Tax threshold

There isn't a solution, is there?

And I never said deaths were tolerable either, did I?

 

Wasn't that due to people deferring income to take advantage of the reduction? So not quite the causal link your post implies.

 

If that isnt satire then, sadly, i am forced to rest my case

 

Not if paye. Your talking about a different kettle of fish.
Your talking about business people hiding their profits from the accounts. Putting em in offshore funds. Swiss banks etc.
As I said I’m no expert. But there’s money that can’t escape.
What I said Isn’t perfect but every penny helps.
As I said the CEO of Bet 365 who I assume is paye. £323 m per annum.
Even if the lot was taxed at 90% would still mean a net pay of around £32.3 million. As it stands probably without tax relief etc. Paying mam dad Uncle Tom cobley and all would be in excess of £150,000 net.
If I’m totally wrong please explain. How.

 

No. Simply an opinion (which I'm entitled to, believe it or not) that obviously differs from yours.

 

Well then don't make ill considered ill thought out arguments

I see the answer to the problem that you've identified - clearly it is to educate them. But his will no doubt cost me and you the taxpayer more money, unless of course we get the people who can afford it (easily) pay a bit more in tax. There is not a big difference in someones life if, rather than having £10million in the bank they have just £8miliiion - that £2m can make such a difference to society and those individuals in particular who benefit (sic) from it

 

TBF mate I think I understood what he was getting at. 1 poster. I can’t remember who. Once Bragged about him not working and why should he. When he can get enough money from the lovely taxpayers. To be able to not work. And had no intention of finding work. Irrespective of what the job paid.
But I don’t think he may have not got the point this is about the rich not the average or below average earner. But even so Some of us on average wage would contribute a bit more. But as in my case I have no mortgage. No kids at home. So would be able to afford it that’s why I wouldn’t increase the tax on the lower/average paid. But i contribute by other means.

 

Double post

 

1. Companies would relocate. It’s naive to think otherwise.

2. Why would anyone bother earning more than £300k if the state kept almost all of it?

I’d take the rest of the year off as soon as I hit the threshold - would be great for my work-life balance.

 

You did indeed, Hooky feller. You did indeed.

 

But you’d still expect a nurse on **** all to wipe your arse and monitor your ventilator to keep you alive

 

I’m merely pointing out the very obvious flaws in the Corbynista’s wet dream.

 

Indeed take the rest of the year off -let someone else do your job for the same rate of pay - puts more money into the economy - that's the spirit

 

But it doesn’t answer my question.

I’m not suggesting there aren’t some people abusing the system. But how do you police it better.

at the moment we have a sickness / disability benefit system that is not supporting some of the most vulnerable in society in its efforts to ensure only the worthy get benefit. People are literally dying of poverty.

there are literally thousands of unemployed people on reduced or zero benefit because they’re unable to ‘prove’ they were doing enough to find work.

There is a UN report that deems our government guilty of state sponsored murder in the name of austerity.

despite the above, there are still people who manage to swindle the system.

so what’s the magic bullet that’s missing? How do you ensure there’s no fraud but still look after everyone that needs support.

if anyone thinks there are people wandering into job centres, announcing they don’t want to work and leaving with a pile of cash, they’re very mistaken.

People have to cheat the system to get away with that, and we already spend 10x the amount on Benefit fraud that we do on tax fraud, whilst there’s about 100x the amount of tax fraud.

 

I am/was a corbynite. But it’s not a dream. I didn’t say there weren’t flaws. As I’m no expert. But you seem to diss the positives. It has happened b4 as I quite clearly pointed out. And was in situ for years later. Twas still 80% in the seventies. But the difference this time is what’s the point of having money if there’s nowt to spend it on. Why not try to offer up a solution rather than diss what in fact is nothing new.
Ps 1. I haven’t the foggiest how to deal with companies so I steered clear.
2. Anyone on over £300,000 pa are generally on a salary not weekly paid. And paid to devote the year to the role. (Unless a part time paid adviser. Lots on the front benches) Then get bonuses on top. If they don’t perform they’ll get moved on or will get paid off.
Your last point. A selfish comment.

 

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
THIS

 

indeed the modern world was built on a tax and spend philosophy, but despite decades of prosperity based on it, apparently it would never work

we built the NHS, the motorway network and millions of homes with marginal unemployment, but that required the rich to not expect massive returns just because they owned the money.

 

I knew exactly what he was getting at - he described the unemployed as ‘vermin’.

he thinks he can simply choose to help the deserving but not the undeserving.

I’d like to hear how he proposes that, but he thinks I’m upset because he has an ‘opinion’

 

He certainly could have chose his words better to get his point over. I may have stumbled onto why he said it the way he did. Also could be well off the mark. But choose not to say, ( sorry if that seems a bit of a cop out.) As I would rather not pour coals on the fire. I talk to cowboy and will tell him privately what I mean.