad can't give Tory ministers and civil servants fat directorships, can he?

 

Your argument is flawed: a wealthy person pays EXACTLY the same rate of tax as a poorer person, on his income UP TO A CERTAIN FIGURE.
Anything he receives IN EXCESS OF that figure, would be taxed at a higher rate.

Eg: Poor person earns £15000. Pays NO tax on the first £8000, and 25% on the next £7000

Rich person earns £100,000.
Pays NO tax on the first £8000, 25% on the next £32,000, and 40% on the next £50,000.

 

"Employees will receive between £2,000 and £50,000 in return for giving up their rights to bring a claim for unfair dismissal, redundancy, and the right to request flexible working and time off for training."

On the face of it not a bad idea tbf as if you were forced out you'd just cash in your shares eg paid £4k p/m and on 3 months notice then presumably you'd expect £12k of shares otherwise you wouldn't join? The shares would hopefully increase in value over time too. Remember that you have almost no rights at all for the first 24 months (?) of a new job anyway!

TX.

 

I am well aware how the tax system works

So the poor person pays 11.66p for every pound they earn.

The rich person pays 28p for every pound they earn and the more they earn the higher that goes.

As I said I appreciate its not as straightforward as that and people need to live etc.

But where is the incentive nowadays? When I was younger all I wanted was to get a better job so I could get a nicer car, then a better job so I could try and buy a house. Nowadays people just say there is no point getting a job as I will lose my benefits. If they have a job they don't want promotion as if they earn another 10k they will lose the tax credits and so be worse off.

 

Yes and it would give the employee an incentive to do their job well as they would appreciate the harder they work, the better the company does and therefore the more their shares could be worth.

As long as its a choice, I think it is a great idea.

 

He, nice swerve on the CBI link Are they anti - Tory now?

Only the most ardent Blinkered Tory could actually think that giving up hard won employee rights is actually a good idea. Espcially when it is return for a varible amount that could be worthless when you actually want to cash it in.

"Hey whats that? I dont get redundancy pay..Oh thats ok, that £25,000 worth of shares I got when I joined up is there to take.. Whats that? Oooooh right. The company is a 10th of the size it was. Those shares are now worth £2.50. "

Hey, whats that? I have a choice? Hmm, why is this company saying that I have to sign up to the share deal if I want a job?

And lets face it. They only companies that could offer such a scheme are PLCs (no privately owned company is going to offer a share of owenrship)

Yes those poor , poor multinational listed comapnies having to cope with those pesky emplyee protection laws.

The minimum wage will be next on the list to get hit, I guarantee it.

 

Yeah. Where is the incentive to earn £100K and pay 45% after the first £42,000 when you could earn £30,000 and only have to pay 20%?

I mean aside from the stack of extra cash obviously.

 

Once again i have to ask you to tell it to somebody else. It's not a debate with you, it's just a tirade of dogmatic rhetoric. I need to learn not to respond to your posts, note to self.

 

Yup. If you can't stand the heat....

 

It's the blinkers i can't stand. How your partner copes i have no idea.

 

An alternative is that the company is x2 or x3 bigger and your shares have trebled in price! The company that I just left grew from 1100 to 2700 staff in the space of the 10 years that I was there.

TX.

PS 10% of £25k is £2.5k

 

I think Osborne made a tactical error when he reduced top rate from 50% to 45%. OK he wanted to try and keep the rich ones in the UK investing in industry but it gave Labour a political stick. I see in France the top rate may be 75% so I wonder what effect that will have?

I can't work out the reasoning behind the shares instead of rights thing? How can public sector employees, for example, be given shares? They're the ones who are going to get the chop first.

dl

 

TX it MUST be a bad idea, how DARE you suggest otherwise

 

Of course. Course, the price to pay for people being able to make a few extra quid from shares is companies being able to fire people on the spot for , say , wanting time off to have a baby. But hey as long as some of us win, then that all good. (assuming the company makes good on the share price)

 

Well the CBI thinks its a **** idea. And its been met with almost universal dismissal from the press.

But yup, I'm the one thats blinkered

 

Pete, stop just for a nano-second. The reason i'm calling you blinkered is that if ***** had suggested it, you'd be looking for the positive angle. But because it's Osborne it must be a bad idea. That just gets so tiring. Sure it might not suit many, but it's a choice, an apolitical choice. If it's the forerunner to the dismantling of life as we know it then sure, it will be A Bad Thing. But why not at least have a balanced outlook on it, just for once?

 

This is what it says Pete:

"Employees will receive between £2,000 and £50,000 in return for giving up their rights to bring a claim for unfair dismissal, redundancy, and the right to request flexible working and time off for training."

Nowt in there about being sacked for falling pregnant + it's the Law to allow women time off after the baby is born so unless they change that too you'll still be able to do that. Flexible working afaik is about working your 37.5 hrs a week or whatever at a time to suit the employee and employer rather than say 9-5 everyday. It won't suit everybody of course so just say no if it comes up at the interview!

Also worth noting that you can be "fired on the spot" today if you've worked somewhere for less than 24 months.

TX.

 

If ***** had suggested it I would be saying exactly the same thing. A bad idead is a bad idea.

Here's what "unfair dismissal covers:

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Employme...al/DG_10026692

Automatic unfair dismissal
There are some reasons for dismissal that are automatically unfair. If you are dismissed for any of these reasons then you should be able to make a claim to and Employment Tribunal for unfair dismissal.

If your employer dismisses you for exercising or trying to exercise one of your statutory (legal) employment rights you will have been automatically unfairly dismissed.

An employees statutory employment rights include a right to:

•a written statement of employment particulars
•an itemised pay statement
•a minimum notice period
•maternity, paternity or adoption leave
•time off for antenatal care
•parental leave
•time off for dependants
•the right to request flexible working arrangements
•not to be discriminated against because of your gender, race, disability, religion or belief, sexual orientation or age

•guaranteed pay when work is not available for you
•time off for public duties (eg jury service)
•protection against unlawful deductions from wages
•remuneration during suspension on medical grounds
•refusing to do shop or betting work on a Sunday
•making a public interest disclosure or ‘blowing the whistle’


My concern is, and I have seen it happen before when legislation opens the option, it will be come a requirement made by some employers for you to sign up.

 

Speaking of France, my mate is retiring here.

If he could opt to have his teacher's pension taxed here instead of the UK he'd be £2000 a year BETTER off.

 

Do some people ACTUALLY say such a ******** statement as "Note To Self"?

I can just see the idiot doing the quotation sign as well !!!!!!

Priceless .....

 

**** me if that doesn't stink of threatened territory i don't know what does. I like.

 

Back on topic ..... the Tories would love to go back to the days of the 'Lord of the Manor' - with the oiks working everyday, but have Sunday morning off to pray thanks for having a job at all ..... !!!!

Seriously, who would give up the rights - so hard won by men and women of the past - for a handful of silver??

 

You can't REALLY talk like this in real life ....... can you?

 

No Pete, i don't. It was said for effect. You tw@t

 

I like how you refer to yourself with a small i ....... you appreciate how important you are

 

Basic level of tax = 32% (20%+12% NI)
Higher level of tax = 42% (40%+2% NI)

So there is only a 10% difference after £43k earnings, not as bad as the 20 to 40% sounds as higher rate taxpayers get reduced level of NI.

 

I like this, poster with highest post count on SNet vs poster with highest troll count on SNet

TX.

 

Can I ask a question to the brains here, haven't read the whole thread, so sorry if it's been answered.... Aren't a lot of our employment rights actually dictated by Europe? If so, how will we be able to 'opt out' of the legislation? (Particularly when we can't opt out of some of the more ridiculous stuff they force on us!)

 

EFA