[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article ,
Andrew wrote:
Love to know how those on PAYE get out of paying the higher tax rates.
Because you are suggesting this happened. And if they can get out of
paying a higher rate of 50%, why would they not do the same with 40% or
whatever?


EASY. They become self-employed, paying dividends or 'self-employed'
paying 9% NI. Or they sacrifice salary for pension contributions or
other in-work benefits.

Right. So no longer on PAYE. The Irish answer when asking directions - 'If
I were you, I wouldn't start from here.'

--
*I'll try being nicer if you'll try being smarter

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[Mike Tomlinson]

En el artículo , Bob Eager
escribió:

Unlikely to be reliable support from Ruth Davidson, either.

A profile of her he

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotlan...itics-40246332

Interesting lady.

--
(\_/)
(='.'=) "Between two evils, I always pick
(")_(") the one I never tried before." - Mae West

[Bob Eager[_5_]]

On Mon, 12 Jun 2017 18:12:29 +0100, Mike Tomlinson wrote:

En el artÃ*culo , Bob Eager
escribió:

Unlikely to be reliable support from Ruth Davidson, either.

A profile of her he

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotlan...itics-40246332

Interesting lady.

Don't get me wrong. I support her, if not her politics.

--
My posts are my copyright and if @diy_forums or Home Owners' Hub
wish to copy them they can pay me £1 a message.
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
*lightning surge protection* - a w_tom conductor

[tim...]

"Andrew" wrote in message
news
On 10/06/2017 11:08, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Andrew wrote:
The top rate of tax was 60% for some time during Nigel Lawsons spell
in number 11. Cutting it to 40% occurred quite late on and Gordon
Brown kept the 40% almost until the end. The 50% tax rate was
introduced simply to give the Labour party some 'ammunition' to
portray the Conservatives as friends of 'rich' who wanted to
'cut their taxes'. And Brown kept the 40% rate because he was
told by the treasury that increasing it would not result in a
significant increase in tax collected.

Love to know how those on PAYE get out of paying the higher tax rates.
Because you are suggesting this happened. And if they can get out of
paying a higher rate of 50%, why would they not do the same with 40% or
whatever?


EASY. They become self-employed, paying dividends or 'self-employed'
paying 9% NI.

people who pay themselves via dividends have to pay an income surcharge to
take the effective tax rate up to the same as the higher rates

This tabloid idea that paying dividends saves tax is completely false, but
they still persist in touting it however often they ate told it is wrong

Or they sacrifice salary for pension contributions or

The new system of maximum contributions scuppers this except for marginal
amounts

other in-work benefits.

which are usually fully taxable as if they were income

Loads of high-earners in the NHS, BBC and many parts of government are
doing this.

because it does save on NI

It doesn't save a penny on tax

The employer is only too happy to agree because it costs them less too.

Not always

tim

[bert[_7_]]

In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
Mike Tomlinson wrote:
The Tories might have trouble dealing with some aspects of the DUP
manifesto though. Anti-gay, anti-same-sex-marriage, anti-abortion

Especially with Ruth Davidson leading the Scottish Tories.

Those are devolved issues.
AS I have already said, DUP put your hands up when we say so - the
alternative is JC.
--
bert

[bert[_7_]]

In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
Mike Tomlinson wrote:
En el artículo , Bob Eager
escribió:

Unlikely to be reliable support from Ruth Davidson, either.

Aye. She's gay, so has a personal interest.

Is being 'gay and having a personal interest' any different from belonging
to some loony religion?

But it probably is. Most gays aren't interested in converting everyone to
their beliefs.
Oh yes they are
Just happy to be left to get on with their own lives.


--
bert

[bert[_7_]]

In article , tim...
writes


"Mike Tomlinson" wrote in message
news
En el artículo , tim...
escribió:

I don't believe that they will come up with an unacceptable list.

Come on, this is the DUP, the spiritual home of Ian Paisley (dec'd)

I could see a Tory/DUP agreement running (almost) to term.

I couldn't. With a majority of 2? Come on, that's delusional.

A working majority of 17 - (apparently) exactly the same as she had
before she called the election.

However, I don't think we are going to get a chance to find out how
stable an agreement with the DUP is, because I suspect a poor hand in
Brexit negotiations will see the staunch Levers rebel and the Tory
party in turmoil before then.

You are forgetting the staunch Brexiteers in the Labour Party.
BICBW (about us having a poor hand)

tim


In poker how you play the hand is as important as its strength.
--
bert

[bert[_7_]]

In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
tim... wrote:
However, I don't think we are going to get a chance to find out how
stable an agreement with the DUP is, because I suspect a poor hand in
Brexit negotiations will see the staunch Levers rebel and the Tory
party in turmoil before then.

It is so amusing. Corbyn said to have had supported the IRA in the past -
and now May going cap in hand to Paisley's lot for support.

Corbyn DID support the IRA but the DUP has never been actively involved
with the Protestant terrorists.
--
bert

[bert[_7_]]

In article , Andy Burns
writes
Bob Eager wrote:

Wait until Sinn Fein roll up and vote against them.

Quote Gerry Adams from Friday

"There is no danger of us taking our seats in the Westminster parliament."
To do that would require them to swear an oath of loyalty to the Queen
which they have vowed they will never do.
--
bert

[bert[_7_]]

In article , Mike Tomlinson
writes
En el artículo , Huge
escribió:

And he also said "I hope there is no return to the spirit of 'loadsamoney'
heartlessness"

Good on him.

I actually rather like Boris. He typifies the British eccentric. I
can't decide if it's all a front and there's a scheming Machiavellian
character behind the cuddly façade. Whether he's PM material is another
question.

I think being FS has matured him a little.
--
bert

[bert[_7_]]

In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
Andrew wrote:
The top rate of tax was 60% for some time during Nigel Lawsons spell
in number 11. Cutting it to 40% occurred quite late on and Gordon
Brown kept the 40% almost until the end. The 50% tax rate was
introduced simply to give the Labour party some 'ammunition' to
portray the Conservatives as friends of 'rich' who wanted to
'cut their taxes'. And Brown kept the 40% rate because he was
told by the treasury that increasing it would not result in a
significant increase in tax collected.

Love to know how those on PAYE get out of paying the higher tax rates.
Because you are suggesting this happened. And if they can get out of
paying a higher rate of 50%, why would they not do the same with 40% or
whatever?

You have forgotten who pays most of the income tax collected.
When trying to reduce tax liability the law of diminishing returns
applies. At 40% it just isn't worth the hassle.
--
bert

[bert[_7_]]

In article , tim...
writes


"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"tim..." wrote in message
news


"Capitol" wrote in message
news:wd6dnbBZ9dDFSafEnZ2dnUU78RXNnZ2d@brightvie w.co.uk...
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

And what did she actually do? Propose to remove the triple
pension lock

and replace it by something almost as good.

Or even less good for those OAPs.

and winter fuel payment.

Keep your lies to yourself please. There may be children present.
There
was no suggestion of removing the WFP, just means-testing it.
Making it
taxable would be one way.

Yes. Tax the WFA to allow for even more tax cuts to the most well
off. You
just know it makes sense.

But, of course you snipped the bit where she promised to help the
disadvantaged. Those are presumably CEOs and above to the likes of you?


Giving tax cuts to the rich generates spending power to employ the poor.

so the trickle down theory says

There are many who say that it doesn't work.

Taxing the rich simply drives them away.

at a certain level

there is little to no evidence that at the rates the Tories
inherited were too high

And yet plenty like Branson choose to pretend
that their income shows up in foreign countrys
so they dont have to pay british tax on it.

but people as rich as Branson would do that if the tax were 10%

That's the fallacy of lower taxes on the rich - the idea that if you
lower their taxes the very very rich will take fewer steps to avoid it
is bull****.

tim



No it isn't. There are costs involved in doing this.
--
bert

[bert[_7_]]

In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
tim... wrote:
That's the fallacy of lower taxes on the rich - the idea that if you
lower their taxes the very very rich will take fewer steps to avoid
it is bull****.


Its not.

Not if one of the steps they take to avoid it is living in your
country and spending their money there.

but if that's the way that you can MAKE them pay more tax, you don't
need to lower the rate to encourage them, do you?

Great fun to hear all those saying they'll leave the UK if such and such
happens. Good luck to them - I wish them every success in their new home.
Especially Turnip.

But of course most choose to live here - for whatever reasons. So only
fair they pay their share of running the country.

Well many French live here because our taxes are lower than those at
home. If Corbyn had got in they would probably have left and gone
somewhere else.
It's exactly the same as the EU arguments. Most want all the good bits of
it - but don't want to pay the 'costs' of it.


--
bert

[bert[_7_]]

In article , tim...
writes


"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"tim..." wrote in message
news


"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"tim..." wrote in message
news

"Capitol" wrote in message
news:wd6dnbBZ9dDFSafEnZ2dnUU78RXNnZ2d@brightv iew.co.uk...
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

And what did she actually do? Propose to remove the triple
pension lock

and replace it by something almost as good.

Or even less good for those OAPs.

and winter fuel payment.

Keep your lies to yourself please. There may be children
present. There
was no suggestion of removing the WFP, just means-testing it.
Making it
taxable would be one way.

Yes. Tax the WFA to allow for even more tax cuts to the most
well off. You
just know it makes sense.

But, of course you snipped the bit where she promised to help the
disadvantaged. Those are presumably CEOs and above to the likes
of you?


Giving tax cuts to the rich generates spending power to employ
the poor.

so the trickle down theory says

There are many who say that it doesn't work.

Taxing the rich simply drives them away.

at a certain level

there is little to no evidence that at the rates the Tories
inherited were too high

And yet plenty like Branson choose to pretend
that their income shows up in foreign countrys
so they dont have to pay british tax on it.

but people as rich as Branson would do that if the tax were 10%

I doubt it, because it costs more than 10% to do that.

Nonsense
You ever done it?

That's the fallacy of lower taxes on the rich - the idea that if you
lower their taxes the very very rich will take fewer steps to avoid
it is bull****.

No its not if the tax they would pay is less than the cost
of farting around pretending its coming from elsewhere
with the risk that some arsehole in the Bahamas etc will
just **** off with your money you have stashed there.

I imagine that Branson has his money somewhere safer than a dodgy
Bahamian Bank (if indeed, there is such a thing as a dodgy Bahamian
Bank)




--
bert

[Capitol]

Andy Burns wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

tim... wrote:

they can't "just roll up", they have to take the oath first

That's where the EU parliament went wrong with the likes of Farage.

Some democracy, if there's no room for dissenters ...



Socialism in action!

[tim...]

"bert" wrote in message
news
In article , tim...
writes


"Mike Tomlinson" wrote in message
news
En el artículo , tim...
escribió:

I don't believe that they will come up with an unacceptable list.

Come on, this is the DUP, the spiritual home of Ian Paisley (dec'd)

I could see a Tory/DUP agreement running (almost) to term.

I couldn't. With a majority of 2? Come on, that's delusional.

A working majority of 17 - (apparently) exactly the same as she had before
she called the election.

However, I don't think we are going to get a chance to find out how stable
an agreement with the DUP is, because I suspect a poor hand in Brexit
negotiations will see the staunch Levers rebel and the Tory party in
turmoil before then.

You are forgetting the staunch Brexiteers in the Labour Party.

about 4 of them

at least one of whom did not stand this time

tim

[tim...]

"bert" wrote in message
...
In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
Andrew wrote:
The top rate of tax was 60% for some time during Nigel Lawsons spell
in number 11. Cutting it to 40% occurred quite late on and Gordon
Brown kept the 40% almost until the end. The 50% tax rate was
introduced simply to give the Labour party some 'ammunition' to
portray the Conservatives as friends of 'rich' who wanted to
'cut their taxes'. And Brown kept the 40% rate because he was
told by the treasury that increasing it would not result in a
significant increase in tax collected.

Love to know how those on PAYE get out of paying the higher tax rates.
Because you are suggesting this happened. And if they can get out of
paying a higher rate of 50%, why would they not do the same with 40% or
whatever?

You have forgotten who pays most of the income tax collected.
When trying to reduce tax liability the law of diminishing returns
applies. At 40% it just isn't worth the hassle.

there is absolutely no proof that 40% is the top of the laffer curve, none
at all

tim


--
bert

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article ,
tim... wrote:
Loads of high-earners in the NHS, BBC and many parts of government are
doing this.

because it does save on NI

It doesn't save a penny on tax

The employer is only too happy to agree because it costs them less too.

Not always

One thing they are very happy with is going self employed removes pretty
well all your employment rights.

--
*He who laughs last, thinks slowest.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[bert[_7_]]

In article , tim...
writes


"bert" wrote in message
...
In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
Andrew wrote:
The top rate of tax was 60% for some time during Nigel Lawsons spell
in number 11. Cutting it to 40% occurred quite late on and Gordon
Brown kept the 40% almost until the end. The 50% tax rate was
introduced simply to give the Labour party some 'ammunition' to
portray the Conservatives as friends of 'rich' who wanted to
'cut their taxes'. And Brown kept the 40% rate because he was
told by the treasury that increasing it would not result in a
significant increase in tax collected.

Love to know how those on PAYE get out of paying the higher tax rates.
Because you are suggesting this happened. And if they can get out of
paying a higher rate of 50%, why would they not do the same with 40% or
whatever?

You have forgotten who pays most of the income tax collected.
When trying to reduce tax liability the law of diminishing returns
applies. At 40% it just isn't worth the hassle.

there is absolutely no proof that 40% is the top of the laffer curve,
none at all

tim


-- bert

I didn't say it was.
--
bert