Lib Dems raise the threshold of envy

[fido]

.. to £2m (raise little finger to mouth)

i know it's pointless discussing Lib Dem policies which won't see the light of day (thank goodness) but it makes a change from Tiger Woods' car crash ..

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8385575.stm

[JagLover]

fido said:

.. to £2m (raise little finger to mouth)

i know it's pointless discussing Lib Dem policies which won't see the light of day (thank goodness)

Except, possibly, in the event of a hung parliment.

[Andy Zarse]

Personally I think property taxes are the way forward. How can you justify people going out to work, slogging their guts out and getting taxed at 40% for having the temerity to be productive and yet CGT is 18% for doing sweet jack except sitting on your arse thinking how clever you are. Doesn't seem fair somehow.

[derestrictor]

I'll tell you what's fairer still: fewer, lesser rate taxes, period.

40% income tax is, I quite agree, grotesque.

In fact, any double digit rate is unnacceptable.

[Soovy]

derestrictor said:

I'll tell you what's fairer still: fewer, lesser rate taxes, period.

40% income tax is, I quite agree, grotesque.

In fact, any double digit rate is unnacceptable.

Actaully, DeR, when you take account of NI it's 50%.


c s.

[nonegreen]

Soovy said:

derestrictor said:

I'll tell you what's fairer still: fewer, lesser rate taxes, period.

40% income tax is, I quite agree, grotesque.

In fact, any double digit rate is unnacceptable.

Actaully, DeR, when you take account of NI it's 50%.


c s.

Only one answer really, civil servants zis vey please zru zat door zey are only showers.

[JagLover]

Andy Zarse said:

Personally I think property taxes are the way forward. How can you justify people going out to work, slogging their guts out and getting taxed at 40% for having the temerity to be productive and yet CGT is 18% for doing sweet jack except sitting on your arse thinking how clever you are. Doesn't seem fair somehow.

Added to which the private residence exemption mean that many people can avoid tax entirely on one of the most common forms of capital gain, that on the sale of a rental property.

I agree that income and capital gains should be taxed at a similar rate.

[DangerousMike]

surely capital on which gains are made is paid for with income which has already been taxed... therefore its reasonable to have it lower than income tax?

I am not agreeing that income tax is a sensible rate, though.

[madou]

Soovy said:

derestrictor said:

I'll tell you what's fairer still: fewer, lesser rate taxes, period.

40% income tax is, I quite agree, grotesque.

In fact, any double digit rate is unnacceptable.

Actaully, DeR, when you take account of NI it's 50%.


c s.

You mean 61% thanks to The Income Tax Mess

Combined Income Tax and National Insurance Rates 2010/11

Income	Combined Rate
£ 0 – 4,940	0%
£ 4,940 – 6,475	11%
£ 6,475 – 43,875	31%
£ 43,875 – 100,000	41%
£ 100,000 – 106,475	61%
£ 106,475 – 140,000	41%
£ 140,000 – 146,475	61%
£ 146,475 +	41%

Edited by madou on Monday 30th November 12:38

[Lost_BMW]

Lib Dems . . . can someone remind me, what are they for, actually, I forget.

[FourWheelDrift]

Lost_BMW said:

Lib Dems . . . can someone remind me, what are they for, actually, I forget.

Comic Relief.

[Phil1]

Andy Zarse said:

Personally I think property taxes are the way forward. How can you justify people going out to work, slogging their guts out and getting taxed at 40% for having the temerity to be productive and yet CGT is 18% for doing sweet jack except sitting on your arse thinking how clever you are. Doesn't seem fair somehow.

Where "sitting on your arse thinking how clever you are" is a euphemism for potentially risking the entire loss of who knows how much earned income, that's already been taxed? Might be every penny you've ever worked hard and saved.

[youngsyr]

madou said:

Soovy said:

derestrictor said:

I'll tell you what's fairer still: fewer, lesser rate taxes, period.

40% income tax is, I quite agree, grotesque.

In fact, any double digit rate is unnacceptable.

Actaully, DeR, when you take account of NI it's 50%.


c s.

You mean 61% thanks to The Income Tax Mess

Combined Income Tax and National Insurance Rates 2010/11

Income	Combined Rate
£ 0 – 4,940	0%
£ 4,940 – 6,475	11%
£ 6,475 – 43,875	31%
£ 43,875 – 100,000	41%
£ 100,000 – 106,475	61%
£ 106,475 – 140,000	41%
£ 140,000 – 146,475	61%
£ 146,475 +	41%

Edited by madou on Monday 30th November 12:38

If a graduate with student loans managed to bag a job paying in one of the 61% marginal bands, they would actually be paying 70% of every additional £ they earned directly to the government due to 9% student loan repayments. Obviously paying that much tax already isn't enough to cover the cost of their education.

What a fantastic incentive.

[youngsyr]

Phil1 said:

Andy Zarse said:

Personally I think property taxes are the way forward. How can you justify people going out to work, slogging their guts out and getting taxed at 40% for having the temerity to be productive and yet CGT is 18% for doing sweet jack except sitting on your arse thinking how clever you are. Doesn't seem fair somehow.

Where "sitting on your arse thinking how clever you are" is a euphemism for potentially risking the entire loss of who knows how much earned income, that's already been taxed? Might be every penny you've ever worked hard and saved.

Indeed, CGT is a tax on investment (whether it is entrepreneurial, commercial or speculative). Some countried do not tax capital gains at all.

[Guybrush]

... and who is going to do the valuations, on a regular basis (values rise and fall)? ...will this discourage people from maintaining their property? People may be asset rich but may not necessarily be able to afford yet more taxes. This is just mealy-mouthed politics of envy, supported by anyone who is at heart a loser.

[Kermit power]

youngsyr said:

madou said:

Soovy said:

derestrictor said:

I'll tell you what's fairer still: fewer, lesser rate taxes, period.

40% income tax is, I quite agree, grotesque.

In fact, any double digit rate is unnacceptable.

Actaully, DeR, when you take account of NI it's 50%.


c s.

You mean 61% thanks to The Income Tax Mess

Combined Income Tax and National Insurance Rates 2010/11

Income	Combined Rate
£ 0 – 4,940	0%
£ 4,940 – 6,475	11%
£ 6,475 – 43,875	31%
£ 43,875 – 100,000	41%
£ 100,000 – 106,475	61%
£ 106,475 – 140,000	41%
£ 140,000 – 146,475	61%
£ 146,475 +	41%

Edited by madou on Monday 30th November 12:38

If a graduate with student loans managed to bag a job paying in one of the 61% marginal bands, they would actually be paying 70% of every additional £ they earned directly to the government due to 9% student loan repayments. Obviously paying that much tax already isn't enough to cover the cost of their education.

What a fantastic incentive.

I understand the point you're trying to make, but I don't think it stands up to scrutiny.

If I'd managed to blag a job on £100k+ straight out of university, I'd have considered every single penny my parents and I had spent on my education to be an absolute bargain!

Given that there's no reason to assume that your income is ever going to go down, what would you prefer? Don't go to uni and maybe get a job on £20k, or get a job on £100k and swallow the extra tax for a bit. You're still going to be taking home more than the poor sucker on £20k.

The people who get really screwed by all of this are those who graduate and then go into necessary but not particularly brilliantly paid jobs. You know. The sort of jobs that never needed a degree until Tony decided we should all have one.

[youngsyr]

Kermit power said:

youngsyr said:

madou said:

Soovy said:

derestrictor said:

I'll tell you what's fairer still: fewer, lesser rate taxes, period.

40% income tax is, I quite agree, grotesque.

In fact, any double digit rate is unnacceptable.

Actaully, DeR, when you take account of NI it's 50%.


c s.

You mean 61% thanks to The Income Tax Mess

Combined Income Tax and National Insurance Rates 2010/11

Income	Combined Rate
£ 0 – 4,940	0%
£ 4,940 – 6,475	11%
£ 6,475 – 43,875	31%
£ 43,875 – 100,000	41%
£ 100,000 – 106,475	61%
£ 106,475 – 140,000	41%
£ 140,000 – 146,475	61%
£ 146,475 +	41%

Edited by madou on Monday 30th November 12:38

If a graduate with student loans managed to bag a job paying in one of the 61% marginal bands, they would actually be paying 70% of every additional £ they earned directly to the government due to 9% student loan repayments. Obviously paying that much tax already isn't enough to cover the cost of their education.

What a fantastic incentive.

I understand the point you're trying to make, but I don't think it stands up to scrutiny.

If I'd managed to blag a job on £100k+ straight out of university, I'd have considered every single penny my parents and I had spent on my education to be an absolute bargain!

Given that there's no reason to assume that your income is ever going to go down, what would you prefer? Don't go to uni and maybe get a job on £20k, or get a job on £100k and swallow the extra tax for a bit. You're still going to be taking home more than the poor sucker on £20k.

The people who get really screwed by all of this are those who graduate and then go into necessary but not particularly brilliantly paid jobs. You know. The sort of jobs that never needed a degree until Tony decided we should all have one.

From my point of view, if you're already paying substantially more tax than the average joe because you went to university, worked hard and got a well-paying job, why should you then have to pay even more to the government for the benefit of going to university?

You're effectively paying two additional taxes for going to university: higher income tax on your salary and student loan repayments to cover your costs whilst you were there.

The other angle is the disincentivisation of talented individuals by forcing to pay for your tuition. A significant proportion of talented and motivated graduates will become higher rate tax payers within a few years of graduating and will therefore be paying 50p of every additional £1 they earn to the government.

Firstly, given the choice of overtime/working harder, why would anyone choose to work 200% of their hours/work for 150% of the pay (for example)?

Secondly, people will consider the additional costs before embarking on a degree and may well come to the conclusion that a slightly better paid job, paying a higher rate of tax and being saddled with tens of thousands of pounds worth of debt is less attractive than an average paid job, paying a lower tax rate, without the debt. That is hardly conducive to encouraging our most talented young people to strive to perform their best for themselves and indirectly our economy.

To put it bluntly, with encouraging all and sundry to go to university and then saddling them with huge debts for being there, Labour have fked our higher education system.

[anonymous-user]

fido said:

i know it's pointless discussing Lib Dem policies which won't see the light of day (thank goodness) but it makes a change from Tiger Woods' car crash ..

Be careful that which you dismiss so easily. A hung parliament is becoming more and more likely and Labour are announcing that there will be a referendum on electoral reform in the first 2 years of a new labour government. They are doing that for 1 reason only, to secure lib dem backing in the event of a hung parliament.

The prospect of Clegg and his loonies wielding power is a frightening one and moreso because it is more likely now that at any time since the 70's.

[DJC]

bd robbing cock sucking mother fking Revenue lickers.


That is all.