The Sham of taxation

[Kermit]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/03/uk_petrol_pricing/img/3.jpg

This Government collects £37.7 billion each year in transport-related taxation, yet only spends £7 billion on transport. Supposedly the tax goes to paying for, say, public transport (total spending: £1 billion) but it doesnt.

This is why taxation is a complete sham, and the reasons behind it are little more than lies.

Although when you see how ridiculously extortionate public transport is, its hard to see why ANYONE would willingly use puiblic transport when they have a car parked in their garage.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/03/uk_petrol_pricing/img/4.jpg

[Toadborg]

From an economics point of view the purpose of taxation on the use of the car is not to pay for investment to allow people to better use their car but to correct market failure that allocates a lower private price to the individual than represents the cost to society for using that vehicle.......

From that point of view the figures you show make perfect sense......

Consider also that tax on cars should fund the NHS in dealing with all the road accidents, traffic police and fire service. I am sure there are many other associated direct costs also........

I do agree however that more should be spent on public transport.

What you say is true concerning the cost effectiveness of Public transport when one already has a car but given the cost of purchasing the car + tax + insurance + maintenace then public transport may well be more cost effective..........

[budda]

And the other parties are accusing Labour of being a tax and spend government.

[Toadborg]

Originally posted by bongbudda
And the other parties are accusing Labour of being a tax and spend government.

:lol:

[Kermit]

Originally posted by bongbudda
And the other parties are accusing Labour of being a tax and spend government.

Well they are. They tax us till the pips squeak, and spend it on chartering RAF jets to take them on holiday to the Carribbean.

Labour = filth.

[Toadborg]

Britian is a low tax country...........

[Aladdin]

What's wrong with 'tax and spend' anyway?

[Toadborg]

Don't know, what they rather they did with it? Keep for themselves...:confused:

[kevlar85]

Originally posted by Kermit
Well they are. They tax us till the pips squeak, and spend it on chartering RAF jets to take them on holiday to the Carribbean.

Labour = filth.

That was a party political broadcast by the Conservative Party. :rolleyes:

Meanwhile in the real world... You are not being taxed "till the pips squeak" when Denis Healey made that comment in 1976 the top rate of tax was something like 87%, it's less than half that today. Yes the Blairs have a habit of over indulging themselves with the trappings of office, I agree it is disgusting but don't tar the whole of the Labour movement with the same brush.

Britain is a low tax country. You don't happen to mention the report released the other day which said that British company directors were paid so much more than their counterparts in other Western countries and that the gap between the average wage and company directors was "obscene" - their words not mine. Also the fact that due to these "obscene" wage rates for managers, the statistics show that two-thirds of people in this country live under half average income because of the pay of these people drags up the average.

I don't think the tax system is fair as it stands, it needs revision at the top end. Is it fair that middle income earners such as teachers and policemen are now paying the same rate of tax as Richard Branson? Whatever your view on the tax burden the case for urgent revision of the tax system is compelling so we can reduce the burden on middle income and lower income workers and take more from those who can afford it. The 40% rate should not be applied to many of those who are in it and so those at the top should pay more so they can pay less.

Incidentally, perhaps you'd like to remember that it was "low tax" Maggie who increased the tax burden on the poor to give tax breaks to the rich. VAT doubled and was put on more items, the increases in local government tax through the Poll Tax and then the Council Tax and the fuel duty escalator which began in the 80s.

[Toadborg]

That was a political broadcast for the Lib Dems (sort of)

Well said kev...........

[Kermit]

Oh fucks sake, change the record. Yes company executives are paid too much, but wheres your criticism for, say, Elton John's pay packet? Or Alan Shearer's? Or, for that matter, the union executives earning £120k/year when their members are lucky to earn 1/6th of that.

Britain is not a low tax country, it has low income tax made up with high NI contributions, extortionate fuel tax, high VAT (including VAT on fuel and tampons- so much for Blairs election promise to do away with it)- Blair wrote the guide for "stealth tax"- and ministers that are corrupt to the core. And dont witter on about Tory corruption, Tory ministers had their toes sucked in Chelsea shirts, Labour ministers speed and get away with it, drive in bus lanes and get away with it, then get us to pay for them to go to fucking Acapulco to arse-lick the sodding Yanks.

And the whole Labour movement CAN be tarred with the same brush. Derek Hatton and Ken Livingstone in the 1980s, Sheffield Council in the early 1990s, Doncaster council from about 250BC, Durham Council in the late 1990s, Bernie Ecclestone, Joe Ashton (a man whos had more arrests in brothels than Ive had hot dinners), Boateng and his racism. And thats just off teh top of my head.

You really do seem to be very naive when it comes down to your darling Red Fascists. Read Private Eye, then you might know that your darling Labour government sold the Inland Revenue buildings to a company based in Bermuda way below market value, and then got us to stump up the high rent, and you might know that most local council corruption occurs in your darling Labour-controlled councils. Like Brighton, like Bradford, like Leeds, like Lambeth.

I have no political leaning either way, Im certainly no Tory, but Id have Thatcher back any day judging by the last two PMs and Shadow PMs- ooh, yes, lets be ruled by Neil fucking Kinnock, the man who wrote the book "How to be bent, get moved to Europe then be more bent".

[Toadborg]

The % of govt revenue form GDP is smaller in Britian than it is in most other European nations, this is a fact........

[kevlar85]

Originally posted by Kermit
Oh fucks sake, change the record. Yes company executives are paid too much, but wheres your criticism for, say, Elton John's pay packet? Or Alan Shearer's? Or, for that matter, the union executives earning £120k/year when their members are lucky to earn 1/6th of that.
I'll change my record when you change your whining about how you're so hard done by because everyone from Tony Blair down is out on some evil left wing plot to make your life hell. I'm no hypocrite, Elton John, Alan Shearer, union officials (although I note how you couldn't provide any names there!). All abhorrent but it is the company executives I have the greatest distain for because while they pocket hugely inflated pay and share options they are willing to put people out of work because of how the company's going through a bad patch - funny how this never affects MDs pay. Elton John, Alan Shrearer and union officials don't put people out of work to feather their own nests.

Britain is not a low tax country, it has low income tax made up with high NI contributions, extortionate fuel tax, high VAT (including VAT on fuel and tampons- so much for Blairs election promise to do away with it)- Blair wrote the guide for "stealth tax"- and ministers that are corrupt to the core. And dont witter on about Tory corruption, Tory ministers had their toes sucked in Chelsea shirts, Labour ministers speed and get away with it, drive in bus lanes and get away with it, then get us to pay for them to go to fucking Acapulco to arse-lick the sodding Yanks.
In fact Britain takes one of the lowest % of GDP in all tax in the Western world. Not just income tax. Most stealth taxes can be traced back to the Thatcher years - the fuel escalator started then, VAT was hiked up in the 80s and was put on more and more items. Tory ministers also took bribes for asking questions in Parliament, determined whether someone would get a council house on whether they'd vote Tory and sold arms to a country we were going to war with, although of course much more important is Labour ministers getting out of a few driving penalty tickets! :rolleyes:

And the whole Labour movement CAN be tarred with the same brush. Derek Hatton and Ken Livingstone in the 1980s, Sheffield Council in the early 1990s, Doncaster council from about 250BC, Durham Council in the late 1990s, Bernie Ecclestone, Joe Ashton (a man whos had more arrests in brothels than Ive had hot dinners), Boateng and his racism. And thats just off teh top of my head.
Had a release of hot air then did we? Of course Ken Livingstone was so corrupt and did such an awful job at running the GLC that we voted him back in 2000 and will do again in 2004. I also understand that Liverpool Council in the 80s was also reasonably popular with their residents or they wouldn't have voted Hatton in time after time. Hence why Thatcher had to get rid of the Metropolitan Councils because people liked what they did and it conflicted with her aims. What about my local (Tory) council in Barnet? They've just put our council tax up by 40% to fund the Mayor getting his office renovated, a huge increase in councillor's budgets and to fund councillors fact finding missions to the Carribean. All local government has a tendency to be corrupt especially when one party dominates it. That's the fault of the system. Bernie Ecclestone isn't in the Labour movement. If Joe Ashton wants to visit brothels then who are you to say it's wrong? You wouldn't mind if he wore a blue rosette. :rolleyes: Also please provide examples of Paul Boateng's racism, or do you mean he advocates the causes of ethnic minorities - shock horror how dare he?! :rolleyes:

You really do seem to be very naive when it comes down to your darling Red Fascists. Read Private Eye, then you might know that your darling Labour government sold the Inland Revenue buildings to a company based in Bermuda way below market value, and then got us to stump up the high rent, and you might know that most local council corruption occurs in your darling Labour-controlled councils. Like Brighton, like Bradford, like Leeds, like Lambeth.
Oooohh the government conned us out of one Inland Revenue building. Bad though that is I don't think that's comparable to the Tory ministers who personally profited from the privatisation agenda by buying hundreds of shares at launch and landing themselves cushy directorships at several hundred grand a time. Like I said, most councils tend to be corrupt, especially when one party dominates - if you could find a safe Tory council I'm sure you'd find corruption there too - you might like to re-read my comments on Barnet Council.

I have no political leaning either way, Im certainly no Tory, but Id have Thatcher back any day judging by the last two PMs and Shadow PMs- ooh, yes, lets be ruled by Neil fucking Kinnock, the man who wrote the book "How to be bent, get moved to Europe then be more bent".
:lol: Oh come on, you're hardly singing the Red Flag comrade are you? You've got Tory views just as I have Labour views, don't be so ashamed as to admit them. So you would rather have a Prime Minister who put three million on the dole, brought our schools and hospitals to the point of collapse and gave this country the two worst recessions since the Depression sandwiched between which was an uncontrollable inflationary boom, released for her own political purposes than a (god-forbid) Labour Prime Minister who has kept the economy growing in the face of a global downturn, brought unemployment to under a million, given us the lowest interest rates and inflation for two generations and has invested billions of pounds on our public services. Another example of your warped sense of priorities there. :rolleyes:

[kevlar85]

Originally posted by Toadborg
That was a political broadcast for the Lib Dems (sort of)

Well said kev...........

Thanks for the well said but Lib Dem? :eek2: I couldn't defend their policies it'd be like a political hokey cokey:

#
We'll put our left wing in;
We'll pull our left wing out;
In, Out, In, Out, We'll send them all about;
As soon as we've got your vote we'll u-turn right around;
Cos that's what it's all about....
Ohhhh, do the LibDem Pokey!
Ohhhh, do the LibDem Pokey!
Ohhhh, do the LibDem Pokey!
Left wing, Right wing, we don't know!

We'll put our right wing in;
We'll pull our right wing out;
In, Out, In, Out, We'll send them all about;
As soon as we've got your vote we'll u-turn right around;
Cos that's what it's all about....
Ohhhh, do the LibDem Pokey!
Ohhhh, do the LibDem Pokey!
Ohhhh, do the LibDem Pokey!
Left wing, Right wing, we don't know!

We'll change our party name once;
We'll change our party name twice;
Once, twice, thrice, Nice! We'll change it all again;
As soon as you've got used to it we'll change it all again;
Cos that's what it's all about....
Ohhhh, do the LibDem Pokey!
Ohhhh, do the LibDem Pokey!
Ohhhh, do the LibDem Pokey!
Left wing, Right wing, we don't know!

We'll put your taxes up;
We'll put your taxes down;
Up, Down, Up, Down, We'll change them all around;
As soon as we've got your vote we'll u-turn right around;
Cos that's what it's all about....
Ohhhh, do the LibDem Pokey!
Ohhhh, do the LibDem Pokey!
Ohhhh, do the LibDem Pokey!
Left wing, Right wing, we don't know!

The polls go up;
The polls go down;
Up, Down, Up, Down, They fly all around;
As soon as we've got your vote you'll change your mind;
Cos that's what it's all about....
Ohhhh, do the LibDem Pokey!
Ohhhh, do the LibDem Pokey!
Ohhhh, do the LibDem Pokey!
Left wing, Right wing, you don't know!
#

I just came up with that. (and it is copyrighted) :p :).

[Kermit]

Id support a Tory government over this shower of shit for the simple fact that they are HONEST about their aims- they believe in privatisation, they believe in centralisation, they believe in deregulation, just like Blair does, but at least they dont LIE about what their aims are.

But if Im such a Tory bastard I find it quite weird how whenever I take trusted tests like the Political Compass I come out as slightly left-wing, its really freaky that is. I freely admit I believe in what many people think is Tory bastardism- I believe in the free market, I believe that people should be more responsible for their own destiny, I believe that if a company wants to pay its MD £10squillion a year then it should be allowed to, and I believe that a company's sole responsibility is to create profit for itself. It doesnt rpovide jobs as a social service, its provides jobs to create wealth for itself- and if its not creating enough wealth, then jobs will go. Its not nice, but its tough shit.

However, I do believe that the market has a responsibility to the environment and to teh country. I believe in a minimum wage, I believe in the welfare state (though I think people shouldnt just get dole money in a cheque every week), I believe in nationalised utilities. But I dont believe that someone should be taxed at 80% just because they deign to earn more than someone who cleans the public bogs in town. I firmly believe that the free market should be taxed on profit, I dont believe that individuals should be taxed to subsidise jobs, or to subsidise private utilities, or to pay people more than the bare minimum in welfare benefits, or to subsidise political electioneering (like what Blair has done).

Oh, and one last thing- I dont know any union officials' names, but hey, I dont know many MDs names either. But at the last check the CE of Unison was paid £90k pa, plus pension benefits, plus a large London penthouse at a peppercorn rent, plus cars, plus sundries, whilst presiding over a union whose numbers have dramatically fallen in the last ten years, whilst presiding over a union whos membership fees have risen dramatically.

And as for your apparent hatred of Branson, why do you detest someone who built himself up from nothing so much? Should hard work and entrepeneurial spirit not be rewarded, because if you dont think it should we might as well all give up and become bus drivers. Arriva are always on the look-out for drivers, you know.

[LadyJade]

PML@kevlar!!

[Clandestine]

Kermy, you'd better go and review your history of Branson. He did not come from nothing. He was already from an affluent background to begin with.

[Aladdin]

Leave Branson alone! He buys Airbus ;)

[Clandestine]

And this benefits you and me how?

[Aladdin]

100% European aircraft maker, with 25% stakes owned by British and Spanish companies. Benefiting the economies of both countries where I have interests.

If only BA could follow suit...

But seriously, Branson can be annoying and I'm sure is far from perfect, but he's done a number of things right and in many aspects has helped spice up competition in several industries.

Although I must say the Virgin group is a bit too large for comfort. There is little they can't provide you with. Travel, finances, weddings, entertainment, wine, mobile phones and a few others I probably forget.

[Kermit]

Originally posted by Clandestine
Kermy, you'd better go and review your history of Branson. He did not come from nothing. He was already from an affluent background to begin with.

He built the Virgin brand up from one knackered old Boeing into a huge conglomerate. He had a public school education, but you cannot argue that what he achieved is quite a lot. Maybe he was lucky, but meh. Its still an achievement (and I even think hes an odious man, but pheh). Same with Brian Souter of Stagecoach- a complete c*nt but he built his company up from nothing.

[budda]

If you want a story of someone who built himself out of nothing then the ex-owner of NCP, you know the rip off bastard car parks is one.
He was totaly skint and then started renting this little bit of space and it grew from there. He sold the company for a couple of hundred million I think.

By the way, I wasnt being entirely serious about the 'tax and spend', I've never really been able to understand why that is a bad thing, is there any other type of government?

[Kermit]

A lot of politicians think that you tax and save now, basically to give pre-election tax cuts. Obviously the taxation coming in shouldnt exceed outgoings, which it does in this country as far as I am aware, and taxation coming in should be spent on the country (reducing the national debt would count, IMHO).

[budda]

Yep, but a country cant always live within its means, you save a bit when times are bad and then loan a bit when times get harder. Just like this government is doing. Whether how they are going about is good is another point really.

[Toadborg]

Sorry kev but they main jist of that post was to raise the higher leve of income tax, something labour will never do (though there pledges mean nothing) and something which the Lib Dems would do.........

[kevlar85]

Originally posted by Kermit
Id support a Tory government over this shower of shit for the simple fact that they are HONEST about their aims- they believe in privatisation, they believe in centralisation, they believe in deregulation, just like Blair does, but at least they dont LIE about what their aims are.
The Tories, honest? Remember John Major in 1992 saying that he wouldn't raise taxes and then promptly went on to do so? Remember Thatcher saying in 1987 that the NHS was "safe in her hands" while she underinvested in it to the point of destruction? Remember the Tory claim that they were the party of family values while half their front bench (including the PM) were screwing around? The passage of time seems to have clouded your memory of the Tory years. Incidentally perhaps you'd like to point out where Blair has lied - in a study of the 1997 manifesto carried out in 2001 the government was found to have passed about 95% of its commitments I think the only major commitment they didn't keep was their promise to ban fox hunting.

But if Im such a Tory bastard I find it quite weird how whenever I take trusted tests like the Political Compass I come out as slightly left-wing, its really freaky that is. I freely admit I believe in what many people think is Tory bastardism- I believe in the free market, I believe that people should be more responsible for their own destiny, I believe that if a company wants to pay its MD £10squillion a year then it should be allowed to, and I believe that a company's sole responsibility is to create profit for itself. It doesnt rpovide jobs as a social service, its provides jobs to create wealth for itself- and if its not creating enough wealth, then jobs will go. Its not nice, but its tough shit.
You admit yourself you believe in Tory bastardism as you put it, so it's not for me to explain your apparent left wing results in the Political Compass test. What annoys me about big business is that although they're happy to sack hundreds of workers on the minimum wage because the company's going through a bad patch, they never sack MDs and they never even cut MDs pay - the sheer hypocrisy of it all is what galls me.

However, I do believe that the market has a responsibility to the environment and to teh country. I believe in a minimum wage, I believe in the welfare state (though I think people shouldnt just get dole money in a cheque every week), I believe in nationalised utilities. But I dont believe that someone should be taxed at 80% just because they deign to earn more than someone who cleans the public bogs in town. I firmly believe that the free market should be taxed on profit, I dont believe that individuals should be taxed to subsidise jobs, or to subsidise private utilities, or to pay people more than the bare minimum in welfare benefits, or to subsidise political electioneering (like what Blair has done).
The fact is the market is not the most efficient allocator of resources and it will not exercise responsibility to the nation and the environment if we don't have taxes on pollution and workers right's legislation. Where do you think the money will come from to pay for decent public services and nationalised utilities if not from taxation? Now at the moment we have two options, we carry on with the present system and let more and more middle income and low income families slowly move into higher and higher tax brackets to pay for the necessary investment in our public services or we reform the tax system to reduce the burden on these people and take the money from those who can afford to pay it. Please provide an example of Blair using taxes to subsidise political engineering - unless you mean investment in the NHS and schools is all part of a political stunt?! At least Blair didn't go to war or release an inflationary boom to win him elections unlike a certain PM you seem to admire.

Oh, and one last thing- I dont know any union officials' names, but hey, I dont know many MDs names either. But at the last check the CE of Unison was paid £90k pa, plus pension benefits, plus a large London penthouse at a peppercorn rent, plus cars, plus sundries, whilst presiding over a union whose numbers have dramatically fallen in the last ten years, whilst presiding over a union whos membership fees have risen dramatically.
£90k is nothing compared to what these managers earn which is about four/five times larger when you include all their perks, private healthcare, gym membership, company car, company flat, private pension etc. These aren't our most successful industries either, these are companies like Corus, Marconi and BT which are doing appallingly badly - and I didn't even include their share options. I would say that £90k is a fair amount for CEOs and the heads of major organisations but £500k? Even you must agree that's a bit excessive.

And as for your apparent hatred of Branson, why do you detest someone who built himself up from nothing so much? Should hard work and entrepeneurial spirit not be rewarded, because if you dont think it should we might as well all give up and become bus drivers. Arriva are always on the look-out for drivers, you know.
I don't hate Branson, I mentioned him as an example along with Alan Shearer and Elton John. I agree hard work and enterprise should be rewarded, that's why I believe the government should open a National Investment Bank so anyone who wants to start their own business can with minimal profits being taken from them. However, I refuse to accept that allowing the high fliers to fly should mean we let them crap all over those beneath them, I believe in a decent society where the strong help the weak and if this means taking taxes from their superfluous income to provide others with the basics then so be it.

[kevlar85]

Originally posted by Toadborg
Sorry kev but they main jist of that post was to raise the higher leve of income tax, something labour will never do (though there pledges mean nothing) and something which the Lib Dems would do.........

Labour will do it when we get a new leader as I said it's either tax a minority of rich people more or allow more middle and lower income earners to fall into the higher tax brackets - simple political engineering of whose votes matter most to Labour will sort that out. That's why I expect the ceiling on National Insurance will be abolished in the next budget and I wouldn't rule out a rise in VAT to 20% either although I don't agree with that. I also wouldn't fully expect the old "No changes to income tax" line to be in the 2005 manifesto more a "No unnecessary changes to income tax".

Who knows what the Lib Dems will do? I think they got rid of their "1p extra on the basic rate to fund education" policy. Makes sense to them really, most of the seats they're after are Tory seats in the South so they will probably not go into the next election as a tax raising party or at least will be playing up their right wing credentials.

[girl with sharp teeth]

.

[kevlar85]

Originally posted by girl with sharp teeth
the thing that always makes me smile about you kev, is that you seem determined to overthrow the establishment from the inside.

I am the enemy within! ;)

Seriously though, people in the Labour movement have tried to overthrow the establishment for decades from the outside and it hasn't worked so I reckon trying to overthrow it from the inside is worth a shot. Although I'm not 100% certain as to what you meant by your comment. :confused:

[Kermit]

You seem to misunderstand the concept of sacking and the concept of redundancy- how can a company make the CEO redundant, exactly? How can a company decide that it doesnt need a CEO anymore? How?

The free market wont do everything of its own accord, it needs to be cajoled sometimes, but why do you disagree with taxing profit of corporations not taxing work? Like with so many socialists, its not about "equalising wealth", its about spite, pure and simple. I dont see these union executives turning down their swish London flats, or their top-of-the-range chauffeur-driven Mercedes cars, or their exclusive gym memberships in order to help the people theyre supposed to be helping.

Im no sympathiser of the rich, although because you cant read you think I think Im a Tory bastard. But Im not someone who thinks that just because someone works themselves up to earn money then that means that they should have it all taken away from them. Because, at the end of the day, if you own a mobile telephone, branded clothes, Sky TV, anything above the bare minimum to live on, you are a hypocrite- you earn 95% more than someone in Africa, say, yet I dont see you willingly parting with 90% of your wages to help them.

[Kermit]

Originally posted by kevlar85
I am the enemy within! ;)

Seriously though, people in the Labour movement have tried to overthrow the establishment for decades from the outside and it hasn't worked so I reckon trying to overthrow it from the inside is worth a shot. Although I'm not 100% certain as to what you meant by your comment. :confused:

She means its easy to witter on about the poor downtrodden poor from your ivory tower. If you dont have to work 25% tax means nothing.

[Man Of Kent]

Originally posted by Kermit
If you dont have to work 25% tax means nothing.

It doesn't when you are working either. You never see it, it's never your money - unless you are self employed of course.

But to continue your theme of tax etc.

NI rose in April last year to fund a 9% increase in funding for the NHS. Thank you very much Mr Brown, you are so generous.

But hang on, the NI rise included employers contributions and so the NHS was forced to pay some back to the treasury. About 7% increase in overall costs apparently.

So in effect the NHS will only have seen a 2% increase in funding.

Oh, and what happens to the 7% we gave back. Well, that's used for additional funding for education. But hang on, doesn't the School have employee contributions too... etc

So basically the Govt can stand up and say that they have provided additional funding for many areas but actually have revied simliar amounts back from these organisations in increased NI.

[Kermit]

And that, MoK, is why I would trust just about anyone over a professional politician.

And you do see how much tax you have taken away from you- 25% tax means that, in a 36 hour week, someone has to work for NINE HOURS just to get back to where they started in the first place.

Its no wonder theres so many long-term unemployed:)

[kevlar85]

Originally posted by Kermit
You seem to misunderstand the concept of sacking and the concept of redundancy- how can a company make the CEO redundant, exactly? How can a company decide that it doesnt need a CEO anymore? How?
Very simple it looks at the accounts and sees that they are making losses and so save several hundred grand by sacking a CEO, you just take the way they work out how many workers to sack and work up. Simple and with fewer casualties.

The free market wont do everything of its own accord, it needs to be cajoled sometimes, but why do you disagree with taxing profit of corporations not taxing work? Like with so many socialists, its not about "equalising wealth", its about spite, pure and simple. I dont see these union executives turning down their swish London flats, or their top-of-the-range chauffeur-driven Mercedes cars, or their exclusive gym memberships in order to help the people theyre supposed to be helping.
I disagree with National Insurance, as has often been said it is a tax on jobs and so I'd like to see it merged with income tax. I do believe in taxing income, and yes it is about equalising wealth - it is morally repugnant that while the rich can afford to spend thousands on a shirt or indulge themselves with their excesses there are families across the country who are trying to get enough together to put some food on the table. :lol: You do talk a lot of crap about union leaders - you know fuck all about them, you just take the excesses of directors and pin the same excesses on union bosses to make them look like hypocrites. Perhaps you'd be interested to know that Bob Crowe of the RMT lives in a Barratt type terraced house in London and has one car in the drive - comfortable, yes but not excessive in the same way as the union bosses. So learn some facts before you mouth off.

Im no sympathiser of the rich, although because you cant read you think I think Im a Tory bastard. But Im not someone who thinks that just because someone works themselves up to earn money then that means that they should have it all taken away from them. Because, at the end of the day, if you own a mobile telephone, branded clothes, Sky TV, anything above the bare minimum to live on, you are a hypocrite- you earn 95% more than someone in Africa, say, yet I dont see you willingly parting with 90% of your wages to help them.
If I can't read then you can't spell, or at least lack the knowledge of apostrophes I was taught when I was seven. I never called you a Tory bastard I said that by your own admission you agree with policies that you referred to as Tory bastardism. So despite the fact that all countries in the Western world accept the taxation principle of PAYE and indeed that Britain has one of the lowest PAYE rates in the world, you would like to see it all taken away. How very committed you are to your fellow countrymen, but then a few thousand lopped off your tax bill is the modern rate of twelve pieces of silver (inflation allowing of course). In case you were unaware the prices in the British shops are a damn sight higher than those in Ethiopia because of the average wage in the country. Also if you actually possessed any knowledge of socialist philosophy you would know that it is the role of the state to redistribute wealth, not individuals.

[kevlar85]

Originally posted by Kermit
She means its easy to witter on about the poor downtrodden poor from your ivory tower. If you dont have to work 25% tax means nothing.

Well I'm sorry to disappoint you both but I do work and I do pay tax. Kind of puts paid to your theory doesn't it? So despite all your best intentions to paint me as a hypocrite if you actually knew something about me instead of spouting bullshit wherever you go, you would know that I am no hypocrite. Yes, no-one likes to pay tax but it is a necessary evil if you want to live in a civilised society. Also that the state can provide things much cheaper than the free market so while you're paying tax it would cost you far more if you had to pay for things like health and education off your own bat. But then if we had no tax at least your selfishness would be satisfied because you'd just be paying for yourself and fuck everyone else eh?

[kevlar85]

Originally posted by Kermit
And that, MoK, is why I would trust just about anyone over a professional politician.

And you do see how much tax you have taken away from you- 25% tax means that, in a 36 hour week, someone has to work for NINE HOURS just to get back to where they started in the first place.

Its no wonder theres so many long-term unemployed:)

Perhaps you'd also like to work out how many hours they'd have to work if they were a typical man with a wife and two kids who had to pay for private healthcare and private schooling for two kids and other things that you wouldn't get if there wasn't any tax. Taxation is a collective investment.

Incidentally just thought I'd mention that we have the lowest long-term unemployed for a generation under this tax raising Labour government, and the lowest youth unemployment, and the lowest general unemployment, not forgetting the highest employment on record. :rolleyes:

[BeckyBoo]

Originally posted by kevlar85
Thanks for the well said but Lib Dem? :eek2: I couldn't defend their policies it'd be like a political hokey cokey:


I just came up with that. (and it is copyrighted) :p :).

LMFAO :lol:

I as you are aware keep out of these topics but had to reply to this one.

now i know why politics can be very amusing :lol:

[budda]

The sad fact is that CEO's get paid more because they create more wealth, the people at the bottom are expendable because they dont produce as much wealth. Thus you have to pay high wages to the people at the top so you get the best people who can create the most wealth to pay the wages of the people at the bottom.

Capping CEO's wages is a stupid and risky idea, those types of business people are very mobile and will move where ever they get the best living enviroment, which includes wages. If they go the UK will suffer.

[Toadborg]

I do believe in fact that a recetn parliamentary report on exhorbiatnt City salaries concluded that the massive growth in wages was not reflective of an international and competitive market in top jobs, it is not efficient.........

[Aladdin]

There have been countless cases bongbudda, countless where CEOs have shown hopeless incompetence or simply been unable to run their company with profits, and yet they continue to award themselves 30% pay rises and six-figure bonuses.

All of that while the company has made a loss and floor workers are being made redundant, or at best told there will be no pay rise at all for them.

IMHO, in cases like this putting the CEOs against a wall and having them shot is almost justifiable.

[Toadborg]

Originally posted by bongbudda
The sad fact is that CEO's get paid more because they create more wealth,

The current debate has been sparked as Al alludes to by Executives receiveing pay rises whilst the profits and value of a company falls, this is obviously wrong.....

[budda]

Well of course theres loads of cases where CEO's arent very good at their job, but then there are loads of people hired it virtualy every company that arent any good. Thats not really the fault of the system of pay as such, its the fault of the HR department within the company.

[Toadborg]

True but once the person is hired there should be controls to stop them walking away with massive amounts of money from doing a bad job.

If someone on the shop floor is crap they do not get rewarded for it as many executives have been.

Well done to New Labour (don't say that very often) for introducing laws to allow shareholders better control over executive salaries (though they could go further)

[budda]

Well shareholders have always had the power to hire and fire the CEO, they just havent used it in the past. Or at least thats how I understood it. The law has been changed as well though.

[kevlar85]

Originally posted by bongbudda
Well shareholders have always had the power to hire and fire the CEO, they just havent used it in the past. Or at least thats how I understood it. The law has been changed as well though.

They haven't used it because often those with the biggest individual shareholdings are the CEOs and their holdings get bigger all the time with the share options that are part and parcel of any director's contract.

I think the law has been reformed but the only example I can think of was that guy from GlaxoSmithKline who had his perks cut, I don't think it's happened to any other firm.

What I think is disgusting is that share options aren't part of ordinary workers contracts in most cases. The benefits are huge, greater company loyalty, incentive to work harder, sense of ownership in the company etc. If it's okay for directors to grab shares to keep themselves in work it should be okay for frontline staff too.

[kevlar85]

Originally posted by bongbudda
The sad fact is that CEO's get paid more because they create more wealth, the people at the bottom are expendable because they dont produce as much wealth. Thus you have to pay high wages to the people at the top so you get the best people who can create the most wealth to pay the wages of the people at the bottom.

Capping CEO's wages is a stupid and risky idea, those types of business people are very mobile and will move where ever they get the best living enviroment, which includes wages. If they go the UK will suffer.

Sorry but that's Thatcherite bullshit. Take a company like Sainsbury's, take away the workers in the shop, take away the delivery men and what do you have? Great big empty supermarkets - no wealth created at all. Take away the CEOs and head office and the supermarkets would still tick over very nicely thank you - taking money, putting out orders, stacking shelves - wealth is still created.

I agree wage caps are ridiculous and wouldn't work. We need to increase the power of ordinary shareholders to ensure a wage relative to the performance of the company and then the state should step in to tax away some of the surplus income to ensure a fair distribution of income.

[kevlar85]

Originally posted by Toadborg
I do believe in fact that a recetn parliamentary report on exhorbiatnt City salaries concluded that the massive growth in wages was not reflective of an international and competitive market in top jobs, it is not efficient.........

Yes it did. It said British company directors were the biggest fat cats in the Western World and were paid the most out of all our major competitors, regardless of how good they were at their job.

I think the possibility of legislating to ensure that all workers in a company from the Managing Director to the tea boy should get the same percentage increase in pay. After all the money for everyone's pay comes from the same place so a uniform wage increase rate makes sense.