• You may have to login or register before you can post and view our exclusive members only forums.
    To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Tottenham Riots

It never fails to amaze me how many people buy into this idea that rich people are inherently altruistic and philanthropic, and if we could only show willing and meet them half way, if we could only reduce how much tax they had to pay then they'd suddenly change and stop trying to squeeze every little penny out of life.

Bullshit.

If the rates were lowered, they'd just pay less, and still try to find ways of getting out of anything and everything they can - what makes you think they'd even remotely entertain doing anything else?
 
It's hard to argue the logic that if taxes for the rich were reduced and everyone paid a flat rate of 25% then the rich cunts might do us the honour of actually paying their way.

To enforce this I would suggest lowering the amount of time non-tax payers with residences are allowed stay in the country to 90 days per year.
 
[quote author=singlerider link=topic=46360.msg1378001#msg1378001 date=1313064609]
It never fails to amaze me how many people buy into this idea that rich people are inherently altruistic and philanthropic, and if we could only show willing and meet them half way, if we could only reduce how much tax they had to pay then they'd suddenly change and stop trying to squeeze every little penny out of life.

Bullshit.

If the rates were lowered, they'd just pay less, and still try to find ways of getting out of anything and everything they can - what makes you think they'd even remotely entertain doing anything else?
[/quote]

Because they would be better off paying tax than paying accountants and tax lawyers?

Of course rich people want as much as they can get. ALL people want as much as they can get.

If you have a certain amount of money and you know you can't keep it all then its pretty natural to go for the process that ends up with you keeping the most of it. At the moment for many people that is the route of tax avoidance schemes (where people still lose a portion of their money). If that was changed so that paying UK tax was the way that ends up with you keeping the most of it then that would surely be the more popular one wouldn't it?

The added bonus of that would be that it would make the UK a much more attractive place for businesses to set up and invest in.
 
[quote author=Pesam link=topic=46360.msg1378008#msg1378008 date=1313064937]
It's hard to argue the logic that if taxes for the rich were reduced and everyone paid a flat rate of 25% then the rich cunts might do us the honour of actually paying their way.

To enforce this I would suggest lowering the amount of time non-tax payers with residences are allowed stay in the country to 90 days per year.
[/quote]

Firstly, they'd find a way around it - they can afford the accountants that would find a way, or the politicians to create a way.

Secondly, let me just post this graph again:

British_household_income.jpg


Seeing as the modal value for household income is £10-15K a year, you think that having a flat rate of 25% - leaving them with £7500-10250 to live on would be fair?

Do you actually think that's a reasonable sum to live on?
 
[quote author=Richey link=topic=46360.msg1378012#msg1378012 date=1313065414]
[quote author=singlerider link=topic=46360.msg1378001#msg1378001 date=1313064609]
It never fails to amaze me how many people buy into this idea that rich people are inherently altruistic and philanthropic, and if we could only show willing and meet them half way, if we could only reduce how much tax they had to pay then they'd suddenly change and stop trying to squeeze every little penny out of life.

Bullshit.

If the rates were lowered, they'd just pay less, and still try to find ways of getting out of anything and everything they can - what makes you think they'd even remotely entertain doing anything else?
[/quote]

Because they would be better off paying tax than paying accountants and tax lawyers?

Of course rich people want as much as they can get. ALL people want as much as they can get.

If you have a certain amount of money and you know you can't keep it all then its pretty natural to go for the process that ends up with you keeping the most of it. At the moment for many people that is the route of tax avoidance schemes (where people still lose a portion of their money). If that was changed so that paying UK tax was the way that ends up with you keeping the most of it then that would surely be the more popular one wouldn't it?

The added bonus of that would be that it would make the UK a much more attractive place for businesses to set up and invest in.
[/quote]

They'd still have accountants and lawyers and they'd still scheme of ways to pay less, and find them. Reducing the amount of tax they pay would not increase the amount of tax brought in - how in the fuck does that logic work?

It doesn't
 
[quote author=singlerider link=topic=46360.msg1378013#msg1378013 date=1313065556]

Firstly, they'd find a way around it - they can afford the accountants that would find a way, or the politicians to create a way.

[/quote]

This is the point. Why would they pay money to an accountant to avoid tax if just paying the tax in the first place is cheaper for them?
 
I give up.

You honestly think they wouldn't have an accountant anyway?

This is fucking boring now, and you're either being obtuse or somewhere along the line you were lobotomised and the part of your brain responsible for logic was removed. Tories are great! Rich people make the world a better place! Ra ra ra!
 
[quote author=singlerider link=topic=46360.msg1378013#msg1378013 date=1313065556]
[quote author=Pesam link=topic=46360.msg1378008#msg1378008 date=1313064937]
It's hard to argue the logic that if taxes for the rich were reduced and everyone paid a flat rate of 25% then the rich cunts might do us the honour of actually paying their way.

To enforce this I would suggest lowering the amount of time non-tax payers with residences are allowed stay in the country to 90 days per year.
[/quote]

Firstly, they'd find a way around it - they can afford the accountants that would find a way, or the politicians to create a way.

Secondly, let me just post this graph again:

British_household_income.jpg


Seeing as the modal value for household income is £10-15K a year, you think that having a flat rate of 25% - leaving them with £7500-10250 to live on would be fair?

Do you actually think that's a reasonable sum to live on?
[/quote]

Slight flaw in the argument here Single. The personal tax allowance, the sum up to which people don't pay tax is circa £7,500 rising to £8,00 next year. So you figure would have to change a bit.
Also that model of income. Is that earned income or could any of it including your mode be from benefits? In which case tax would not come into it again.


regards
 
[quote author=singlerider link=topic=46360.msg1378013#msg1378013 date=1313065556]
[quote author=Pesam link=topic=46360.msg1378008#msg1378008 date=1313064937]
It's hard to argue the logic that if taxes for the rich were reduced and everyone paid a flat rate of 25% then the rich cunts might do us the honour of actually paying their way.

To enforce this I would suggest lowering the amount of time non-tax payers with residences are allowed stay in the country to 90 days per year.
[/quote]

Firstly, they'd find a way around it - they can afford the accountants that would find a way, or the politicians to create a way.

Secondly, let me just post this graph again:

British_household_income.jpg


Seeing as the modal value for household income is £10-15K a year, you think that having a flat rate of 25% - leaving them with £7500-10250 to live on would be fair?

Do you actually think that's a reasonable sum to live on?
[/quote]

I thought I wouldn't need to say that obviously the lowest paid tax breakswould stay in place i.e you don't pay tax below a certain level of income and the first "X" amount is tax free.

I didn't say anything about fair, I just want to find away that we can make the rich pay their taxes - it would be fairER.
 
[quote author=singlerider link=topic=46360.msg1378018#msg1378018 date=1313065995]
I give up.

You honestly think they wouldn't have an accountant anyway?

This is fucking boring now, and you're either being obtuse or somewhere along the line you were lobotomised and the part of your brain responsible for logic was removed. Tories are great! Rich people make the world a better place! Ra ra ra!
[/quote]

I'll ignore the rather unnecessary personal insult. I haven't insulted you have I?

They will have accountants of course but it is specialised tax accountants and tax advisers/lawyers who deal with tax avoidance schemes. For the complex schemes it is big business, in a field that changes all the time so someone with that kind of specialist knowledge is unlikely to be someone's in-house accountant.

Also the schemes themselves are rarely free to set up and to invest in. There are arrangement fees and there is a certain amount of risk involved. A lot of people will make tax free investments in the knowledge that they might lose a lot more of the money but because the tax burden is so high they take that risk.

If the tax rate is lower then it would not be worth them taking that risk.

Now, if you have figures for how much it costs individuals and businesses to avoid tax compared with what they would be paying if they did just choose to pay tax then that would be relevant. I don't have those exact figures personally, but then I am not the one dismissing the theory out of hand.
 
[quote author=Vlads Quiff link=topic=46360.msg1378022#msg1378022 date=1313066440]
Slight flaw in the argument here Single. The personal tax allowance, the sum up to which people don't pay tax is circa £7,500 rising to £8,00 next year. So you figure would have to change a bit.
Also that model of income. Is that earned income or could any of it including your mode be from benefits? In which case tax would not come into it again.


regards
[/quote]

Both valid points actually Vlad, fair doos.

I still don't think a flat band is fair though.

[quote author=Richey link=topic=46360.msg1378026#msg1378026 date=1313066856]
I'll ignore the rather unnecessary personal insult. I haven't insulted you have I?

They will have accountants of course but it is specialised tax accountants and tax advisers/lawyers who deal with tax avoidance schemes. For the complex schemes it is big business, in a field that changes all the time so someone with that kind of specialist knowledge is unlikely to be someone's in-house accountant.

Also the schemes themselves are rarely free to set up and to invest in. There are arrangement fees and there is a certain amount of risk involved. A lot of people will make tax free investments in the knowledge that they might lose a lot more of the money but because the tax burden is so high they take that risk.

If the tax rate is lower then it would not be worth them taking that risk.

Now, if you have figures for how much it costs individuals and businesses to avoid tax compared with what they would be paying if they did just choose to pay tax then that would be relevant. I don't have those exact figures personally, but then I am not the one dismissing the theory out of hand.


[/quote]

I'm going to have to stop talking to you Richey. I apologise for the insult, it was unnecessary, but I can't guarantee it won't happen again
 
Apparently one of the ideas to prevent this happening again is to 'turn off social media' when they think a disturbance is about to happen.

Have they listened to themselves lately?
 
SR - is there anything you're not angry with at the moment ? You've been getting a little insulting to some the other posters over the last day or so probably borne out of your frustration but knock it on the head a touch please mate. People will always have a difference of opinion and you seem to have become increasingly wound up when either people don't agree with or fully comprehend your point. Chill out a little amigo.
 
[quote author=singlerider link=topic=46360.msg1378038#msg1378038 date=1313067910]
Apparently one of the ideas to prevent this happening again is to 'turn off social media' when they think a disturbance is about to happen.

Have they listened to themselves lately?
[/quote]

Hahaha, fucking hell.
 
SR, you act like it's a sin to make sure you only pay what you should. It's the state's job to come and get it and your job to only pay what you have to. It's not just a matter of a bit of PAYE.

I've got a pub, it makes fuck all in the scheme of things, I mean a bit of pocket money for my missus but it's lost more than that in the first couple of years. It's basically a fund raiser for wars. If you add up what it takes in tax. 44p per pint beer duty. We sell about 120,000 pints a year, so that's about 50k. Then there's the VAT on the stuff we sell, which is around 70k. Then there's the business rates, which are about 15k. So HMRC get 135k before they get any PAYE and all the other shit, whereas the profit is a few hundred quid a week, ten times less. That's 90% tax on that business alone. Then I pay 40% of everything I earn personally from my other business, plus a few hundred grand in VAT. Then I pay 12.5% NI for the 20 odd people employed. I don't really want to add it all up, but what I give the HMRC dwarfs what I take home. It's many many multiples higher and it's complete bullshit.

I don't have any tax avoidance schemes going on at all, but I can see why people do.
 
Yet another Torygraph article basically switching sides:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/jeremywarner/100011458/gilt-yields-are-signalling-a-depression/

As you can see from the chart below (or perhaps not given the quality of the reproduction, for which apologies), UK government bond yields have fallen to historic lows the depths of which even six months ago would scarcely have been believable – less than 2.5pc on ten year gilts. These are the sort of levels that until recently only ruled in Japan.

Those of us who have been calling the top of the bull market in bonds for the best part of the last two years are left with egg on our faces. I’m hardly alone. Step forward Bill Gross, John Paulson, Jim Rogers and a litany of other self styled market “experts”. And those who got it right? Well I hate to pay him the complement, but among others Paul Krugman, whose religiously preached Keynsian analysis of the crisis has, in this regard at least, been spot on. For this is not just a UK phenomenon. It’s happening just about everywhere, bar the troubled debtor nations of the eurozone, where the very real possibility of default has sent bond prices in the other direction.

If you believe much of the European press, rising bond yields in Italy, Spain and much of the rest of the eurozone even as they plummet virtually everywhere else is all an Anglo Saxon conspiracy designed to sink the euro. (See the excellent blog by my colleague, Ambrose Evans Pritchard, for more on this) Why won’t the bastards lend to us, they ask? It is because you don’t have the natural corrective of a floating exchange rate, is the answer, but Europe’s political class refuses to listen.

gilt-yield-graph.jpg


So why is this happening? Why is it that despite ever more mountainous government debt, investors want to keep buying into the non-eurozone version of it? There are three things going on here. The first is that central banks have set short term rates at close to zero in an effort to stimulate demand, and judged by comments from the US Federal Reserve and the Bank of England this week, look set to keep them there for at least the next two years. A more hawkish tone has been set by the European Central Bank, which in part explains why the bond prices of debtor eurozone nations are doing so badly, but in the round, policy is being kept as stimulative as it can.

In the hunt for yield, that drives money out of short term deposits into near cash equivalents such as longer dated government bonds, which in turn drives down the yields on those bonds.

Second, the market has begun to anticipate further bouts of “quantitative easing”, or purchases by central banks of government bonds, both in the US and Europe. If the purpose of such purchases is to drive yields lower in the hope that investors will either spend or invest the money in higher risk assets, you kind of wonder whether there’s any sense in doing any more. Bond yields are sinking without any help from central bankers. But in any case, markets anticipate more of it.

Yet the single most important factor that underlies all this is that when householders, businesses and the financial sector aren’t spending and investing, a savings surplus accumulates which has to go somewhere. In the search for safe havens, it goes first and foremost into government debt, where it is used to provide the demand which the private sector has decided to remove. When governments attempt to reduce their demand for debt, as is beginning to happen at the moment with fiscal austerity programmes, you get a self feeding pressure of excess demand on limited supply, and yields fall even further.

What these yields are pointing to then, is a depression. In such an environment, corporate profits will suffer and insolvencies will rise. Equity markets suffer accordingly.
If I was a Treasury mandarin, I’d be urging the Chancellor to bring forward his debt raising programme to take advantage of these extraordinarily low interest rates. I doubt the chance to lock in long term debt at rates of as little as 2.5pc – way below the current, near 5pc, inflation rate – will occur again for an awfully long time.


But of course, the Treasury cannot do this. In the interests of transparency, it has already announced how much it is going to raise and in what form for this financial year. The next opportunity for altering that schedule is not until the Autumn statement. You can see the amount of debt the Government is planning to issue this year from the table below – in gross terms, it is already a new record.

debt-management-2.jpg


And as the second table shows, despite ever more voluminous issuance, the amount the government is paying for its debt has been falling steadily.

debt-management-12.jpg


George Osborne, the Chancellor, likes to see this phenomenon as a vote of confidence in his deficit reduction strategy. Unfortunately, that’s only part of the story. As I say, they’ve had similar yields in Japan for years now, with no sign of a credible deficit reduction strategy in sight and public debt spiralling up towards 250pc of GDP.

Unfortunately, low gilt yields are more indicative of impaired private sector demand than they are of Government resolve. What the economy appears to need, and I really do hesitate to say this, is a good old fashioned bout of inflation, but then we’ve already got that in the UK, and to perpetuate might seem only to replace one problem with another. Yet there are few more effective ways of eroding the doomsday machine of excessive debt.
 
[quote author=Sunny link=topic=46360.msg1378041#msg1378041 date=1313068132]
SR - is there anything you're not angry with at the moment ? You've been getting a little insulting to some the other posters over the last day or so probably borne out of your frustration but knock it on the head a touch please mate. People will always have a difference of opinion and you seem to have become increasingly wound up when either people don't agree with or fully comprehend your point. Chill out a little amigo.
[/quote]

Fair point. Sunny.

Soz everyone, for being a ranty cunt.

Guess I'm just frustrated that shit's going wrong and people seem to think the cause is the complete opposite to what it actually is, and ditto for the solutions.

Plus I'm tired and quitting smoking.

But mainly I'm just being an arse I guess.

Love yous really

x
 
[quote author=singlerider link=topic=46360.msg1378056#msg1378056 date=1313068693]
[quote author=Sunny link=topic=46360.msg1378041#msg1378041 date=1313068132]
SR - is there anything you're not angry with at the moment ? You've been getting a little insulting to some the other posters over the last day or so probably borne out of your frustration but knock it on the head a touch please mate. People will always have a difference of opinion and you seem to have become increasingly wound up when either people don't agree with or fully comprehend your point. Chill out a little amigo.
[/quote]

Fair point. Sunny.

Soz everyone, for being a ranty cunt.

Guess I'm just frustrated that shit's going wrong and people seem to think the cause is the complete opposite to what it actually is, and ditto for the solutions.

Plus I'm tired and quitting smoking.

But mainly I'm just being an arse I guess.

Love yous really

x
[/quote]

Ah.

In that case I fully understand. Good luck.
 
[quote author=singlerider link=topic=46360.msg1378056#msg1378056 date=1313068693]

Plus I'm tired and quitting smoking.

[/quote]


Aaaaah. All makes sense...
 
[quote author=Krump link=topic=46360.msg1378048#msg1378048 date=1313068416]
SR, you act like it's a sin to make sure you only pay what you should. It's the state's job to come and get it and your job to only pay what you have to. It's not just a matter of a bit of PAYE.

I've got a pub, it makes fuck all in the scheme of things, I mean a bit of pocket money for my missus but it's lost more than that in the first couple of years. It's basically a fund raiser for wars. If you add up what it takes in tax. 44p per pint beer duty. We sell about 120,000 pints a year, so that's about 50k. Then there's the VAT on the stuff we sell, which is around 70k. Then there's the business rates, which are about 15k. So HMRC get 135k before they get any PAYE and all the other shit, whereas the profit is a few hundred quid a week, ten times less. That's 90% tax on that business alone. Then I pay 40% of everything I earn personally from my other business, plus a few hundred grand in VAT. Then I pay 12.5% NI for the 20 odd people employed. I don't really want to add it all up, but what I give the HMRC dwarfs what I take home. It's many many multiples higher and it's complete bullshit.

I don't have any tax avoidance schemes going on at all, but I can see why people do.
[/quote]

Yeah, I know what you're saying like - and FWIW I blame the government rather than the people, for letting it happen - same as during the expenses scandals, people were outraged, but half the MPs didn't do anything (legally) wrong.

Don't hate the playa, hate the game I guess.

Fuck it, I'm gonna go play FIFA. Or have a wank. Or do both (not at the same time though, that's just asking for trouble)
 
I Currently work in the castlefield area of high Wycombe on Tuesday after the youth club a riot van came with about 8 officers cos of a call about kids breaking a window or something.. Turned out it was nothing.
Last night a few kids hanging around outside the mosque (during ramadhan kids always hang around during evening prayers happens every year and the police are well aware of this) and a riot van comes to tell the kids "f**k off home"(according to one of the boys there.. Not saying it's gospel) a while later 4 riot vans and a helicopter for a few stones thrown.

Today all day cops n pcso's walking the streets just came to the centre now and four cars and a van outside at least 10 officers n pcso's chilling there. Again slightly heavy handed considering they put on their twitter it was a minor disturbance.

I'm leaving work here in about two weeks, glad iv affected change over the past 8 months good news is I'm gonna move to work with kids in inner city London.
 
It's inevitable within this context.

It's in everyones interests for kids to be inside at the moment.
 
[quote author=Atlas link=topic=46360.msg1378253#msg1378253 date=1313082547]
I Currently work in the castlefield area of high Wycombe on Tuesday after the youth club a riot van came with about 8 officers cos of a call about kids breaking a window or something.. Turned out it was nothing.
Last night a few kids hanging around outside the mosque (during ramadhan kids always hang around during evening prayers happens every year and the police are well aware of this) and a riot van comes to tell the kids "f**k off home"(according to one of the boys there.. Not saying it's gospel) a while later 4 riot vans and a helicopter for a few stones thrown.

Today all day cops n pcso's walking the streets just came to the centre now and four cars and a van outside at least 10 officers n pcso's chilling there. Again slightly heavy handed considering they put on their twitter it was a minor disturbance.

I'm leaving work here in about two weeks, glad iv affected change over the past 8 months good news is I'm gonna move to work with kids in inner city London.
[/quote]

Don't buy any new trainees or clobber before you start your new Job Asim

regards
 
Back
Top Bottom