On 2006-08-23 21:14:16 +0100, Derek ^ said:

On 23 Aug 2006 18:01:53 GMT, Huge wrote:


That might have been what was said. I don't believe it. You
only have to look (preferably from a distance) at the metrication
fascists to know what kind of people were involved.

It was to conceal the humunguous scale of taxation we pay nowadays.

If you and I were both VAT registered artisans employed by our own
companies, I would pay income tax and VAT, you would pay income tax
and VAT. If I were to spend a day working on a private project on your
house (say) for you @ £400 inc VAT that would yield a marginal income
of £400 -£60 (vat) - £80 (both NI's) - £112 (Higher rate tax) =
£148.

Now if I had spent the £148 remaining out of the £400 you gave me on
motor fuel I would have got (say) 30 quids worth of fuel all the rest
= £370 being tax.

Now :-)) since your finances are identical to mine to get the £400
that you paid to me in spendable cash you would have had to bill out
£400x400/180 = £888.88 to your customers just to pay me enough money
to buy 30 quids worth of poxy diesel in my sorry heap.
:-(

Tha above analysis is not rigorous, I don't have access to or
understand tax/NI tables. However it also omits most of the nickel and
dimeing taxes. Company car tax, taxes on notional benefits in kind,
such as private use of a works phone, computer, travel insurance
etc. GB created a tax incentive for firms to buy PC's for employees,
now he proposes taxing the employee on the benefit in kind on them.
Shysters. No other word for it.

DG

That's being kind. When you consider the way that the money is
incompetently spent, it is thievery.

Anybody who feels he needs self promotion by publishing pictures of the
wife and kids in order to convince a stupid public that he has a human
face is not to be trusted.