Thought Id start this one going because its rather dead on this board at the moment and I suppose all my usual muckers are either at the Stella tennis event watching Dim Tim (lose again) or at Henly Regatta eating cucumber sandwiches (they wish,...NOT).

Anyway please feel free to just talk to yourself blast away and let it go on any company or subject you wish. Just wish Id thought of this one before.

cheers GF.

GF

Who's to blame for the crisis, bankers or benefit claimants?


A well written piece, but you could never expect Manuel or Haze to understand it.

A Manuel with his failing intellect would be unable to concentrate long enough to get past the first paragraph.

===========

By the time of next election I would expect that the torrid party elite will be fighting like rats in a bag for leadership of party after their failure to be elected to their rightful places.

I wonder what their new years honours list will be.

Cameron and OZ are becoming a comic turn in Europe and at home.

But,, perhaps they are becoming too sad to be funny.

A little like the Tweedledee and Tweedledum of Moneyam, Manuel and Haze.
-------

It is a beautiful morning in Birmingham.

Must go out for the rest of the day.

8~)

I see goldfinger has been surpassing himself in generating boring posts today.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PUKMUZ4tlJg&feature=youtube_gdata_player

an interesting snippet for you guys to work up a lather about .....

gleaned from radio this morning .....
apparently the the top 1% of earners in uk contribute 30% of income tax revenue

Labour getting desperate!!

Reeves Forced to Grovel Over Spiteful Vince Cable Attack

Reverse ferret! Rachel Reeves and Chris Bryant have spent the morning grovelling to Vince Cable after their petty attack over the minimum wage backfired in spectacular fashion. Playing politics, the shadow DWP team must have thought they were onto a right wheeze by pointing out that Cable had missed the vote on the National Minimum Wage Bill in 1998. Vince hit back:

“I did not particularly wish to raise this, but I am being asked personally to explain why I did not vote. It had a lot to do with the fact that my late wife was terminally ill at the time and I was in the Royal Marsden hospital. That is why my voting record at the time was poor on that and other issues.”

It has taken almost 24 hours, but finally Labour have backed down:

@RachelReevesMP

I have sent a note to Vince Cable to apologise for saying he abstained on introduction of minimum wage. He was with his wife at hospital.

Chris Bryant @ChrisBryantMP

I too apologise for heckling @vincecable yesterday for not voting on national minimum wage bill. I had no idea of his personal circumstances

Hays,

I think Reeves and Bryant, by their apologies, are just showing common decency.

I realise that is something you may find difficult to recognise.

No what you mean Cynic is that on paper they are meant to contribute 30%. Its no where near this figure and then add on the tax avoidance and tax evasion figure and you can see why we have to have spending cuts.

cynic - 16 Jan 2014 13:53 - 35476 of 35477

an interesting snippet for you guys to work up a lather about .....

gleaned from radio this morning .....
apparently the the top 1% of earners in uk contribute 30% of income tax revenue

and if this had been the reverse, say an unwarranted attack on EB, i bet you'ld have been shrieking and hollering from the rooftops like a banshee

LOL Fred. Mr ignoramus surpassing himself today.

no that is not what was said, nor what i wrote ..... i can't remember the exact source, but it was someone highly reputable

how much more is unpaid though legitimate tax avoidance was not the issue in question .... nor for that matter, did HMRC's ineffectual and half-hearted attempts at bringing to heel those who are evading tax come into the discussion

Then, he/she must have been a member of the CON party.

8-)

totally and utterly wrong again - but no surprise there either

and of course, if the figures are accurate, and i have no reason to suppose they were not, it would have been totally irrelevant if it had been a politician (which it was not) who gave out the info

Here you are Cyners the correct figure collected........No where near 30%.

Your source was quoting what it should be.

Check IR35 enforement out and youl see what I mean about non collection.



2.5 Income tax liabilities, by Income Range, 2010-11 to 2013-14



2012-13 (6)
Numbers: thousands; Amounts: £ million
Range of
total income
(lower limit) taxpayers
Starting rate (1)
taxpayers
"Savers" rate (2)
taxpayers
Basic rate (3)
taxpayers
Higher rate (4)
taxpayers
Additional rate (5) All
taxpayers
Total
income of
taxpayers
Average Average
rate of amount of
Tax liability tax tax
£ Number Amount Number Amount Number Amount Number Amount Number Amount Number Amount Amount % £
8,105
10,000
15,000
20,000
30,000
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
500,000
1,000,000
2,000,000+
90
127
8
6
4
..
..
..
..
.
.
.
5
15
4
8
10
..
..
..
..
.
.
.
64
193
113
127
118
2
..
..
..
..
.
.
4
65
99
216
341
5
..
..
..
..
.
.
1,670
6,120
5,410
7,050
4,820
17
1
..
..
..
..
..
303
4,470
9,100
21,600
25,400
83
4
..
..
..
..
..
.
.
.
.
1,170
2,260
360
31
2
..
..
.
.
.
.
.
8,760
33,200
12,900
1,440
56
..
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
97
133
25
9
4
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
5,890
15,300
7,520
5,330
7,610
1,830
6,440
5,530
7,180
6,110
2,280
361
128
135
26
9
4
16,500
80,800
96,200
176,000
233,000
150,000
43,200
21,900
39,400
17,700
12,100
16,700
313
4,550
9,200
21,800
34,500
33,300
12,900
7,320
15,300
7,530
5,330
7,610
1.9
5.6
9.6
12.4
14.8
22.2
29.9
33.5
38.9
42.6
44.2
45.7
171
707
1,660
3,040
5,640
14,600
35,700
57,100
113,000
293,000
588,000
1,940,000
All Ranges 235 43 617 731 25,100 61,000 3,830 56,300 269 41,600 30,000 903,000 160,000 17.7 5,320
In 2012-13 all taxpayers are liable on taxable income other than savings and dividend income at the basic rate of 20 per cent on the first £34,370, 40 per cent over the basic rate limit of £34,370 and 50 per cent over the higher rate limit of £150,000. Dividend
income is charged at 10 per cent up to the basic rate limit of £34,370, 32.5 per cent above £34,370 and 42.5 per cent above £150,000. Savings income is charged at 10 per cent up to the starting rate limit on the first £2,710, at 20 per cent up to £34,370, 40
cent above £34,370 and 50 per cent above £150,000.

sorry sticky, but your post is completely unintelligible, so you'll need to re-write it if you want it to be understood

anyway, i am absolutely not guessing at what i heard, and it was very specific and clear ..... it was actually a sensible discussion about bankers, their incomes and bonuses, and also mentioned overseas tax regimes (eg HK) and bonuses earned by the likes of Glencore traders and Goldman Sachs

i am well aware that fossy (aka red fred) will be completely incapable to take a balanced view, but i have some hopes that you could

and before you go drumming down that well-worn and nonsensical route, you really cannot justify ranting about those who legitimately minimise their tax bill ..... you may disapprove, on whatever grounds you choose, but that really is the end of the matter
if the law is changed and "those" loopholes closed, then what is avoidance today may indeed be evasion tomorrow ...... but as it stands to day .....

=============

i could make a better song and dance about countries that impose withholding tax (WHT) which can be as little as 5/15% but as high as 34%
you may think that that is just a crafty way for gov'ts to fill their coffers early and that that WHT can be readily recouped in due course by the company whose income is so hit
in fact, it's assuredly not always that easy

==============

i could screech even louder about HMRC (VAT office) who are downright obstructive and aggressive when it comes to the non-refunding of properly due monies
it seems that it is now frequently necessary to threaten hard action (formal complaint) vs HMRC to get any response at all
of course, in so doing, one may then find oneself undergoing a spiteful and unwarranted forensic investigation by HMRC, the expenses for which cannot be reclaimed

fair world isn't it

Hi Cyners, yes its come out vertical not horizontal, trouble is dont no how to sort this tried a few times, anyway Im not doubting you just pointing out your source as obviously looked at what SHOULD have been collected not what was ACTUALLY collected.

David Camoron falls for the same trick nearly every PMQs but in his case he is deliberately misleading the electorate.

Here you are Cyners IR35 and how the top 1% dont pay 45% tax rate but pay 20%.

I could do it myself very easy but my pro bodies would have my bol-ox on a plate........

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/article-2095909/How-pay-21-tax-100-000-income-child-benefit--IR35-rules-explained.html

promise he wasn't/hasn't, but if the tax has been AVOIDED, then it is not collectible so does not come into the argument and cannot be used for yours either
how much tax is EVADED may be substantial, but nowhere near the same league - ie relatively small beer

anyway, i too was very surprised indeed by the stat stated, but as i said previously, i have no reason at all to think it inaccurate ..... the guy, though i forget who he was, was very senior indeed in his particular field, so would not leave himself blatantly open for "destruction"

So's Camoron but he gets away with it, I suspect because the other sides would do exactly the same thing if in power.

Disgraceful figures....... notice how its tailed off under the Tories despite all their false promises.

ENFORCEMENT OF IR35
2000–01: 16 cases (£0 recouped)
2001–02: 261 (£0)
2002–03: 1,016 (£946,275)
2003–04: 1,166 (£1,973,851)
2004–05: 771 (£1,447,796)
2005–06: 656 (£2,316,351)
2006–07:158 (£1,906,619)
2007–08: 104 (£1,730,640)
2008–09: 25 (£1,430,358)
2009–10: 12 (£155,502)
2010–11: 23 (£219,180)