Home Politics & Debate
If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options

The Sham of taxation

2»

Comments

  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    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.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    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:)
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    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.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    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?
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    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:
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    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:
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    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.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    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.........
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    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.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    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.....
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    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.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    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)
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    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.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    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.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    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.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    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.
Sign In or Register to comment.