Sheaf Saint Posted 8 February, 2011 Share Posted 8 February, 2011 (edited) http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/feb/07/tax-city-heist-of-century Why wasn't this mentioned in the election manifesto I wonder? Edit: Mods can you please correct my spelling mistake in the thread title? Edited 8 February, 2011 by Sheaf Saint Mis-spelling Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 8 February, 2011 Share Posted 8 February, 2011 http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/feb/07/tax-city-heist-of-century Why wasn't this mentioned in the election manifesto I wonder? Edit: Mods can you please correct my spelling mistake in the thread title? As you're quoting an un-biased Guardian article, a spelling mistake in the title would seem rather in keeping.... ;-) To answer the question though...."Why wasn't this included in their manifesto?"....for the same politicial reasons that Labour didn't have "We pledge to start illegal wars" or "we will sell all our gold" or "we will rob your pension" (etc etc) in theirs, one assumes.....? ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
holepuncture Posted 8 February, 2011 Share Posted 8 February, 2011 Good article, disturbing, but good still! if we stayed with Labour = bankrupt country. sold our souls to the Tories = cuts and short medium term stability. We have sold most of our national assets and resources, we also have an enourmous societal burden known as the nanny state. Though ours is unique, as were propping up not only our own, but we are also propping up families who have come here (for our diminishing resources) to live... Clearly unsustainable... I doubt the Swiss has a nanny state! So the elite are gonna avoid more tax, and the middle classes are gonna have to carry the weight of the country more than they ever knew = unsustainable and painful It appears to me that those that are running our country, banks and businesses, are simply put 'taking their money and running'. They can see the writing on the wall, however theres still plenty more for them to exploit over the next 10-20 years. so they are managing expectations as the middle incomes keep towing the line. The problem is, the educated and street wise are already well briefed about this, the new middle class may reject this system. There not producing many children anymore, its only the lower classes banging them out. oh, and polish and muslims, all on the state of course. The only way there will be a fair resolution will be when the west accepts the systems in place are unfair on the rest of the world, and accept a far lesser quality of life. it would save millions of lives, but it aint gonna happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 8 February, 2011 Share Posted 8 February, 2011 FFS the banks can move abroad when they like and avoid tax. i have no time for the greed the banks showed in the past, but iam happy that they produce wealth and taxes that keep our economy going. The NHS produces no income for the nation, if we have no wealth providers we have no NHS. When will the Guardian readers understand that it is only through UK PLC making money will we provide for the weak. The oil and gas revenues have been wasted on our social system, instead of investing in the infrastructure of the nation we spent the money on welfare. You of course look after the weak but labours excesses wasted so much of our resources. The Tories will do so as well. Selling off the forests will not make much difference to the majority of us, there is no way that there will not be strings attached and that the more accessible forest will still be there for the man in the street, but i doubt many of us have ever really gone out into the forests apart from a picnic at Brockenhurst, except for a few Guardian readers of course. We have to duck and dive and make the UK the best place for companies to invest and so create jobs, making us Tax competitive will be a major way in doing so. I will be a victim as i'm not rich enough to emigrate to a tax haven, but as i have done all my working life i will pay my fair share and get on with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheaf Saint Posted 8 February, 2011 Author Share Posted 8 February, 2011 All good points OldNick, but how can it possibly help the country if all of the large companies start outsourcing everything abroad so they don't have to pay any tax on their revenue? You may well be happy to pay your fair share and get on with it, but I can't go along like that in the knowledge that the super-rich elite are just taking the p*** and extracting more money from the economy. We're supposed to be all in this together, remember? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 8 February, 2011 Share Posted 8 February, 2011 bexy, you should go and live in a tree in the amazon....would make you feel better Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheaf Saint Posted 8 February, 2011 Author Share Posted 8 February, 2011 Well thank you for your intelligent and reasoned input into the debate delldays. Out of interest, what are your thoughts on it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anothersaintinsouthsea Posted 8 February, 2011 Share Posted 8 February, 2011 As you're quoting an un-biased Guardian article, a spelling mistake in the title would seem rather in keeping.... ;-) To answer the question though...."Why wasn't this included in their manifesto?"....for the same politicial reasons that Labour didn't have "We pledge to start illegal wars" or "we will sell all our gold" or "we will rob your pension" (etc etc) in theirs, one assumes.....? ;-) I don't think pointing out Labour's failings has any relevance to be honest. Just because Labour did some crap things before doesn't mean we shouldn't hold the Tories to account. I've not been impressed with Cameron so far and I didn't vote Labour so whatever Labour did or didn't know is irrelevant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dune Posted 8 February, 2011 Share Posted 8 February, 2011 I don't think pointing out Labour's failings has any relevance to be honest. Just because Labour did some crap things before doesn't mean we shouldn't hold the Tories to account. I've not been impressed with Cameron so far and I didn't vote Labour so whatever Labour did or didn't know is irrelevant. Who did you vote for? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anothersaintinsouthsea Posted 8 February, 2011 Share Posted 8 February, 2011 Who did you vote for? It is irrelevant, policy should be judged on its merits or lack of. If the response to a criticism of a policy is "well the other lot would have done worse" then where do you draw the line? e.g. A: I don't like Cameron's plan on corporation tax; B: What? well what about Harold Wilson! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rocknrollman no2 Posted 8 February, 2011 Share Posted 8 February, 2011 All good points OldNick, but how can it possibly help the country if all of the large companies start outsourcing everything abroad so they don't have to pay any tax on their revenue? You may well be happy to pay your fair share and get on with it, but I can't go along like that in the knowledge that the super-rich elite are just taking the p*** and extracting more money from the economy. We're supposed to be all in this together, remember? Great post!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 8 February, 2011 Share Posted 8 February, 2011 I don't think pointing out Labour's failings has any relevance to be honest. Just because Labour did some crap things before doesn't mean we shouldn't hold the Tories to account. I've not been impressed with Cameron so far and I didn't vote Labour so whatever Labour did or didn't know is irrelevant. I tend to disagree. The questioner was wondering why "party X" omitted a policy from their manifesto. By using other examples, I was simply highlighting that it is something that happens all the time, regardless of political party. The questioner was 'picking' on the Tories as his example of this human behaviour. I simply picked on a few Labour examples in the interests of balance. :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
solentstars Posted 8 February, 2011 Share Posted 8 February, 2011 http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/feb/07/tax-city-heist-of-century Why wasn't this mentioned in the election manifesto I wonder? Edit: Mods can you please correct my spelling mistake in the thread title? well they have got to pay their paymasters back Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
solentstars Posted 8 February, 2011 Share Posted 8 February, 2011 I don't think pointing out Labour's failings has any relevance to be honest. Just because Labour did some crap things before doesn't mean we shouldn't hold the Tories to account. I've not been impressed with Cameron so far and I didn't vote Labour so whatever Labour did or didn't know is irrelevant. i agree seeing it was the fatcats of the world who caused his mess and we have bailed them out again Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anothersaintinsouthsea Posted 8 February, 2011 Share Posted 8 February, 2011 I tend to disagree. The questioner was wondering why "party X" omitted a policy from their manifesto. By using other examples, I was simply highlighting that it is something that happens all the time, regardless of political party. The questioner was 'picking' on the Tories as his example of this human behaviour. I simply picked on a few Labour examples in the interests of balance. :-) OK, see where you're coming from. In that respect your response was a reasonable one. On the other hand two wrongs and all that...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 8 February, 2011 Share Posted 8 February, 2011 OK, see where you're coming from. In that respect your response was a reasonable one. On the other hand two wrongs and all that...... Indeed. Alas, I don't have any magic formula to explain why most politicians fall into the 'wrong' bracket rather than the 'right' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benjii Posted 8 February, 2011 Share Posted 8 February, 2011 As an aside, this proposal was of course stated in the budget back in June last year, with detailed proposals (including draft legislation) being published in November. Seems that it takes some time for news to filter down to Guardian hack-central.. Regarding the merits of the specific proposal, this is an eminently sensible move with the clear goals, inter alia, of: (i) bringing the treatment of branches in line with that of foreign subsidiaries, reducing the arbitrary corporate structure incentives inherent in CTA 2009, s.5; (ii) moving the UK ever closer to a pure territorial corporate tax system (in line with the prevailing global trend), with the obvious objective of increasing the competitiveness of the foreign operations of domestic companies; and (iii) of course limiting the risk of redomiciliation of UK resident companies to more commercially attractive climes. All this is a good thing for the UK economy, and hence a good thing for the tax-consuming majority who live off people like me (the minority of productive tax-producers). However, I've learnt to expect that populist hacks and the economically clueless majority who inhabit CIF rarely seem to understand what is actually in their own long run interests... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benjii Posted 8 February, 2011 Share Posted 8 February, 2011 By the way, I copied that from the comments under the article but I would suggest if it is news to you, dear reader, then you are probably not qualified to hold a strong opinion on this matter and even less qualified to make portentous, outlandish, simplistic and shrill claims such as "Britain moves a step closer to a corporate dictatorship". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 8 February, 2011 Share Posted 8 February, 2011 All good points OldNick, but how can it possibly help the country if all of the large companies start outsourcing everything abroad so they don't have to pay any tax on their revenue? You may well be happy to pay your fair share and get on with it, but I can't go along like that in the knowledge that the super-rich elite are just taking the p*** and extracting more money from the economy. We're supposed to be all in this together, remember? Spot on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheaf Saint Posted 8 February, 2011 Author Share Posted 8 February, 2011 By the way, I copied that from the comments under the article but I would suggest if it is news to you, dear reader, then you are probably not qualified to hold a strong opinion on this matter and even less qualified to make portentous, outlandish, simplistic and shrill claims such as "Britain moves a step closer to a corporate dictatorship". OK, I admit I don't have an in-depth knowledge of economics, but please explain how this can possibly be good for the UK economy? The idea was cooked up by committees consisting largely of the heads of large corporations - surely that's like asking criminals what changes they think should be made to the justice system. I'm not so naive as to believe that large corporations haven't been influencing government policy for years - it is an accepted part of capitalism of course. But for the new government to state "we're all in this together" only to bend over backwards to reduce the amount of tax paid by large corporations and expect the smaller companies, who are the ones most affected by recession after all, to prop up the economy while the rest of us pay the economic price is just grotesque IMO. But then I suppose that policies geared towards making the super-rich even richer while the low-middle income majority get f***ed over is only to be expected from a Conservative government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Bognor Posted 8 February, 2011 Share Posted 8 February, 2011 (edited) All good points OldNick, but how can it possibly help the country if all of the large companies start outsourcing everything abroad so they don't have to pay any tax on their revenue? You may well be happy to pay your fair share and get on with it, but I can't go along like that in the knowledge that the super-rich elite are just taking the p*** and extracting more money from the economy. You are absolutely right. They extract money out of the economy and then they....they....they.....bury it in a big hole in the ground. These people wouldn't dream of spending their money on cars, yatchs, houses, kitchens, bathrooms, fashion, jewellry, fine dining, fine wine, theatre, investing in companies etc etc etc. Because they won't do this, people aren't employed in these industries and the money does not recycle back into the economy. It does absolutely **** all for anyone whilst it is buried 6 foot under the ground. I say we need to invest in shovels and re-train the unemployed to dig holes in the ground to recover some of this lost money....money that has been lost to the economy forever. Obviously having a low tax economy means that no other business in their right minds would relocate their HQ operations to the UK as they would much prefer to pay higher taxation elsewhere. You see, for me, the only way to create wealth is to raise taxes. Edited 8 February, 2011 by Johnny Bognor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 9 February, 2011 Share Posted 9 February, 2011 You are absolutely right. They extract money out of the economy and then they....they....they.....bury it in a big hole in the ground. These people wouldn't dream of spending their money on cars, yatchs, houses, kitchens, bathrooms, fashion, jewellry, fine dining, fine wine, theatre, investing in companies etc etc etc. Because they won't do this, people aren't employed in these industries and the money does not recycle back into the economy. It does absolutely **** all for anyone whilst it is buried 6 foot under the ground. I say we need to invest in shovels and re-train the unemployed to dig holes in the ground to recover some of this lost money....money that has been lost to the economy forever. Obviously having a low tax economy means that no other business in their right minds would relocate their HQ operations to the UK as they would much prefer to pay higher taxation elsewhere. You see, for me, the only way to create wealth is to raise taxes. ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 9 February, 2011 Share Posted 9 February, 2011 (edited) You are absolutely right. They extract money out of the economy and then they....they....they.....bury it in a big hole in the ground. These people wouldn't dream of spending their money on cars, yatchs, houses, kitchens, bathrooms, fashion, jewellry, fine dining, fine wine, theatre, investing in companies etc etc etc. Because they won't do this, people aren't employed in these industries and the money does not recycle back into the economy. It does absolutely **** all for anyone whilst it is buried 6 foot under the ground. I say we need to invest in shovels and re-train the unemployed to dig holes in the ground to recover some of this lost money....money that has been lost to the economy forever. Obviously having a low tax economy means that no other business in their right minds would relocate their HQ operations to the UK as they would much prefer to pay higher taxation elsewhere. You see, for me, the only way to create wealth is to raise taxes. Burying the money in the ground is not actually that far off because most of the money they have taken (not created, taken) will just sit in their bank accounts earning them more, so yes might as well just be buried. Of course a low tax economy will attract more business, but that is just playing along with a system that is ****ed because some other country just loses out on tax revenue whilst the big corporations keep taking. Edited 9 February, 2011 by aintforever Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheaf Saint Posted 9 February, 2011 Author Share Posted 9 February, 2011 You are absolutely right. They extract money out of the economy and then they....they....they.....bury it in a big hole in the ground. These people wouldn't dream of spending their money on cars, yatchs, houses, kitchens, bathrooms, fashion, jewellry, fine dining, fine wine, theatre, investing in companies etc etc etc. Because they won't do this, people aren't employed in these industries and the money does not recycle back into the economy. It does absolutely **** all for anyone whilst it is buried 6 foot under the ground. I say we need to invest in shovels and re-train the unemployed to dig holes in the ground to recover some of this lost money....money that has been lost to the economy forever. Obviously having a low tax economy means that no other business in their right minds would relocate their HQ operations to the UK as they would much prefer to pay higher taxation elsewhere. You see, for me, the only way to create wealth is to raise taxes. So what about the inevitable job losses when the large corporations shift their operations offshore so they can pay less tax on the revenue from these operations? Does it not concern you in the slightest that government policy isn't just being influenced by big business any more but is actually being dictated? Aren't you the slightest bit annoyed that the responsibility for economic recovery is now falling squarely on the individual and small businesses while large multinational corporations can relax safe in the knowledge they will be better off while the rest of us get shafted? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Bognor Posted 9 February, 2011 Share Posted 9 February, 2011 Burying the money in the ground is not actually that far off because most of the money they have taken (not created, taken) will just sit in their bank accounts earning them more, so yes might as well just be buried. I suppose you are right as all of that money sat in Bank accounts does no good whatsover. It's a shame that banks don't lend out money to people and businesses based on the bank deposits and it is surprising that the banks make as much money as they do, considering that they just sit on other peoples money and pay out interest for the priviledge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 9 February, 2011 Share Posted 9 February, 2011 Burying the money in the ground is not actually that far off because most of the money they have taken (not created, taken) will just sit in their bank accounts earning them more, so yes might as well just be buried. Of course a low tax economy will attract more business, but that is just playing along with a system that is ****ed because some other country just loses out on tax revenue whilst the big corporations keep taking. So do you think Liebherr just took his money and stashed it in the bank after he sold his first crane? No these people are driven, and go on to employ thousands of people who in turn also spend and pay tax. They dont just stash their money in a bank everytime they make a profit. If somebody earns 15k a year and only spends 14k they leave 1k in the bank , if somebody earns 150k a year and spends 140k they put 10k in the bank and so on. I would love the lifestyle of many of the worlds bankers and industrialists but i was not bright enough, lucky enough, prepared to risk everything or prepared to work hard enough to be in their position. I abhor Sir Phillips greens of the world and would make laws against the way they avoid tax, but the concept of a low tax economy that brings foreign companies into our country to provide wealth and jobs that would go elsewhere is sound. If we as a nation never had the entrepreneurs over the centuries we would be a nothing nation, no NHS no Welfare, No social system but like Ireland (pre the EEC), Albania and all the other poor nations with its inhabitants just scraping along with no support. The wealth creators in our nation are more important than and most in our society. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheaf Saint Posted 9 February, 2011 Author Share Posted 9 February, 2011 the concept of a low tax economy that brings foreign companies into our country to provide wealth and jobs that would go elsewhere is sound. I think you have misunderstood the government proposals here. The idea behind the changes laid out in that article is that UK companies who have operations offshore can pay less tax on the money they earn in other countries. This is not conducive to attracting foreign companies to invest and provide jobs in the UK - quite the opposite in fact. And the fact that the new rules will only apply to large businesses and not smaller ones tells you all you need to know - that 'Call me Dave' is simply feathering the nests of his business buddies at the expense of the low-middle income majority. The whole thing stinks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pancake Posted 9 February, 2011 Share Posted 9 February, 2011 You are absolutely right. They extract money out of the economy and then they....they....they.....bury it in a big hole in the ground. These people wouldn't dream of spending their money on cars, yatchs, houses, kitchens, bathrooms, fashion, jewellry, fine dining, fine wine, theatre, investing in companies etc etc etc. Because they won't do this, people aren't employed in these industries and the money does not recycle back into the economy. It does absolutely **** all for anyone whilst it is buried 6 foot under the ground. I say we need to invest in shovels and re-train the unemployed to dig holes in the ground to recover some of this lost money....money that has been lost to the economy forever. Obviously having a low tax economy means that no other business in their right minds would relocate their HQ operations to the UK as they would much prefer to pay higher taxation elsewhere. You see, for me, the only way to create wealth is to raise taxes. Pancake "likes" this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 9 February, 2011 Share Posted 9 February, 2011 So do you think Liebherr just took his money and stashed it in the bank after he sold his first crane? No these people are driven, and go on to employ thousands of people who in turn also spend and pay tax. They dont just stash their money in a bank everytime they make a profit. If somebody earns 15k a year and only spends 14k they leave 1k in the bank , if somebody earns 150k a year and spends 140k they put 10k in the bank and so on. I would love the lifestyle of many of the worlds bankers and industrialists but i was not bright enough, lucky enough, prepared to risk everything or prepared to work hard enough to be in their position. I abhor Sir Phillips greens of the world and would make laws against the way they avoid tax, but the concept of a low tax economy that brings foreign companies into our country to provide wealth and jobs that would go elsewhere is sound. If we as a nation never had the entrepreneurs over the centuries we would be a nothing nation, no NHS no Welfare, No social system but like Ireland (pre the EEC), Albania and all the other poor nations with its inhabitants just scraping along with no support. The wealth creators in our nation are more important than and most in our society. Of course they don't just stash their money but just because 1 person earns billions doesn't mean there is more money in the economy, it just means the money is more unevenly distributed. 500 people earning 20,000 will spend more on goods, services etc than one person earning 1000,000. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintfully Posted 9 February, 2011 Share Posted 9 February, 2011 If the state invests £100,000 in a doctor each year and he enables a population of entrepreneurs and workers to generate wealth more efficiently (by keeping them 'off the sick'), has the £100,000 been wisely invested? Has it been used to generate wealth? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
so22saint Posted 9 February, 2011 Share Posted 9 February, 2011 I voted Tory, I'll admit it, to get rid of the last bunch of shysters. But I'll also admit I'm not posh (I'm from Totton FFS) and never been a member of the Bullingdon club or whatever. I suppose I support a centrist, libertarian viewpoint of we're not all equal, you only get out what you put in, minimum state interference but ultimately trying to improve the conditions of everybody through hard work. This bunch of ******s though are just interested in protecting their own interests and the interests of their ****y mates. I run a small business (£4m turnover), how the hell am I meant to grow it if my larger competitors with economies of scale are given preferential treatment. arseholes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackanorySFC Posted 9 February, 2011 Share Posted 9 February, 2011 Of course they don't just stash their money but just because 1 person earns billions doesn't mean there is more money in the economy, it just means the money is more unevenly distributed. 500 people earning 20,000 will spend more on goods, services etc than one person earning 1000,000. That's correct because the 1 person working hard enough to earn £1,000,000 get's taxed 50% on 90% of his/ her earnings. Do you honestly think there is a single person in this country that earns £20,000 a year that works as hard as a banker that earns £1m? My mate that works for JPM doesn't earn a million, he earns about half that but works far, far harder than any teacher, salesman, welder, tyre fitter, nurse, spark, gym instructor etc that I know and is far far more intelligent. Swap jobs with a banker/ entrapeneur/ wealth creator for a month and see if you can hack it or, alternatively, your just one of us that works pretty hard and enjoys the NHS, Education system, Police Force, Ary etc that is paid for from the taxes of those that put the hours in and earn big money and pay big taxes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 9 February, 2011 Share Posted 9 February, 2011 http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/feb/08/tory-funds-half-city-banks-financial-sector Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheaf Saint Posted 9 February, 2011 Author Share Posted 9 February, 2011 http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/feb/08/tory-funds-half-city-banks-financial-sector Surprise surprise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 9 February, 2011 Share Posted 9 February, 2011 http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/feb/08/osborne-message-to-bankers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hutch Posted 9 February, 2011 Share Posted 9 February, 2011 Am I missing something here? I admit I know very very little about UK taxes, but doesn't that article say that they didn't pay any UK tax anyway, as long as they left the overseas earnings overseas, and/or invested them overseas? Didn't they only pay the difference in tax if they brought that money back into the UK? Now they can bring that money back into the UK without paying any more tax, and spend or invest it in the UK (where it will then generate tax revenue). Isn't that a good thing in a weak-ish economy recovering from a deep depression? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wade Garrett Posted 9 February, 2011 Share Posted 9 February, 2011 As an aside, this proposal was of course stated in the budget back in June last year, with detailed proposals (including draft legislation) being published in November. Seems that it takes some time for news to filter down to Guardian hack-central.. Regarding the merits of the specific proposal, this is an eminently sensible move with the clear goals, inter alia, of: (i) bringing the treatment of branches in line with that of foreign subsidiaries, reducing the arbitrary corporate structure incentives inherent in CTA 2009, s.5; (ii) moving the UK ever closer to a pure territorial corporate tax system (in line with the prevailing global trend), with the obvious objective of increasing the competitiveness of the foreign operations of domestic companies; and (iii) of course limiting the risk of redomiciliation of UK resident companies to more commercially attractive climes. All this is a good thing for the UK economy, and hence a good thing for the tax-consuming majority who live off people like me (the minority of productive tax-producers). However, I've learnt to expect that populist hacks and the economically clueless majority who inhabit CIF rarely seem to understand what is actually in their own long run interests... It's good for me to see both sides of the argument, and you make some decent points. Can you explain whether this may cost jobs in the UK? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 9 February, 2011 Share Posted 9 February, 2011 That's correct because the 1 person working hard enough to earn £1,000,000 get's taxed 50% on 90% of his/ her earnings. Do you honestly think there is a single person in this country that earns £20,000 a year that works as hard as a banker that earns £1m? My mate that works for JPM doesn't earn a million, he earns about half that but works far, far harder than any teacher, salesman, welder, tyre fitter, nurse, spark, gym instructor etc that I know and is far far more intelligent. Swap jobs with a banker/ entrapeneur/ wealth creator for a month and see if you can hack it or, alternatively, your just one of us that works pretty hard and enjoys the NHS, Education system, Police Force, Ary etc that is paid for from the taxes of those that put the hours in and earn big money and pay big taxes. I'm sorry but that's complete nonsense, I work hard and get paid an above average salary but to say I work harder than a nurse, policeman or soldier getting shot at in Afganistan is complete b*ll*cks. Maybe I have a skill that is deemed to be worth more money in today's f*cked up world, but work harder? you're having a laff. Wealth creator - that's a nonsense term, nothing is created it's just taken from someone else. There is only a finite amount of money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackanorySFC Posted 9 February, 2011 Share Posted 9 February, 2011 I'm sorry but that's complete nonsense, I work hard and get paid an above average salary but to say I work harder than a nurse, policeman or soldier getting shot at in Afganistan is complete b*ll*cks. Maybe I have a skill that is deemed to be worth more money in today's f*cked up world, but work harder? you're having a laff. Wealth creator - that's a nonsense term, nothing is created it's just taken from someone else. There is only a finite amount of money. So Richard Branson isn't a wealth creator no? If he didn't come along people would just spend their money elsewhere? Are you saying there should be no competition in any market place? What on earth is your alternative? The Army aside - you can't put a price on those boys bravery - my mate works FAR harder than nurses and teachers that I know. Way longer hours, far more stress, no family time and extremely complicated work that requires top end education/ learning. No such thing as a wealth creator? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
solentstars Posted 9 February, 2011 Share Posted 9 February, 2011 I'm sorry but that's complete nonsense, I work hard and get paid an above average salary but to say I work harder than a nurse, policeman or soldier getting shot at in Afganistan is complete b*ll*cks. Maybe I have a skill that is deemed to be worth more money in today's f*cked up world, but work harder? you're having a laff. Wealth creator - that's a nonsense term, nothing is created it's just taken from someone else. There is only a finite amount of money. good reply to that silly nonsense he posted Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
solentstars Posted 9 February, 2011 Share Posted 9 February, 2011 That's correct because the 1 person working hard enough to earn £1,000,000 get's taxed 50% on 90% of his/ her earnings. Do you honestly think there is a single person in this country that earns £20,000 a year that works as hard as a banker that earns £1m? My mate that works for JPM doesn't earn a million, he earns about half that but works far, far harder than any teacher, salesman, welder, tyre fitter, nurse, spark, gym instructor etc that I know and is far far more intelligent. Swap jobs with a banker/ entrapeneur/ wealth creator for a month and see if you can hack it or, alternatively, your just one of us that works pretty hard and enjoys the NHS, Education system, Police Force, Ary etc that is paid for from the taxes of those that put the hours in and earn big money and pay big taxes. oh dear you realy like kissing yourr mates butt and i expect he knows he is doing well,i rather have people who make things and sell their products around the world or do countrys like china who will be the worlds top economy rely only on bankers who we have just paid out 850 billions to support for their gambling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
solentstars Posted 9 February, 2011 Share Posted 9 February, 2011 Of course they don't just stash their money but just because 1 person earns billions doesn't mean there is more money in the economy, it just means the money is more unevenly distributed. 500 people earning 20,000 will spend more on goods, services etc than one person earning 1000,000. good post and thats the reality of it . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackanorySFC Posted 9 February, 2011 Share Posted 9 February, 2011 oh dear you realy like kissing yourr mates butt and i expect he knows he is doing well,i rather have people who make things and sell their products around the world or do countrys like china who will be the worlds top economy rely only on bankers who we have just paid out 850 billions to support for their gambling. My pal works for a non bailed out bank. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 9 February, 2011 Share Posted 9 February, 2011 My pal works for a non bailed out bank. JP Morgan recieved $25 billion in TARP bailouts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackanorySFC Posted 9 February, 2011 Share Posted 9 February, 2011 good post and thats the reality of it . But it's a mathematical impossibility, or don't you get that? 500 people earning £20k a year pay get £15,724.20 in net earnings. x500 = £786,210 1 person earning £1m nets £508,720.40 That means the 1 person earning not only phyiscally cannot buy the same amount in goods and services, but he/ she also pays £277,489.60 extra to the tax man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 9 February, 2011 Share Posted 9 February, 2011 VAT, NI contributions, 40% tax relief on pension contributions. Or don't you get that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackanorySFC Posted 9 February, 2011 Share Posted 9 February, 2011 JP Morgan recieved $25 billion in TARP bailouts. Should have no problem paying it back: 2007 net profit = $15,365 2008 net profit = $5,605 2009 net profit = $11,728 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JPMorgan_Chase Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 9 February, 2011 Share Posted 9 February, 2011 Should have no problem paying it back: 2007 net profit = $15,365 2008 net profit = $5,605 2009 net profit = $11,728 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JPMorgan_Chase Weird. I could have sworn you said they weren't bailed out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackanorySFC Posted 9 February, 2011 Share Posted 9 February, 2011 VAT, NI contributions, 40% tax relief on pension contributions. Or don't you get that? No I don't get that. Please explain how the 500 people make up that £277,489.60 using VAT, NI (I included NI in my net numbers using the governments own tax calculator) and pension tax relief? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackanorySFC Posted 9 February, 2011 Share Posted 9 February, 2011 Weird. I could have sworn you said they weren't bailed out. I'm not the one that works there - merely a simpleton that presumed that only RBS, lloyds, Halifax and Northern Rock were bailed out by us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now