Darling and the 50% tax level

#2
jagman said:
It apears that Mr Brown and Mr Darling can't make their minds up

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/economics/article6155378.ece

The tax rise may not be only temporary.
Are they making this up as they go along?
The answer to your question above is: YES.

With the components of their policy being: Envy; Spite; Malice and Waging Class-Warfare, making it up on the hoof seems their only option.

Why are we British so equable? If this was the French government ruining the nation for a generation to come, the tractors would be on the roads, the fishing boats at the harbour mouths, the students on the streets and blood everywhere.

In this country - nothing.

We sit back whilst what is left of the nation is destroyed by a man who must be close to being certifiable!
 
#4
Of course it is temporary - it will raise £2Bn each year to recoup the £176Bb so it will only last 88 years.

I've rounded up/down to help Alisdair and Ashie with the sums. Hopefully we won't need to borrow anything next year cos it might affect calculation.

Economics - what a doddle!
 
#8
lsquared said:
jagman said:
It apears that Mr Brown and Mr Darling can't make their minds up

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/economics/article6155378.ece

The tax rise may not be only temporary.
Are they making this up as they go along?
The answer to your question above is: YES.

With the components of their policy being: Envy; Spite; Malice and Waging Class-Warfare, making it up on the hoof seems their only option.

Why are we British so equable? If this was the French government ruining the nation for a generation to come, the tractors would be on the roads, the fishing boats at the harbour mouths, the students on the streets and blood everywhere.

In this country - nothing.

We sit back whilst what is left of the nation is destroyed by a man who must be close to being certifiable!
Tory Lies!
 
#9
Mobat said:
Of course it is temporary: the scum who introduced it will be out of office in a year.
Never underestimate the 'Short Sightedness' of the festering Masses. Those that have the most to lose will be out in force to vote, or more to the point, when the voting slips land on the door mat they'll be getting ticked for Labour. That Welfare Budget of £114Billion is one heck of a vote buyer, as it the army of public sector workers that earn bucket loads for doing relatively low skilled work.

The 50% Tax rate only affects a tiny tiny amount of the vote, so even if they all voted Tory it would barely scratch the surface as the recipients of these wages are spread quite thinly across the country; whereas Labour's mass voting army are quite high in number everywhere.
 
#10
A lot of shouting on here, but the amount of ARRSE members who actually fall into that higher tax bracket is probably extremely low, despite the usual ex-squaddie claims. Isn't it right that the fabulously wealthy who created the global financial crisis should pay slightly higher taxes?
 
#11
CardinalSin said:
A lot of shouting on here, but the amount of ARRSE members who actually fall into that higher tax bracket is probably extremely low, despite the usual ex-squaddie claims. Isn't it right that the fabulously wealthy who created the global financial crisis should pay slightly higher taxes?
Short sighted springs to mind... This is exactly the smoke screen that Gordon wants the average mong on the street to believe, but the fact is that only a minute amount of people will pay that tax and many of them will be in the public sector and unable to use simple tax avoidance methods.

Added to that is the fact that the Financial sector probably pays more in taxes than the rest of the industrial sector in the UK put together, so when these people decide to jump ship to a country that's more to ofer and less tax to pay it just becomes as useless as the prize prrick that read it out on Wednesday.
 
#12
Cardinalsin - You are quite right - probably very few on here will be in the super-tax bracket, so we can avoid the usual Labour cry that it is only the very few super rich who are affected and bleating.

Perhaps the point is that we can see the futility of the gesture - because that is what it is. It is a cheap political trick to try and shift attention from the fact that the government has plunged us further into debt and they don't want us to notice the fact that the super rich might pay back 0.011% of the overdraft.

Perhaps we can also see the writing on the wall for 5 to 10 years time when inflation returns and middle incomes start creeping closer to the super-tax levels. Once Labour introduces taxes more and more gradually creap into their bracket.

Finally, maybe we don't see the value in squeezing the rich till they squeak, because in reality they clear off and take their business with them. the knock on effect, hits middle earners first. It is a cascade effect which eventually harms everyone.

Socialism at its worse - the politics of envy and spite
 
#13
CardinalSin said:
A lot of shouting on here, but the amount of ARRSE members who actually fall into that higher tax bracket is probably extremely low, despite the usual ex-squaddie claims. Isn't it right that the fabulously wealthy who created the global financial crisis should pay slightly higher taxes?
Because excessive tax puts people off earning too much. And the fabulously weathly don't pay that much tax as they can afford to hire accountants to read through 3 tons of confused tax codes dreamt up by a dribbling idiot to find every single get out clause. Or, in the case of a few "VIP's" get a Government Minister to call off the Tax inspecters.
 
#14
CardinalSin said:
A lot of shouting on here, but the amount of ARRSE members who actually fall into that higher tax bracket is probably extremely low, despite the usual ex-squaddie claims. Isn't it right that the fabulously wealthy who created the global financial crisis should pay slightly higher taxes?
And what of those who will be required to rebuild the economy/ What of the entrepreneurs who build buisness, employ people and pay NI and buisness rates? Why should they then be further penalised/


Also, why should someone who has earn't his way up the ladder pay over half his wage? (remember they will also have to pay NI) Surely 25% of £150000 is more than 25% of £25000. That way you stand a fighting chance of the high earner paying, rather than avoiding throw GB's complicated tax laws or just re-locating to sunnier and more agreeable climes?
 
#15
drain_sniffer said:
CardinalSin said:
A lot of shouting on here, but the amount of ARRSE members who actually fall into that higher tax bracket is probably extremely low, despite the usual ex-squaddie claims. Isn't it right that the fabulously wealthy who created the global financial crisis should pay slightly higher taxes?
And what of those who will be required to rebuild the economy/ What of the entrepreneurs who build buisness, employ people and pay NI and buisness rates? Why should they then be further penalised/


Also, why should someone who has earn't his way up the ladder pay over half his wage? (remember they will also have to pay NI) Surely 25% of £150000 is more than 25% of £25000. That way you stand a fighting chance of the high earner paying, rather than avoiding throw GB's complicated tax laws or just re-locating to sunnier and more agreeable climes?
What a load of nowt about nowt. The Chancellor announced an extra 5p in every pound for amounts over £150,000. Got that? 5p in every pound over £150,000.

5 blinkin' pence.
 
#16
Kitmarlowe said:
CardinalSin said:
A lot of shouting on here, but the amount of ARRSE members who actually fall into that higher tax bracket is probably extremely low, despite the usual ex-squaddie claims. Isn't it right that the fabulously wealthy who created the global financial crisis should pay slightly higher taxes?
Because excessive tax puts people off earning too much. And the fabulously weathly don't pay that much tax as they can afford to hire accountants to read through 3 tons of confused tax codes dreamt up by a dribbling idiot to find every single get out clause. Or, in the case of a few "VIP's" get a Government Minister to call off the Tax inspecters.

cannot see the problem i earned around 65k last year and of that half the tax was paid at 40p in the pound so whats the big deal with someone on a decent salary of 150k plus paying 10p more?
 
#17
CardinalSin said:
A lot of shouting on here, but the amount of ARRSE members who actually fall into that higher tax bracket is probably extremely low, despite the usual ex-squaddie claims. Isn't it right that the fabulously wealthy who created the global financial crisis should pay slightly higher taxes?
Thankfully I am a Guernsey resident, otherwise I would have been fúcked over by this budget. I am not a merchant banker, so why should I pay an extra 14+ thousand a quid a year in tax for something I didn't do?

Who allowed the mess in the UK to happen? That fúckwit Gordon Brown. When Labour were elected in 97, he took the politically very brave decision to make the Bank of England independant.

However he was scared that it would be too powerful, so removed most regulatory powers from the Bank and created the FSA. To make an oversimplification: the good people chose to stay at the BoE and all the useless muppets went over to the FSA.

The Square Mile, for all the claims that it is filled with chinless wonders, is actually fairly full of bright blokes. A culture of ambition and greed has existed there for a very long time. With the removal of the BoE, city wizz kids thought up new financial instruments by which to make money. And money was made, keeping London at the top of the pile, much to the anger of France and Germany who wanted Paris or Frankfurt to be the financial centre of the EU, but at the same time regulated their banks very heavily compared to the "light touch" professed by Gordon Brown to be the correct way.

The problem was that a lot of these financial vehicles were not easily understood, but it didn't really matter as these were bundled up with other slices of other people's property and equity portfolios and sold, sliced up again with other bits and pieces and re-sold many times over. A certain division of a company called AIG in the US provided guarantees for most of this. They then re-insured much of their guarantees with reinsurance companies and banks. The value of the guarantees is currently several times global GDP. Why did did they write such massive guarantees? Because they were allowed to and while economic times were good it was almost a license to print money, and neither they or their backers understood the risks they were taking, and Hank Greenberg thought anyone who told him differently was an idiot (I met with Hank 2 days ago and he claimed that the collapse of AIG would never had happended if he had stayed at AIG!!!(cúnt)).

Why did the SEC in America allow AIG to do this? Answer: political campaign donations. George W. changed the rules to allow insurance companies at a federal and state level to make political donations (and in return for money from insurance companies allowed them to do what they pleased).

In London the FSA ignored what was going on for 2 reasons: 1. They didn't really understand what was going on (and as long as AIG with its AAA rating was issuing paper to guarantee such things, it didn't see a problem) and 2. Gordon loved all the cheap money floating around allowing the UK government and consumers (you lot) to borrow loads of money and live the life of Riley.

In Central and Eastern Europe the central banks took another approach: if they didn't understand a financial instrument (such as the asset based derivatives being traded) they banned local banks from having any exposure in said markets.

Many banks in the US, UK and Europe didn't understand the products, or understood that the real exposure of the products couldn't be accurately assessed (and thus failed to pass internal risk management appraisal). These banks have continued to post solid profits or very temporary dips in performance throughout the entire "credit crunch".

So who's fault was it? Regulatory failure in the UK and USA combined with ignorance, stupidity and greed in a number of significant banks.

My personal view is that banks should stick to lending money to companies in return for interest on loans. Banks should not be owners of other companies, nor should they sit on the boards of other companies. very dull I know, but instead of a house built of cards it would produce some truly strong economic foundations. Leave the risky investments to companies that know what they are doing and where the risks can be contained.

I work a lot with German companies and the best ones are those that look to the future: not just to next year's profits and EBITDA, but the next 15-50 years. Dull but solid.

Back on topic: the 50% tax level is a smokescreen. It doesn't actually exist anyway: the top tax rate is 61% as "national insurance" is a tax on income: it bears no relation to insurance premiums, there is no central deposit or fund and today's payments pay today's pensions, not those of the people making today's contributions.

Far more hurtful to the economy is the rise in petrol duty, and more damaging to society is the increase on the price of alcohol in a pub (but not in a super market). The former forces the price of everything that has to be moved from one place to another (almost everything) to be increased. Thus wages need to increase to maintain purchasing levels and quality of life.

The latter measure damages society by continuing the trend of pubs closing and people drinking at home to get drunk before going out on the town. Binge drinking increases and responsible drinking amongst ones neighbours decreases (further weakening local community spirit and strength).
 
#18
ashie said:
drain_sniffer said:
CardinalSin said:
A lot of shouting on here, but the amount of ARRSE members who actually fall into that higher tax bracket is probably extremely low, despite the usual ex-squaddie claims. Isn't it right that the fabulously wealthy who created the global financial crisis should pay slightly higher taxes?
And what of those who will be required to rebuild the economy/ What of the entrepreneurs who build buisness, employ people and pay NI and buisness rates? Why should they then be further penalised/


Also, why should someone who has earn't his way up the ladder pay over half his wage? (remember they will also have to pay NI) Surely 25% of £150000 is more than 25% of £25000. That way you stand a fighting chance of the high earner paying, rather than avoiding throw GB's complicated tax laws or just re-locating to sunnier and more agreeable climes?
What a load of nowt about nowt. The Chancellor announced an extra 5p in every pound for amounts over £150,000. Got that? 5p in every pound over £150,000.

5 blinkin' pence.
Yeah you're right, what's at least £7,500 extra on top of what they are already paying?

Oh.... :oops:
 
#19
CardinalSin said:
A lot of shouting on here, but the amount of ARRSE members who actually fall into that higher tax bracket is probably extremely low, despite the usual ex-squaddie claims. Isn't it right that the fabulously wealthy who created the global financial crisis should pay slightly higher taxes?
My objection to it is that it is not going to improve government income. People effected by the change will move income and possibly themselves abroad, this will mean that there will be little or no extra income for the government from the tax. Meanwhile rich people moving abroad will cut spending in this country, reducing income from indirect taxes, and putting people out of work, eliminating the tax they were paying and costing benefits.

Overall this is likely to have a negative effect on government finances. Hence, you and I will be paying even more to sort the mess out.
 
#20
CardinalSin said:
A lot of shouting on here, but the amount of ARRSE members who actually fall into that higher tax bracket is probably extremely low, despite the usual ex-squaddie claims. Isn't it right that the fabulously wealthy who created the global financial crisis should pay slightly higher taxes?
And I ask, why raise taxes, if they will be squandered anyway?..

Until every Government official will be made personally responsible for the funds in his/her domain the economy will remain a disaster zone. Stalin was a b*d, but he had a point: "Every disaster should have a name and a surname."
 

Latest Threads

Top