Originally posted by princeoforangeI think you'll find most immigrants work when they're allowed to.
So it wasn't a sarcastic comment, oh dear.
Why should we rob high earners of their hard earned salaries just to fund immigrants and those who are too lazy to work? Which is Lib Dem policy down to a tee.
And I think you'll find that taxation is spent on a lot more than unemployment benefits.
Like health, education etc.
People on high incomes can afford to contribute more. It isn't robbery to expect people to contribute.
Originally posted by princeoforangeIf every member of the British workforce had an immigrant mentality to work, we would be a much more productive nation.
So it wasn't a sarcastic comment, oh dear.
Why should we rob high earners of their hard earned salaries just to fund immigrants and those who are too lazy to work? Which is Lib Dem policy down to a tee.
Originally posted by RedmikeBut given that it is a percentage, the high earners do pay more anyway.
Well, given that the top rate used to be 98%, only a couple of decades ago, I think there is scope for it being higher than 40%.
Of course, the earning bands would need to be sorted out, but I think a top rate of 60 or 70% for earnings over £100k wouldn't be too severe.
Of course, you'd need to address the ridiculously low levels of corporation tax as well, as well as the million avoidance schemes.
That's the way percentages work.
And to protect the very low paid, nobody pays tax on the first £4000 or whatever.
Surely a flat rate of tax is fairest?
Originally posted by VargAbsolutely, never said a truer word.
Surely a flat rate of tax is fairest?
BTW redmike, I never suggested the total withdrawal of income tax, or that every immigrant is unemployed, or that tax was used only for benefits.
However, the facts speak for themselves
unemployment rate = 4%
immigrant population = almost 4%
Originally posted by princeoforangeSomebody give this man the Nobel prize!
Absolutely, never said a truer word.
BTW redmike, I never suggested the total withdrawal of income tax, or that every immigrant is unemployed, or that tax was used only for benefits.
However, the facts speak for themselves
unemployment rate = 4%
immigrant population = almost 4%
Originally posted by princeoforangeThey're statistics aren't they? not facts.
However, the facts speak for themselves
unemployment rate = 4%
immigrant population = almost 4%
And the unemployment rate a carefully massaged statistic at that
Blunkett admitted they didn't know how many illegal immigrants were in the country. They don't even know where failed asylum seekers go.
What's the rate for people on sickness and disability?
Originally posted by VargYes, I understamd how the tax system works.
But given that it is a percentage, the high earners [b]do pay more anyway.
That's the way percentages work.
And to protect the very low paid, nobody pays tax on the first £4000 or whatever.
Surely a flat rate of tax is fairest?[/b]
However, I think that people on more than £100k can afford to contribute a higher percentage.
The reason why the first 4K isn't taxed, and the next bit taxed at 10%, is because it is accepted that everyone needs a certain amount just to live.
As incomes get higher, then a smaller %age of your money is for basic necessities and more for 'luxuries'. Therefore, the rich get taxed more on their money for 'luxuries'.
Seems fair enough to me.
Originally posted by invigorateAnd they're bollox anyway.
Thre is no correlation between these two stats at all.
The current unemployment rate is 5.1%, (see http://www.statistics.gov.uk/CCI/nugget.asp?ID=12) and I've no idea what the 'immigration population' figure represents.
I think he just made them up.
Originally posted by VargThere was a show on last night about the avoidance schemes used by the super rich. Something Green, who owns half of Oxford Street, used avoidance schemes to avoid paying over £300million in taxes last year.
But given that it is a percentage, the high earners [b]do pay more anyway.[/b]
Ray Parlour saved half a million through Arsenal paying him through a "charity" trust. Other scams were to pay bonuses in gold, whereby some gold in a bank somewhere signed a note saying that you had such and such an amount of gold. You just bring that note to your bank, and the cash is deposited to your account.
One of the main directors in Deloitte purchased houses through a partnership loan, so he was able to avoid his 40% taxes.
The high charges for setting up some of these scams, mean that they aren't feasibly available to normal working people, so the highest earners normally end up paying next to nothing in tax. Its the normal people who end up getting screwed because they can't afford a good accountant, so they end up over paying on tax.
D
Originally posted by RedmikeYes, but these people work for their "luxuries"! But an unjust government, enemies of Capitalism rob them to pay out to people who can't afford these "luxuries" because they can't be bothered working.
Yes, I understamd how the tax system works.
However, I think that people on more than £100k can afford to contribute a higher percentage.
The reason why the first 4K isn't taxed, and the next bit taxed at 10%, is because it is accepted that everyone needs a certain amount just to live.
As incomes get higher, then a smaller %age of your money is for b ...[text shortened]... erefore, the rich get taxed more on their money for 'luxuries'.
Seems fair enough to me.
I'm not tarring all the unemployed with that brush, but unemployment benefits are far too readily available.
BTW unemployment is way below 5.1% right now, nearer 4%, when were these figures last updated?
Originally posted by RedmikeChecked the link and, as I suspected, your stats are almost 3 months out of date.
And they're bollox anyway.
The current unemployment rate is 5.1%, (see http://www.statistics.gov.uk/CCI/nugget.asp?ID=12) and I've no idea what the 'immigration population' figure represents.
I think he just made them up.
1 edit
Originally posted by aging blitzerProbably considerably higher than the number of people sick or disabled. In some parts of Glasgow the rate of people on sickness and disability benefit is 47%!
What's the rate for people on sickness and disability?
Don't contradict that one redmike, I got it from a sociology expert I know.
(Edit) What I meant to point out was that it is highly unlikely that there are 47% of the people in one particular area who are sick or disabled, they're just milking the system.
Originally posted by princeoforangeYes ,and thereby provide a captive vote for Labour which has encouraged this whole attitude. It is particulary rife in Scotland,as one may well expect since the Scotch only pay about half the amount of Council Tax (like the Welsh) as compared with the average English household.
Probably considerably higher than the number of people sick or disabled. In some parts of Glasgow the rate of people on sickness and disability benefit is 47%!
Don't contradict that one redmike, I got it from a sociology expert I know.
(Edit) What I meant to point out was that it is highly unlikely that there are 47% of the people in one particular area who are sick or disabled, they're just milking the system.
Then of course Labour also has the benefit of the 'immigrant vote' since allows almost anybody from anywhere to partake of the generous handouts orvided from taxation.