Freak

well the more you earn. generally the harder you have to work for it....why the f*ck should you be penalised for it?????

[img]images/smilies/mad.gif[/img]

MY 2 euros worth......
i dunno- our household tax bill annually is more than some families take home over several yrs....yeah its worked hard for....and what does it go on?
Sh*tty NHS-we have private healthcare (again proving the point that the nmore you earn the less burden you are generally on the state)
Sh*tty roads-
Peanuts pension-again all sorted with savings etc
Asylum seekers!
Stupid wars

the list could go on and on and take up more bandwidth than this forum can offer i imagine.
then when you die, they take more!!!!!



ahem


[/rant]


[Edited by Freak - 7/2/2003 10:59:53 PM]

south-star

You obviously live a very sheltered life mate if thats what you think.

Well said Marko,at least someone has some intelligence here.

As far as i know he's a tax exile who has resided in Switzerland since 1990.
Just like in 1998 the Spice girls saved 32 million quid by becoming tax exiles during their world tour.They paid not one single penny in income tax,so much for paying more than their fair share,how about ANY share.

[Edited by south-star - 7/3/2003 9:48:20 PM]

camk

Gordo,
I pay way more tax than I did in the UK, especially if I take my compulsary health insurance into account and even by leveraging my wife's allowance since she's not working.
If you want to get picky I also pay 5% of my total TAX in an additional Reunification tax. VAT is only 16.8%. I pay about the same in local taxes as I did(still do) on my house in Glasgow.
Drink,food and ciggies are cheaper here, as is petrol but housing(my rental is verus what I'd get in Glasgow for the same cash) is way more expensive. I'd say that the difference is that tax is higher but cost of living is lower(where I live anyway) but it probably evens out because good's in the UK are much more expensive. However its wrong to say that tax is the same between UK and Europe, overall cost of living is similar, there are gap's in taxation.
A mate of mine just got made redundant in Germany, only the first 5,000quid is tax free, versus 30,000quid in the UK. He paid over 50% of his redundancy cheque in TAX. Think about that.

[Edited by camk - 7/4/2003 1:48:47 PM]

camk

Stevie,
I initially just said 40% is one of the lowest top rates in Europe. I just used the redundancy example to highlight that again the UK is not as bad as it seems. BTW I'm certain that my 620Euros per month is more than I'd pay in NI in the UK. Bottom line is that I on average(just checked) pay more than 46% IN TOTAL(after allowances) on tax/healthcare. The top rate in the UK is 40% plus 1% for NI so its never going to be as bad as here. If I remember I used to pay about 35% in total in the UK. Denmark and France are I believe worse than Germany. Take it from me its not all bad in the UK. Although I nearly died on Monday when I saw 5quid in Glasgow on a cigarette machine for 20.....only 3-4 Euros in Europe.

Cammy

[Edited by camk - 7/4/2003 2:06:42 PM]

camk

Wannabescooby,
What facts do you base your comment 'Too Much for Too little on' ? Or is it just a hunch type of thing ? Just for clarification.

[Edited by camk - 7/4/2003 2:31:13 PM]

tiggers

Chip,

Sorry I haven't got back to you sooner, been out all day working in the mine - Oh sorry can't have been can I? - Maggie closed them all down ;-)

You really are a typical old tory aren't you - you're losing one argument so you ignore it and try and start another. ;-)

You say why don't we concentrate on important things - well I thought lending rates that allow people to afford the roof over their head, inflation that allows people to buy what they need and unemployment which if low allows people to work and earn a living were important, but there you go.

If you wish I will answer each of your points, but I really don't think you'd be convinced by my arguments anyway. I'm not saying that Labour are by any means perfect, but I do think they are a lot better than the Tories were or will be in the near future.

It is also interesting to note the irony in your posts. You ask me not to use the argument that Labour are still having to put right 18 years of Tory rule, but in a post just above you claim that inflation was high under the Tories due to the excessive union wage demands even though the highest inflation under the Tory rule came some 9 years after Maggie came to power and "crushed the unions" (sic). Hmmmmm!!!

Take care,

tiggers (and whippet).

[Edited by tiggers - 7/5/2003 11:02:41 PM]

Welshman

Can anyone justify the additional percentage taken off people who earn in excess of approx £33k?. Just because you earn more does not mean that you avail yourself of more services. The opposite is more likely to be correct.
Therefore all earnings above this level should be, at the very most, taxed at the standard level. This would act as an incentive for others to work harder and attain better salaries.
wm

tiggers

It's very simple really - it's called society. If you earn more then you should pay a bit more to help those not as fortunate as yourself.

Attitudes like yours are part of the problem with the UK and have come about largely as a result of the 'greed is good' Thatcher years.

Just my 2 cents worth.

Regards,

tiggers.

boomer

tiggers says...
but what he really means is that "because you earn more, you should pay more of more"


It is very simple really - governments are greedy (when it comes to others, as MPs seem to have things quite nice, thankyou very much)

mb

RON

You don't have to go back that far in this country to find that tax for high earners was 19 shillings in every pound, that equals a 95%tax rate, how would you like that back!
Quit moaning, I'd like to be in a position to have to pay higher levels of tax, hell, I wouldn't even object to paying the lower levels of tax!!!

fast bloke

30 years ago the top rate could get as high as 98% under certain circumstances

boxst

Hello

An interesting question. It's the Robin Hood theory: Take from the rich to feed the poor.

And in theory it's not a bad idea.

it gets frustrating when:

1/ My wife has given up work to look after the children, so as I get taxed at a higher rate our take home pay is alot less than two people working earning alot less. So there should be some tax break.

2/ All these people who claim benefit, housing, unemployment and then work on the side. Or as is the case of some immigrants (in a non racist way) get a flat from the government and then sub-lease it to lots of illegal families.

Steve.

Chip

Personally I wouldnt mind paying little more tax if it went to a good cause instead of paying for things like Asylum seekers, Iraqi wars,lazy *******s that wont work,MPs expense accounts et al.

Chip.

scoob_babe

totally agree with Chip

what would scooby do

we should bin the NHS and welfare system full stop (IMHO)

wannabeScooby

Couldnt agree more with Chip. I was going to put a huge post up cos this topic gets me really wound up. I am asian and the amount of people giving the attitude that we (asians) are lazy and skiv of the government is untrue. My dad works 2 jobs, my mum in access of 50+ hours a week and me as a student have had plenty of part time jobs just to get by. I'm not saying that anyone on here have said this, quite the contrary, I enjoy the attitude on here which is why I'm on this site. I can't afford a Scooby yet, but I'm saving up. I don't get taxed as a student, but I feel for the people that do. I really do. Its a B**** and I think these asylum seekers should all be made to work for minimum wage. I mean, if they've had such bad lives whereever they came from then packing pies at a sandwich factory must be heaven for them. Plus they can earn their own way without getting a bad rep. Same goes for people who don't work cos they are too lazy and still get benefit.

Sorry for the long post, I know I said it wasnt going to be! But, like I said... this topic gets under my skin so much!

Mustafa

ProperCharlie

The value of currency is all relative to the standard of living that it can buy you. If taxes were scrapped, would all us rich mother****ers suddenly be 50% or more better off in terms of our standard of living? Or would all the poor mother****ers get together and bash up the rich mother****ers? Would scrapping taxes lead to devaluation?

I mean, when I look at my payslip I look at the number at the bottom, not the top. When I fill up my car, I look at the £ sign on the pump. That's what it costs me, regardless of the fact that 70% of those £s are going to the treasury.

Charlie

MarkO

TBH, within reason, I don't see it as unreasonable to tax people earning significantly more to help those less fortunate. And once you get about 40-50k, I don't necessarily think that people work proportionally harder than their increase in pay implies. For example, when I was earning 100k+, there's no way in this world that I was working 6 times harder than, say, a nurse on 16k. In fact, quite the opposite - whilst I worked hard and had a bit of stress, in reality (being totally honest here) driving a desk and spending half the day surfing the net was a bit of a doss.

If Robbie Williams earns 70m quid, then why not tax him at a higher percentage? Nobody can say that he works had to earn it, he's just a valuable commodity, which is a different thing altogether.

Anyway, tax is the least of the problem. What winds me up is National 'Insurance'. FFS - why don't they just abolish it and/or call it tax. I begrudge the fact that I'm paying for insurance on something which I can (and will) never claim on. I pay for my own life assurance, critical illness cover, medical and dental cover. By the time I retire, the state pension won't just be too small to live on, it won't actually exist at all. So WTF continue with this charade of NI?!?!? Why not just increase tax a little bit (relative to earnings) and abolish NI altogether?!? [img]images/smilies/mad.gif[/img]

ProperCharlie

I agree with MarkO,

I don't (particularly) mind being taxed, I do resent the way it's dressed up to be something it's not. I also think that the govt. makes it cost too much to employ people. Why haven't they got the ***** to come out and say: Ok this is how much we are going to tax you - get on with it.

Take the reduction in grants to local authorities. any moron could work out that this was going to mean higher council tax; it's just a way of B Liar trying to avoid responsibility for it. Also, it hurts people who are struggling on low wages disproportionately as there is no means testing.

Andy Gough

Why the hell should I work harder to help those 'less fortunate'.

On that basis, bernie eccleston should be giving me a few of his ££££££££s, 'cos I'm less fortunate than him.

No way. He has worked harder, been in the right place at the right time and made the most of his opportunities.

Good luck to anyone richer than me - there's lot os them.

If people want to give to losers, it should be voluntary, not compusulory. The tax system just creates jobs, with only a small proportion actually getting to where its most needed.
If you don't believe me, just get ill and risk your life with the NHS. My dad tried it and paid with his life due to absolute incompetence.

BlueSimon

I dont agree with wannabe because i think they should pack sandwiches at a sandwich factory and not pies

Sorry in advance, i dont get out much as i cant aford it

Simon

ProperCharlie

Andy - no-one's suggesting that you should "work harder". As I understand it, Mark's point is that beyond a certain point people who are richer do not work harder - they just get paid more.

MarkO

Andy Gough, what a selfish and pious attitude. Couple of points:

1. Ecclestone hasn't worked harder than, say, me or you. He's just been lucky, had money and opportunities that others won't/haven't had, and has also used fairly underhand tactics to get where he is today.

2. If everyone took your attitude, we'd live in a particularly cr@p society. Not everyone's lucky enough to get a decent upbringing/education/job so they can support themselves. The whole point of having a supposedly civilised society is that the less-fortunate don't just die in the gutter but can be helped to acheive something. If you lost your job, or were crippled in an accident tomorrow, and couldn't earn, would your "me, me, me" attitude feel so great when you ended up not being able to support yourself?

The fact is, I'm not suggesting that everyone should shell out 95% of their cash, but if you're earning 50k+ it's not unreasonable to chuck a bit more of that into the social system to help those less fortunate. For somebody earning a 6-figure sum, contributing an extra couple of thousand a year wouldn't really make a significant difference to them day-to-day....

Try taking a look at yourself, and other people, and consider what a self-centred and tight attitude yours is...

Suresh

Personally I am happy to pay more in tax to give more equality across society. The larger the gap between the have and have-nots, the more likely it is the have-nots come round and steal it from the haves. Income disparity in the US is massive and social problems are equally significent.
Over here in the Netherlands, the headline top tax rate is 52% without NI. However, mortgage relief still exists (at the marginal tax rate ) so things really are not too bad.

Suresh

Andy Hall

I think that if your wife stops work to look after kids, you should be able to split the tax of the income. She is still working just in the home (and I know where I would rather be).

OK Robbie just landed £70m, even at flat rate thats still £18.9 million he is paying in tax which aint bad for one bloke.

OK he's got more than he could ever spend, he's just been successful and very well publicised hence the amount of money.

Even so a bloke earning £50k against a bloke earning £25k at flat rate would still be paying twice the amount of tax so why should he be penalised further.


I personally think if you pull your self up by the boot straps and work your backside off, you should at least be able to enjoy a little of the finer things rather than just "bung it in Tony's bomb fund"

wannabeScooby

Marko, I dont know you know. I don't think someone who is in a highly paid job should cough out more cash. They're there cos they worked hard to get there, and that's why they sit behind a desk surfing the net now. I'd like to think I'm working/studying my b***s off now so I dont have to when I'm 45+. If someone the same age as me now is just dossing around and can't be bothered to do anything with their life... then why in 20 years time should I pay out more for them to afford a house or raise their children? I haven't had any special opportunities or luck. I studied so I could get in to Uni (which in itself is a bloody expensive experience). Everyone gets the opportunity to go to school! I'm working hard now so I don't have to rely on anyone else in the future, I think they should do the same. If they don't, then its their tough luck.

Fullonloon

If you earn more, you pay more, simple as that. What I do think is that the base rate should shift to above 30k so you get taxed at a higher rate above 30k and then say 40% up to 60k, 45% up to 100k and then 55% above that? High earners (above 100k) and there are plenty should pay more IMO.

Stevie

As somebody has stated, the more you earn the more tax you pay.

Why aren't people satisfied with that FFS.

Why should you pay a higher rate of tax than others because you earn more? If any govnt brings back the tier system of taxation, over and above what we have at present, they can kiss the next election goodbye!

As for Ecclestone, didn't he start with nothing? I dont think he is lucky at all. I have utmost respect to anybody who gets on with things and gets things done!

Luck has very little, if anything, to do with success/wealth. I think Gary Player said, "THe harder I try, the more I practice, the luckier I become". Enough said, IMHO.

Vate

Surely there has to be a certain amount of money that people need in order to not be dependent on hand outs to live a reasonable lifestyle? A tiered system of tax is almost certainly the best way to ensure that the tax burden does not need to be increased to support those on lower incomes. There is a very big difference between paying 40% as an upper rate of income tax and that level being so high as to discourage people from earning any more gross income. I would say that we are some way below this 'capping' level. There is no doubt that reducing the income tax burden and increasing the level of indirect taxation makes people baulk at an increase in income tax (or ceiling free NI). There is certainly a point where once you have a certain net income you just end up spending money because you can not because there are things you really need (even luxuries).
I thought about the diff between one income other spouse stay home families and those where both partners work. I came to the conclusion that where there are children the extra cost of childcare offsets the diff in net incomes and that where there are no kids the reduced stress on the stay at home partner makes up for it.

Welshman

It would appear that most feel as I do. We dont object paying tax on all of our earnings. The problem is paying a larger percentage of our earnings purely because we earn more.
The argument is that the extra tax and NI (because Tony tells us NI isn't a form of income tax??) is providing better services for us all. Anyone noticed hospital waiting lists falling or public transport improving ????
It's not more cash that these organisations need, it's a management who are publicaly accountable, not the current lot who couldn't run a Whelk stall
WM