Gaz Walker Posted November 24, 2008 Share Posted November 24, 2008 Whats everyones thoughts on this then? The VAT reduction is by far the most interesting - a drop to 15%. Good for spending, however its a concern that the discount will not be passed onto customers. The VAT reduction is a nightmare for small business because at this time of year, all the price lists and catalogues have been produced for next year already - which means wholesale changes that will cost more in the long term. Its likely that they are changes to VED (Vehicle Excise Duty), corporation tax, income tax for higher earners, flexibility to paying tax bills etc. Gaz. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ellis Posted November 24, 2008 Share Posted November 24, 2008 2.5% ain't going to do that much for your average punter really - probably aimed more at businesses this one but VAT payers also claim it back so failing to see the big picture with this one. Tax up for big earners? What a surprise! This country provides no incentive to work hard and earn real money - as soon as you earn over £40K you get clobbered for 40% and now those over £150K will be mad to pay another 5%!! Crazy - where's the incentive to work hard and be successful? Here's the thing, somebody earning £10K paying 25% tax will pay £2,500. Somebody earning £100K and paying the same 25% would pay £25,000 - ten times more anyway. That's fair! That's equal! That's democratic! But no, we can't do that, instead if you work hard, climb the ladder and earn some decent money the government says no, we want that! Bunch of arseholes! The banks got us into this darned mess and they should be made to get us out of it but it seems that you and I will be bailing them out for years to come. Typical! CJ got the right idea and legged it before this country implodes!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaz Walker Posted November 24, 2008 Author Share Posted November 24, 2008 Yep spot on. The higher rate is no surprise though. However, to be fair, several other EU countries have this rate - France is 48%, Germany 45%, Netherlands 52%, Spain 45% etc Gaz. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tbourner Posted November 24, 2008 Share Posted November 24, 2008 Don't be so greedy!! You still get more money in your pocket every month, the people at the bottom have a hard time to survive, people earning 150k+ have a relatively easy time of it. Sell one of your houses!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monsween Posted November 24, 2008 Share Posted November 24, 2008 Don't be so greedy!! You still get more money in your pocket every month, the people at the bottom have a hard time to survive, people earning 150k+ have a relatively easy time of it. Sell one of your houses!! I dont think thats entirely true. Most people that earn 150K deserve to earn that kinda money. They havnt started on it, they worked at it. You also dont get paid that much to sit around, you have responsibity etc etc. Yes they get more money but its unfair in my opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tbourner Posted November 24, 2008 Share Posted November 24, 2008 Most people that earn 150K deserve to earn that kinda money. Yep they do, so share the wealth! Rather than getting richer whilst the poor get poorer (which they will, cos without help they're too lazy/stupid to get up and do anything about it) why don't they not be so greedy and agree to share some of their hard earned fortunes! It's something you have to accept before you become rich, so don't moan about it when you're there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ark Posted November 24, 2008 Share Posted November 24, 2008 Yep they do, so share the wealth! They do - they spend lots of money on goods and services, circulating cash through the economy, and creating far more stimulation than public spending ever does. They directly employ "poor people" by way of gardener, house-keepers etc. Even the cash they don't spend is gainfully employed, because there needs to be a measure of saving in order for the banks to have money to lend; money invested in shares allows companies to invest and expand... In a way you can argue that poor people are the ones letting the side down, by buying cheap furniture imported from Sweden, and cheap TVs imported from Taiwan - all the money is leaving the country, so we aren't benefiting from it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Firestorm Posted November 24, 2008 Share Posted November 24, 2008 100% agree with *ellis* on this one. No incentive to work hard cos you just get it taxed! then again this is labour government and we now in the time where you can choose to be on the Dole and benefits instead of working. and im afraid the labour government has royally screwed this country up.. i dont think Tories or any other party could do much better either however. what i dont understand is there is Common sense and all leaders have none of it. until someone has the balls for RADICAL change then this country wil plod along and drive us more into debt. The core issues lie it the fact that we have become/allowed to choose wether we work or not. Now i understand the fact that people who can't work, for a genuine reason need support but theres no excuse for people to take income support unless they truely need it. Why do people miss the fundamental core elements of this. grrrr hehe rant over oh edit... Share the Wealth.. so this communism is it. its the sheer fact that people are relying on hand outs why they dont work!! they need to get off that fat lazy A$$es and go and work like everyone else.. be it working mcdonalds or working in an office! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tbourner Posted November 24, 2008 Share Posted November 24, 2008 They do - they spend lots of money on goods and services, circulating cash through the economy, and creating far more stimulation than public spending ever does. They directly employ "poor people" by way of gardener, house-keepers etc. Even the cash they don't spend is gainfully employed, because there needs to be a measure of saving in order for the banks to have money to lend; money invested in shares allows companies to invest and expand... Yep and that's all good, so keep it like that? What else would you say should happen? What do you think would happen if they put a blanket 30% tax no matter what you earn? In a way you can argue that poor people are the ones letting the side down, by buying cheap furniture imported from Sweden, and cheap TVs imported from Taiwan - all the money is leaving the country, so we aren't benefiting from it. its the sheer fact that people are relying on hand outs why they dont work!! they need to get off that fat lazy A$$es and go and work like everyone else.. be it working mcdonalds or working in an office! Indeed, poor people are crap, but that's a different issue. That requires that we are harsher on dole seekers and more logical with disability seekers etc., doesn't change how people who work hard earning 20k or less and struggling to pay their mortgage should pay less tax than those earning 150k+ and no debts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marbleapple Posted November 24, 2008 Share Posted November 24, 2008 doesn't change how people who work hard earning 20k or less and struggling to pay their mortgage should pay less tax than those earning 150k+ and no debts. Why should they? - Not an insult, just don't understand your argument. As far as I see it, to be earnign a higher wage you have had to work harder and studied longer, or set up your own business and worked every hour god sends. The people I see on low tax brackets are their due to own personal choice such as having a child at a young age, not applying themselves at school etc. How is that the higher tax payers fault? - My GF was very poor and the government paid for all her uni fees. She works stupidly hard to better herself and has done so. Just because you start poor does not mean you end poor. The VAT reduction is a nightmare for small business because at this time of year, all the price lists and catalogues have been produced for next year already - which means wholesale changes that will cost more in the long term. Gaz. Never thought of that It would surely benefit the shopper though since they pay less tax? - Big businesses would have to pass it on as they can't 'pretend' VAT is 17.5% When does the bank of England meet again btw? Does anyone know? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ellis Posted November 24, 2008 Share Posted November 24, 2008 doesn't change how people who work hard earning 20k or less and struggling to pay their mortgage should pay less tax than those earning 150k+ and no debts. Where do you get that from? No debts? Yet to meet anyone without debt in some form! Bigger house just means bigger mortgages - we all live to our means. If we could get rid of the 'professionally' unemployed it would be a start. The benefits system is so wide open to abuse that for a large amount on it they are better off doing sod all rather than getting out of bed and doing an honest day's work. I agree that there are deserving people out there who genuinely cannot work and they should be looked after fully but I tend yo find that those people who whinge and complain about those who come from overseas and take 'our' jobs are those who tend to be the system abusers! For every foreigner taking a job there were probably 10 locals who thought the job beneath them to apply! Those who can work but don't should be made to work on civil projects and contribute to the people who allow them to sleep till noon then drink and smoke all afternoon - get them working on old folks' homes, parks, schools that sort of thing. The thing is its not just this Labour government that has knackered this country up, its been every government over the past 40 years or so - all employing short-term, knee-jerk measures to shore up a system that is leaking like a Dutch dyke. Share the wealth? Care to slap 50% of your hard earned wedge on the table? Doubting it somehow! All these theories are great, in theory, but as soon as you ask those who suggest them to partake they soon change their tune. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlotte Posted November 24, 2008 Share Posted November 24, 2008 Just because you start poor does not mean you end poor. Exactly. When my step-dad started his business we were living in a rented house eating value meals (not that that's bad but different to now I suppose). He's worked damn hard and now has a different quality of life and a nice house. He still works 7-7 every day even though he's approaching 60. Why should he now get taxed more because he earns more? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael Posted November 24, 2008 Share Posted November 24, 2008 At least all the extra tax is being used well... http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7741859.stm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tbourner Posted November 24, 2008 Share Posted November 24, 2008 OK we're all getting confused. Are people suggesting the taxes should be the same across the board? What would happen if they brought that in? I'm suggesting they stay as they are, I don't think anyone should pay any more or less than they do, I'm not saying we should put high tax payers up to 50% or anything like that, just going against the notion that it should be equal. I consider myself poor, we bring in 40k to the house beetween us (both on low tax though obviously). If my salary went up gradually to 45kpa I'd be very happy, I don't see how you can see tax as stopping people wanting to better themselves!! I'm doing a CCNA course whilst working and did my apprenticeship etc and worked hard at it all, because I WANT to earn more, the idea that I'll pay more tax hasn't entered into my head for a second!! Dole seekers and disabled fakers could all be shot for all I care, this conversation is about people earning money isn't it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marbleapple Posted November 24, 2008 Share Posted November 24, 2008 OK we're all getting confused. Are people suggesting the taxes should be the same across the board? What would happen if they brought that in? I'm suggesting they stay as they are, I don't think anyone should pay any more or less than they do, I'm not saying we should put high tax payers up to 50% or anything like that, just going against the notion that it should be equal. I consider myself poor, we bring in 40k to the house beetween us (both on low tax though obviously). If my salary went up gradually to 45kpa I'd be very happy, I don't see how you can see tax as stopping people wanting to better themselves!! I'm doing a CCNA course whilst working and did my apprenticeship etc and worked hard at it all, because I WANT to earn more, the idea that I'll pay more tax hasn't entered into my head for a second!! Dole seekers and disabled fakers could all be shot for all I care, this conversation is about people earning money isn't it? Fair enough. I read your earlier posts and it sounded that you were ranting that the well paid have it easy and had hundreds of homes and no debt and the poor were the down trodden, poor from Oliver Twist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ellis Posted November 24, 2008 Share Posted November 24, 2008 At least all the extra tax is being used well... http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7741859.stm Oh goodo! Can sleep soundly now! Taxi!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlotte Posted November 24, 2008 Share Posted November 24, 2008 Fair enough. I read your earlier posts and it sounded that you were ranting that the well paid have it easy and had hundreds of homes and no debt and the poor were the down trodden, poor from Oliver Twist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tbourner Posted November 24, 2008 Share Posted November 24, 2008 I read your earlier posts and it sounded that you were ranting that the well paid have it easy and had hundreds of homes and no debt and the poor were the down trodden, poor from Oliver Twist. I did say that! It was slightly exagerated though, I'm normally the one defending rich people to the people I chat to at work. Cos I know you live to your means (people earning 6-7k less than me say I must be loaded by now, cos to them I'm well off - HA, if only they knew). //edit: I think I was getting at the idea that high earners usually have a bigger confort zone before they're likely to be in real trouble, whereas poor people only have a short way to fall. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scooter Posted November 24, 2008 Share Posted November 24, 2008 Where do you get that from? No debts? Yet to meet anyone without debt in some form! Bigger house just means bigger mortgages - we all live to our means. It might not be fair but the point is that those on £150K a year have options.......ie they can live to slightly lower means or make cut backs on non essentials to absorb the changes. Those on the lower/middle incomes are paying thier way without any state help but are on the fringe of becoming those which we all moan about ie those dependant fully on the state. They probably have a mortgage or high rent but with just a basic car and run of the mill lifestyle. So overall its better/fairer(?) to take more money from those with the ability to remain afloat, or at least then the state will receive more money without hopefully the benefits budget increasing. Its ok for us to say that we can all better ourselves and i'd agree that there are many opportunities out there for people especially if you work hard, but all said and done not everyone can 'make it' and be a high earner. We all need people doing the low paid jobs and they need the hope that they can forge a life/lifestyle out for themselves. The day when people began to leave their jobs because as a family or individual they became better off not working was the day something should have been done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soop Dogg Posted November 24, 2008 Share Posted November 24, 2008 Woohoo! So if i now go out and spend £1150, I've saved £25 on something that, yesterday would have cost me £1175! Bargain - I'm off to do some shopping!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marbleapple Posted November 24, 2008 Share Posted November 24, 2008 Woohoo! So if i now go out and spend £1150, I've saved £25 on something that, yesterday would have cost me £1175! Bargain - I'm off to do some shopping!!! When you put it like that it doesn't sound so good does it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ark Posted November 24, 2008 Share Posted November 24, 2008 Yep and that's all good, so keep it like that? What else would you say should happen? What do you think would happen if they put a blanket 30% tax no matter what you earn? Then we would all pay tax at the same rate. 30% of lots is still more money than 30% of not very much, and that's fair. Yes, I might have physically more money left to myself than you, but proportionally it's the same, and that's fair. You seem to think the world owes you because you work quite hard. If you want to earn more, you'll get a hell of a lot further changing yourself rather than society...but that involves doing something rather than bitching on the Internet. Indeed, poor people are crap, but that's a different issue. That requires that we are harsher on dole seekers and more logical with disability seekers etc., doesn't change how people who work hard earning 20k or less and struggling to pay their mortgage should pay less tax than those earning 150k+ and no debts. You do pay less tax. Do the math. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Digsy Posted November 24, 2008 Share Posted November 24, 2008 Don't be so greedy!! You still get more money in your pocket every month, the people at the bottom have a hard time to survive, people earning 150k+ have a relatively easy time of it. Sell one of your houses!! By the same logic, why don't you sell your nice car and give the money to someone who is working on a minimum wage? The thing about wealth is its all relative. I believe that your lifestyle will automatically expand to consume whatever you earn. When I was a student I use to go you out every night, run a car and have a damn good time, all funded by an evening / weekend job at Tescos. OK, so I lived with my folks, I would probably only have one pint most evenings and my car was an Austin Metro. Ironically, when I started getting a "proper" wage (about £15k as I recall) not long after I went overdrawn for the first time in my life and I was utterly dismayed. Because in my mind I was now "well off" I went out and bought whatever the hell I wanted, and overdid it a bit. A few months later I settled back into a new spending routine. I got a nicer car, went out more and started putting some money aside for the future. Now, 15 years down the line I have my own home, mortgage, Supra, a couple of expensive hobbies, big telly, etc, etc, etc. I have more "stuff" and independance but in terms of cash in my pocket and security I'm not really any better off because the minute I get paid most of my salary is already committed. I still can't just go out and buy whatever I want whenever the mood takes me. If I lose my job I'll still come down to earth with a bloody great big bump very fast indeed. I think there's by and large a perception whereby if you take your current wage and, say, treble it, most people would say "wow, how could you spend all of that?" Hence the impresion that the remainder should just be given away to help those less well off. If I rewind back to by student days I couldn't have dreamed of getting through what I do per month now. I have no reason to believe that if I was earning more than I do now that anything would change. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CraigGilchrist Posted November 24, 2008 Share Posted November 24, 2008 I was always under the impression that tax is done in bands (perhaps someone will correct me). Someone earning £100k doesn't pay £40k in tax just because the higher tax rat is 40%. Their first ~£6k is inelligible for tax. The remainder up to ~£35k is taxed at 22%, then the rest taxed at 40%. So, they take home ~£68k of a 100k income - overall tax of just 32%. The introduction of the extra 5% would only actually make a difference of £3250 per year to a £100k earner, and that's assuming they introduce it across the board to earnings above £35k, rather than introducing an additional, higher band, for really high earners. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wez Posted November 24, 2008 Share Posted November 24, 2008 I dont see the issue here, you are only paying 5% more on your earnings over £150k, upto £150 it will still be 40% from £37k I think and its 25% upto that or there abouts. Why would you have a £150k+ salary, surely these people have enough brains to take a smaller wage (lower tax) and get the rest by other lower taxable means Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.