Join the Labour Party and save your country!

Stevo_666

Coopster the 1st wrote:

As so few understand taxes and the tax system on this thread, here is an analogy explained in language they should understand

Explaining how tax works to the simpletons wrote:

There are 10 drinkers in a bar who decide to settle their £100 weekly beer bill roughly the same way we pay our taxes. So, the first four men (the poorest) paid nothing; the fifth paid £1; the sixth £3; the seventh £7; the eighth £12; the ninth £18; and the 10th man, the richest, paid £59.

Then the barman decided to give them a £20 discount for being good customers. The group wanted to continue to pay the new £80 bill the same way as before. While the first four men still drank for free, the other six divided up the £20 windfall by following the progressive principle of the tax system. So the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing, making a 100 per cent saving; the sixth man paid £2 instead of £3 (a 33 per cent saving); the seventh man paid £5 instead of £7 (a 28 per cent saving); the eighth £9 instead of £12 (a 25 per cent saving); and the ninth £14 instead of £18 (a 22 per cent saving). The 10th man paid £49 instead of £59 (a 16 per cent saving).

The men then began to compare their savings. “I only got £1 out of the £20,” declared the sixth man. He pointed to the 10th man, “but he got £10 – the wealthy get all the breaks!” “Wait a minute,” said the first four men, “we didn’t get anything at all. This new system exploits the poor.” So the other nine men surrounded the 10th and beat him up. The next week he didn’t show for drinks, so the nine sat down and had their beers without him. But when they came to pay, they discovered they didn’t have enough money between them to pay even half the bill.

When you keep expecting the 7th, 8th, 9th and 10th men to pay more it ends up with less for those at the bottom...

I quoted this on here a couple of years ago (although itis still perfectly valid) and it didn't get a good reception from some because it contains a few home truths about who really pays the bills, regardless of these unilateral leftie notions of what is 'fair'.

coopster_the_1st

Stevo 666 wrote:

Coopster the 1st wrote:

As so few understand taxes and the tax system on this thread, here is an analogy explained in language they should understand

Explaining how tax works to the simpletons wrote:

There are 10 drinkers in a bar who decide to settle their £100 weekly beer bill roughly the same way we pay our taxes. So, the first four men (the poorest) paid nothing; the fifth paid £1; the sixth £3; the seventh £7; the eighth £12; the ninth £18; and the 10th man, the richest, paid £59.

Then the barman decided to give them a £20 discount for being good customers. The group wanted to continue to pay the new £80 bill the same way as before. While the first four men still drank for free, the other six divided up the £20 windfall by following the progressive principle of the tax system. So the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing, making a 100 per cent saving; the sixth man paid £2 instead of £3 (a 33 per cent saving); the seventh man paid £5 instead of £7 (a 28 per cent saving); the eighth £9 instead of £12 (a 25 per cent saving); and the ninth £14 instead of £18 (a 22 per cent saving). The 10th man paid £49 instead of £59 (a 16 per cent saving).

The men then began to compare their savings. “I only got £1 out of the £20,” declared the sixth man. He pointed to the 10th man, “but he got £10 – the wealthy get all the breaks!” “Wait a minute,” said the first four men, “we didn’t get anything at all. This new system exploits the poor.” So the other nine men surrounded the 10th and beat him up. The next week he didn’t show for drinks, so the nine sat down and had their beers without him. But when they came to pay, they discovered they didn’t have enough money between them to pay even half the bill.

When you keep expecting the 7th, 8th, 9th and 10th men to pay more it ends up with less for those at the bottom...

I quoted this on here a couple of years ago (although itis still perfectly valid) and it didn't get a good reception from some because it contains a few home truths about who really pays the bills, regardless of these unilateral leftie notions of what is 'fair'.

This should be interesting experiment to see if 2 further years of life experience has improved their understanding of reality verses ideology...

However, I feel the snowflakes will still have their heads in the sand and deny the above :roll:

Stevo_666

Unlikely...

surrey_commuter

Coopster the 1st wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Coopster the 1st wrote:

As so few understand taxes and the tax system on this thread, here is an analogy explained in language they should understand

Explaining how tax works to the simpletons wrote:

There are 10 drinkers in a bar who decide to settle their £100 weekly beer bill roughly the same way we pay our taxes. So, the first four men (the poorest) paid nothing; the fifth paid £1; the sixth £3; the seventh £7; the eighth £12; the ninth £18; and the 10th man, the richest, paid £59.

Then the barman decided to give them a £20 discount for being good customers. The group wanted to continue to pay the new £80 bill the same way as before. While the first four men still drank for free, the other six divided up the £20 windfall by following the progressive principle of the tax system. So the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing, making a 100 per cent saving; the sixth man paid £2 instead of £3 (a 33 per cent saving); the seventh man paid £5 instead of £7 (a 28 per cent saving); the eighth £9 instead of £12 (a 25 per cent saving); and the ninth £14 instead of £18 (a 22 per cent saving). The 10th man paid £49 instead of £59 (a 16 per cent saving).

The men then began to compare their savings. “I only got £1 out of the £20,” declared the sixth man. He pointed to the 10th man, “but he got £10 – the wealthy get all the breaks!” “Wait a minute,” said the first four men, “we didn’t get anything at all. This new system exploits the poor.” So the other nine men surrounded the 10th and beat him up. The next week he didn’t show for drinks, so the nine sat down and had their beers without him. But when they came to pay, they discovered they didn’t have enough money between them to pay even half the bill.

When you keep expecting the 7th, 8th, 9th and 10th men to pay more it ends up with less for those at the bottom...

I quoted this on here a couple of years ago (although itis still perfectly valid) and it didn't get a good reception from some because it contains a few home truths about who really pays the bills, regardless of these unilateral leftie notions of what is 'fair'.

This should be interesting experiment to see if 2 further years of life experience has improved their understanding of reality verses ideology...

However, I feel the snowflakes will still have their heads in the sand and deny the above :roll:

You still have not explained what turned you away from the dark side.

As a simpleton can I clarify that the rich bloke has moved to an overseas financial centre and the others can't even afford a round in 'spoons

mamba80

Stevo 666 wrote:

I quoted this on here a couple of years ago (although itis still perfectly valid) and it didn't get a good reception from some because it contains a few home truths about who really pays the bills, regardless of these unilateral leftie notions of what is 'fair'.

Theresa May is also complaining that businesses are not paying their fair share of taxes.... ah the little leftie 'flake lol! she doesnt understand the tax system either, thank god we ve got you an coopster to explain it all in such simple terms, i hope you ve put her straight on a few home truths too?
perhaps the UK s tax system is little more complicated than a guy in a bar analogy?

why do you keep getting such large tax rebates? is your employers payroll dept inept? or are you filling out your tax return incorrectly?
u must have over paid at some point or another?

rjsterry

Coopster the 1st wrote:

As so few understand taxes and the tax system on this thread, here is an analogy explained in language they should understand

Explaining how tax works to the simpletons wrote:

There are 10 drinkers in a bar who decide to settle their £100 weekly beer bill roughly the same way we pay our taxes. So, the first four men (the poorest) paid nothing; the fifth paid £1; the sixth £3; the seventh £7; the eighth £12; the ninth £18; and the 10th man, the richest, paid £59.

Then the barman decided to give them a £20 discount for being good customers. The group wanted to continue to pay the new £80 bill the same way as before. While the first four men still drank for free, the other six divided up the £20 windfall by following the progressive principle of the tax system. So the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing, making a 100 per cent saving; the sixth man paid £2 instead of £3 (a 33 per cent saving); the seventh man paid £5 instead of £7 (a 28 per cent saving); the eighth £9 instead of £12 (a 25 per cent saving); and the ninth £14 instead of £18 (a 22 per cent saving). The 10th man paid £49 instead of £59 (a 16 per cent saving).

The men then began to compare their savings. “I only got £1 out of the £20,” declared the sixth man. He pointed to the 10th man, “but he got £10 – the wealthy get all the breaks!” “Wait a minute,” said the first four men, “we didn’t get anything at all. This new system exploits the poor.” So the other nine men surrounded the 10th and beat him up. The next week he didn’t show for drinks, so the nine sat down and had their beers without him. But when they came to pay, they discovered they didn’t have enough money between them to pay even half the bill.

When you keep expecting the 7th, 8th, 9th and 10th men to pay more it ends up with less for those at the bottom...

Cute, but it's not really an analogy of the tax system, just the specific effect of very high income tax rates for top earners. I could be wrong but I suspect that's not something many of us on here need to worry about, particularly as those very high rates were abolished in the 80s. We flirted with an extra 5% on income above £150K relatively recently but that's also been reversed.
In any case, even if there was a single flat rate, higher earners would still contribute much more because if the income distribution. The bottom 20% receive 8% of the total income, while the top 20% receive 40%. Personal income tax seems about right to me at the moment. That might not fit with some people's idea of me as a leftie, but there you go. I don't see what the big deal with tax rebates is either. It's always nice to get a cheque in the post, but it's usually just correcting an overpayment.

ballysmate

mamba80 wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

I do give to animal charities actually :shock:

I'm highlighting the differences between banging on about caring and actually doing something or contributing to it.

Going back to the underlying subjects of NHS and social care, do you not find ironic that those who shout loudest about uncaring tories usually contribute less to these services than the people that they are criticising?

I knew it. Of course actually donating or volunteering is more useful than posting on here, but this is an Internet forum and who knows who is just talking and who really does contribute beyond what they are legally required to. I'm not sure how the amount of tax someone pays or their political allegiance has any relevance to the validity of their views on the health spending. There are plenty of higher rate taxpayer lefties, just as there are plenty of conservatives who are eligible for tax credits, and all shades in between.

Undoubtedly true. But in Mamba's world, and some others' it has to be said, anyone voting Tory is a heartless twunt.

Would that be in my Downs syndrome world....... ?
Bally, i know plenty of nice tories (as i said) including my Mum, who was the most caring person you could hope to meet, she didnt agree with all tory policies, esp those to do with the NHS (she was a former nurse) but she felt on balance, the tories were better at managing the economy..... had she lived no doubt she d have come to a different conclusion.
Just as not all Labour party members are communists, not all tories are fascists.
But the tory party has moved more to the right, as no doubt the nation has too, i happen to think thats a bad thing, which is why i dont vote Tory anymore.

fwiw you dont come across as heartless but some others do.

I missed the downs syndrome posts.

As regards not appearing heartless... I must try harder.

meursault

Surely, the capitalist system should fund itself without any income tax? I mean it's the greatest system there is, I hear...

Wiki

Income Tax
Income tax was first implemented in Great Britain by William Pitt the Younger in his budget of December 1798 to pay for weapons and equipment in preparation for the Napoleonic Wars. Pitt's new graduated (progressive) income tax began at a levy of 2 old pence in the pound (1/120) on incomes over £60 (£5,696 as of 2015),[7] and increased up to a maximum of 2 shillings (10%) on incomes of over £200. Pitt hoped that the new income tax would raise £10 million, but actual receipts for 1799 totalled just over £6 million.

Unless the Napoleonic war is still on?

Stevo_666

mamba80 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

I quoted this on here a couple of years ago (although itis still perfectly valid) and it didn't get a good reception from some because it contains a few home truths about who really pays the bills, regardless of these unilateral leftie notions of what is 'fair'.

Theresa May is also complaining that businesses are not paying their fair share of taxes.... ah the little leftie 'flake lol! she doesnt understand the tax system either, thank god we ve got you an coopster to explain it all in such simple terms, i hope you ve put her straight on a few home truths too?
perhaps the UK s tax system is little more complicated than a guy in a bar analogy?

why do you keep getting such large tax rebates? is your employers payroll dept inept? or are you filling out your tax return incorrectly?
u must have over paid at some point or another?

The UK system is more complex than the analogy - Coopster quoted it expressly becuase certain people were struggling with understanding how it works Sometimes you have to over simplify.

- I get rebates because I plan sensibly - things like additional pension contributions, enterprise investment schemes generate decent tax savings even if you are employed.
- Payroll isnt wrong because only the things that your employer pays you/gives you as benefits go through the payroll. A lot of things such as additional pension contributions, share sales, dividend and interest income etc has to be done via your tax return.
- Nor is my tax return wrong - you just chuck in the info and HMRC software does the calcs for you and you can't get the rebates without doing your tax return and them checking it...

But of course you would know a lot of this because as a higher rate tax payer you are doing a tax return - aren't you?

Stevo_666

rjsterry wrote:

Coopster the 1st wrote:

As so few understand taxes and the tax system on this thread, here is an analogy explained in language they should understand

Explaining how tax works to the simpletons wrote:

There are 10 drinkers in a bar who decide to settle their £100 weekly beer bill roughly the same way we pay our taxes. So, the first four men (the poorest) paid nothing; the fifth paid £1; the sixth £3; the seventh £7; the eighth £12; the ninth £18; and the 10th man, the richest, paid £59.

Then the barman decided to give them a £20 discount for being good customers. The group wanted to continue to pay the new £80 bill the same way as before. While the first four men still drank for free, the other six divided up the £20 windfall by following the progressive principle of the tax system. So the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing, making a 100 per cent saving; the sixth man paid £2 instead of £3 (a 33 per cent saving); the seventh man paid £5 instead of £7 (a 28 per cent saving); the eighth £9 instead of £12 (a 25 per cent saving); and the ninth £14 instead of £18 (a 22 per cent saving). The 10th man paid £49 instead of £59 (a 16 per cent saving).

The men then began to compare their savings. “I only got £1 out of the £20,” declared the sixth man. He pointed to the 10th man, “but he got £10 – the wealthy get all the breaks!” “Wait a minute,” said the first four men, “we didn’t get anything at all. This new system exploits the poor.” So the other nine men surrounded the 10th and beat him up. The next week he didn’t show for drinks, so the nine sat down and had their beers without him. But when they came to pay, they discovered they didn’t have enough money between them to pay even half the bill.

When you keep expecting the 7th, 8th, 9th and 10th men to pay more it ends up with less for those at the bottom...

Cute, but it's not really an analogy of the tax system, just the specific effect of very high income tax rates for top earners. I could be wrong but I suspect that's not something many of us on here need to worry about, particularly as those very high rates were abolished in the 80s. We flirted with an extra 5% on income above £150K relatively recently but that's also been reversed.
In any case, even if there was a single flat rate, higher earners would still contribute much more because if the income distribution. The bottom 20% receive 8% of the total income, while the top 20% receive 40%. Personal income tax seems about right to me at the moment. That might not fit with some people's idea of me as a leftie, but there you go. I don't see what the big deal with tax rebates is either. It's always nice to get a cheque in the post, but it's usually just correcting an overpayment.

As mentioned above its an over simplification to illustrate a general principle that if a country is too unfriendly towards larger tax payers who are reasonably mobile (whether individual or corporate) they can and sometimes will go elsewhere. Or grow less because they have less funds left. Or not invest more etc. It is not just down to rates, but also attitude of tax authorities, breadth of tax base, complexity and cost of compliance etc.

The general principle it illustrates is in line with what I see professionally.

Stevo_666

meursault wrote:

Surely, the capitalist system should fund itself without any income tax? I mean it's the greatest system there is, I hear...

Wiki

Income Tax
Income tax was first implemented in Great Britain by William Pitt the Younger in his budget of December 1798 to pay for weapons and equipment in preparation for the Napoleonic Wars. Pitt's new graduated (progressive) income tax began at a levy of 2 old pence in the pound (1/120) on incomes over £60 (£5,696 as of 2015),[7] and increased up to a maximum of 2 shillings (10%) on incomes of over £200. Pitt hoped that the new income tax would raise £10 million, but actual receipts for 1799 totalled just over £6 million.

Unless the Napoleonic war is still on?

There are two certs in life. I deal with one of them. Most of the arguments on here are about how much the state should spend. Given some form of state exists pretty much everywhere you have to fund it some how - question of how and how much.

What's your alternative?

Stevo_666

mamba80 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

I quoted this on here a couple of years ago (although itis still perfectly valid) and it didn't get a good reception from some because it contains a few home truths about who really pays the bills, regardless of these unilateral leftie notions of what is 'fair'.

Theresa May is also complaining that businesses are not paying their fair share of taxes.... ah the little leftie 'flake lol! she doesnt understand the tax system either, thank god we ve got you an coopster to explain it all in such simple terms, i hope you ve put her straight on a few home truths too?
perhaps the UK s tax system is little more complicated than a guy in a bar analogy?

why do you keep getting such large tax rebates? is your employers payroll dept inept? or are you filling out your tax return incorrectly?
u must have over paid at some point or another?

Oh and I think May said that the elite don't pay their fair share - whatever that means. Doesn't really square up with the current plans IMO. Probably more of a headline grabber than anything else.

mamba80

the point is, the PM shouldnt be saying this sort of c@rp, esp to the Davos forum, makes her look an idiot! its not up to anyone to pay their fair share, its up to the Gov to set the rates, frame work and to ensure collection, fair is purely subjective.
If she feels individuals or corps are not paying what they owe, then its up to her to do something about it, appealing to anyone to pay more, is a ridiculous state of affairs.

i m also certain that if Corbyn said this sort of thing, you d be coming out with a less benign rebuke lol!

slowmart

mamba80 wrote:

the point is, the PM shouldnt be saying this sort of c@rp, esp to the Davos forum, makes her look an idiot! its not up to anyone to pay their fair share, its up to the Gov to set the rates, frame work and to ensure collection, fair is purely subjective.
If she feels individuals or corps are not paying what they owe, then its up to her to do something about it, appealing to anyone to pay more, is a ridiculous state of affairs.

i m also certain that if Corbyn said this sort of thing, you d be coming out with a less benign rebuke lol!

May IS an idiot. Just use a wider view since her Premiership began to view the copious evidence to support this view.

Making the UK a tax haven outside of Europe is just one of the narratives doing the rounds at the moment. It will be interesting to see if we keep to the same agriculture subsidies or follow the New Zealand and Australian model and let the farmers build viable independent businesses. Green credentials and commitments as well as fishing quotas are all up for realigning.

A lot of political currency will be built and spent in the next 2 years and I don't see May surviving as the Tory party are self serving and will happpilyneat their own to save their seat in Parliament.

rjsterry

Stevo 666 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

I quoted this on here a couple of years ago (although itis still perfectly valid) and it didn't get a good reception from some because it contains a few home truths about who really pays the bills, regardless of these unilateral leftie notions of what is 'fair'.

Theresa May is also complaining that businesses are not paying their fair share of taxes.... ah the little leftie 'flake lol! she doesnt understand the tax system either, thank god we ve got you an coopster to explain it all in such simple terms, i hope you ve put her straight on a few home truths too?
perhaps the UK s tax system is little more complicated than a guy in a bar analogy?

why do you keep getting such large tax rebates? is your employers payroll dept inept? or are you filling out your tax return incorrectly?
u must have over paid at some point or another?

Oh and I think May said that the elite don't pay their fair share - whatever that means. Doesn't really square up with the current plans IMO. Probably more of a headline grabber than anything else.

Possibly. Or it could be that after Brexit and Trump she thinks it is worth recognising that quite a lot of people are still waiting for a recovery from the last crash. It is something that Remain and Clinton have ignored to their cost.

Now as you say, I'm not sure how anyone could define a fair share for the elite to pay or how they go about paying it and to whom. But there must be ways to ensure that the recovery, which the country as a whole has undoubtedly seen, is more widely distributed.

rick_chasey

tangled_metal

Didn't paxman ask a former Tory minister a question about 13 times? I'm sure they do the same with Labour politicians. It's not actually surprising or a big deal. I mean they go on these programmes to present a message. Anything that hinders the message gets sidestepped or ignored. Usually interviewers just move on and don't press the ignored questions.

It's these uncommon incidents that get brought up as evidence of one side or the other avoiding questions. The truth is it's part of politics. Indeed if any politician didn't do this they'd never be let loose in a studio ever again.

Tories and Labour are absolutely no different in this matter.

Stevo_666

Typical politicians reply.

mamba80

Stevo 666 wrote:

Typical politicians reply.

...and its this that p1sses people off about politicians, the MOD posts videos of successful launches, no reason not to admit to a screw up, esp just before vote on replacement of Trident, had they dont so, would have probably passed with little comment, when r these people going to learn?

Stevo_666

mamba80 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Typical politicians reply.

...and its this that p1sses people off about politicians, the MOD posts videos of successful launches, no reason not to admit to a screw up, esp just before vote on replacement of Trident, had they dont so, would have probably passed with little comment, when r these people going to learn?

Probably never. Seems to be the nature of politics. Which is why I am sceptical of those who promise 'a different type of politics'.

rjsterry

Stevo 666 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Typical politicians reply.

...and its this that p1sses people off about politicians, the MOD posts videos of successful launches, no reason not to admit to a screw up, esp just before vote on replacement of Trident, had they dont so, would have probably passed with little comment, when r these people going to learn?

Probably never. Seems to be the nature of politics. Which is why I am sceptical of those who promise 'a different type of politics'.

Well there's a different type of politics going on across the pond. In one sense it's what a lot of people have been saying they want, but I suspect they may soon be saying they preferred it when politicians just dodged the odd question.

surrey_commuter

Stevo 666 wrote:

Typical politicians reply.

I don't think she is very good at it. She just looks like she wants to shank the guy. Would do better telling outright lies like Trump

Stevo_666

rjsterry wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Typical politicians reply.

...and its this that p1sses people off about politicians, the MOD posts videos of successful launches, no reason not to admit to a screw up, esp just before vote on replacement of Trident, had they dont so, would have probably passed with little comment, when r these people going to learn?

Probably never. Seems to be the nature of politics. Which is why I am sceptical of those who promise 'a different type of politics'.

Well there's a different type of politics going on across the pond. In one sense it's what a lot of people have been saying they want, but I suspect they may soon be saying they preferred it when politicians just dodged the odd question.

I'll find out more when we go visit my Trump supporting in-laws in Atlanta this summer. Should be rather amusing...

meursault

Stevo 666 wrote:

meursault wrote:

Surely, the capitalist system should fund itself without any income tax? I mean it's the greatest system there is, I hear...

Wiki

Income Tax
Income tax was first implemented in Great Britain by William Pitt the Younger in his budget of December 1798 to pay for weapons and equipment in preparation for the Napoleonic Wars. Pitt's new graduated (progressive) income tax began at a levy of 2 old pence in the pound (1/120) on incomes over £60 (£5,696 as of 2015),[7] and increased up to a maximum of 2 shillings (10%) on incomes of over £200. Pitt hoped that the new income tax would raise £10 million, but actual receipts for 1799 totalled just over £6 million.

Unless the Napoleonic war is still on?

There are two certs in life. I deal with one of them. Most of the arguments on here are about how much the state should spend. Given some form of state exists pretty much everywhere you have to fund it some how - question of how and how much.

What's your alternative?

These eight people can pay it all.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-davos-meeting-inequality-idUSKBN150009

surrey_commuter

meursault wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

meursault wrote:

Surely, the capitalist system should fund itself without any income tax? I mean it's the greatest system there is, I hear...

Wiki

Income Tax
Income tax was first implemented in Great Britain by William Pitt the Younger in his budget of December 1798 to pay for weapons and equipment in preparation for the Napoleonic Wars. Pitt's new graduated (progressive) income tax began at a levy of 2 old pence in the pound (1/120) on incomes over £60 (£5,696 as of 2015),[7] and increased up to a maximum of 2 shillings (10%) on incomes of over £200. Pitt hoped that the new income tax would raise £10 million, but actual receipts for 1799 totalled just over £6 million.

Unless the Napoleonic war is still on?

There are two certs in life. I deal with one of them. Most of the arguments on here are about how much the state should spend. Given some form of state exists pretty much everywhere you have to fund it some how - question of how and how much.

What's your alternative?

These eight people can pay it all.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-davos-meeting-inequality-idUSKBN150009

I can not get my head around why some super rich Americans could be persuaded or induced to pay for the UK state. Or why that would be more important than eradicating something like malaria.

As we are running a deficit of circa $100bn a year maybe somebody else could work out how long it would last. This would also help demonstrate how insignificant personal wealth is compared to Govt finances.

Jez mon

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Typical politicians reply.

I don't think she is very good at it. She just looks like she wants to shank the guy. Would do better telling outright lies like Trump

She would be better trying to explain why it's not appropriate to discuss such things...Maybe

kingstongraham

meursault wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

meursault wrote:

Surely, the capitalist system should fund itself without any income tax? I mean it's the greatest system there is, I hear...

Wiki

Income Tax
Income tax was first implemented in Great Britain by William Pitt the Younger in his budget of December 1798 to pay for weapons and equipment in preparation for the Napoleonic Wars. Pitt's new graduated (progressive) income tax began at a levy of 2 old pence in the pound (1/120) on incomes over £60 (£5,696 as of 2015),[7] and increased up to a maximum of 2 shillings (10%) on incomes of over £200. Pitt hoped that the new income tax would raise £10 million, but actual receipts for 1799 totalled just over £6 million.

Unless the Napoleonic war is still on?

There are two certs in life. I deal with one of them. Most of the arguments on here are about how much the state should spend. Given some form of state exists pretty much everywhere you have to fund it some how - question of how and how much.

What's your alternative?

These eight people can pay it all.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-davos-meeting-inequality-idUSKBN150009

You need to listen to Radio 4 More or Less.

Stevo_666

meursault wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

meursault wrote:

Surely, the capitalist system should fund itself without any income tax? I mean it's the greatest system there is, I hear...

Wiki

Income Tax
Income tax was first implemented in Great Britain by William Pitt the Younger in his budget of December 1798 to pay for weapons and equipment in preparation for the Napoleonic Wars. Pitt's new graduated (progressive) income tax began at a levy of 2 old pence in the pound (1/120) on incomes over £60 (£5,696 as of 2015),[7] and increased up to a maximum of 2 shillings (10%) on incomes of over £200. Pitt hoped that the new income tax would raise £10 million, but actual receipts for 1799 totalled just over £6 million.

Unless the Napoleonic war is still on?

There are two certs in life. I deal with one of them. Most of the arguments on here are about how much the state should spend. Given some form of state exists pretty much everywhere you have to fund it some how - question of how and how much.

What's your alternative?

These eight people can pay it all.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-davos-meeting-inequality-idUSKBN150009

Have you costed that option? Especially since most are not even UK residents...

meursault

Stevo 666 wrote:

meursault wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

meursault wrote:

Surely, the capitalist system should fund itself without any income tax? I mean it's the greatest system there is, I hear...

Wiki

Income Tax
Income tax was first implemented in Great Britain by William Pitt the Younger in his budget of December 1798 to pay for weapons and equipment in preparation for the Napoleonic Wars. Pitt's new graduated (progressive) income tax began at a levy of 2 old pence in the pound (1/120) on incomes over £60 (£5,696 as of 2015),[7] and increased up to a maximum of 2 shillings (10%) on incomes of over £200. Pitt hoped that the new income tax would raise £10 million, but actual receipts for 1799 totalled just over £6 million.

Unless the Napoleonic war is still on?

There are two certs in life. I deal with one of them. Most of the arguments on here are about how much the state should spend. Given some form of state exists pretty much everywhere you have to fund it some how - question of how and how much.

What's your alternative?

These eight people can pay it all.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-davos-meeting-inequality-idUSKBN150009

Have you costed that option? Especially since most are not even UK residents...

No, I don't even know what costing the option is. If nationality is important, then the top eight UK citizens can pay it all.

meursault

KingstonGraham wrote:

meursault wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

meursault wrote:

Surely, the capitalist system should fund itself without any income tax? I mean it's the greatest system there is, I hear...

Wiki

Income Tax
Income tax was first implemented in Great Britain by William Pitt the Younger in his budget of December 1798 to pay for weapons and equipment in preparation for the Napoleonic Wars. Pitt's new graduated (progressive) income tax began at a levy of 2 old pence in the pound (1/120) on incomes over £60 (£5,696 as of 2015),[7] and increased up to a maximum of 2 shillings (10%) on incomes of over £200. Pitt hoped that the new income tax would raise £10 million, but actual receipts for 1799 totalled just over £6 million.

Unless the Napoleonic war is still on?

There are two certs in life. I deal with one of them. Most of the arguments on here are about how much the state should spend. Given some form of state exists pretty much everywhere you have to fund it some how - question of how and how much.

What's your alternative?

These eight people can pay it all.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-davos-meeting-inequality-idUSKBN150009

You need to listen to Radio 4 More or Less.

I have already implemented this, more or less.