Mrs May

This is a general message forum for all football and other general posts. Images, banter and topic wandering allowed. ALL TICKET RELATED POSTS IN DEDICATED THREAD IN HERE ONLY. All ticket related posts elsewhere will be deleted.

Moderators: Virginia_R, nige101uk, willesdenr, qprdotorgadmin, ZENITH R

User avatar
SheepRanger
dotorgsponsor
dotorgsponsor
Posts: 6969
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2007 1:09 pm
Location: Swine Down

Re: Mrs May

Post by SheepRanger » Sun Jul 02, 2017 5:30 pm

222gers wrote:
Sun Jul 02, 2017 3:00 pm
SheepRanger wrote:
Sun Jul 02, 2017 11:09 am
222gers wrote:
Sun Jul 02, 2017 8:40 am
I gather a penny rise on income tax would bring in over £5 billion per annum ( can this be right? ). If a party were to say that they would add 2p to tax but would ringfence it so that it all goes to the NHS and public sector pay, surely people would accept it ?
The LibDems had a penny increase in their manifesto but neglected to mention ringfencing.
No, they wouldnt accept it because Labour only wanted tax rises for companies and those earning over £80k. My limited company allows for hotel bills, food and travel to be classed as an expense which is tax deductible. The next step will be that you can ge reimbursed the money but it wont be tax deductible. All these legal allowances, which most would class as loopholes, will be removed. What about tax free savings and pensions contributions. I think these will go before tax rises. Theres a pdf from the ifs below if you want a heavy Sunday read. The interesting bit is that half of income tax collected come from 3% of the population and the ''rich'' would argue that they pay enough already and by contrast increasing on the poorly paid wouldnt bring in enough so whats the point? This is the money tree view. Remember that the rich spend more of goods and services which all mean they pay more tax. This may be reduced if it was increased at source or theyd just leave the country.

Hence my view that tax allowances need to reduced and avoidance laws increased. Thats the start and then we should see where we are.

Read from page 36 if you want to see the increase in revenue from any given action. The impacts of these are in the early part of the document.

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&sourc ... 2rMpeEv1Xg
Thanks Sheepy - I can't wade through all of it but on the very first page it has 5.5 billion from a one pence increase on income tax. Surely people rich and poor wouldn't object to this if ringfenced for a public sector pay rise ?
Unfortunately the ifs have also stated that Labour's planned increases in public sector pay would cost £9.6bln a year to 20/21. So the 1% rise in income tax you suggested won't be enough on its own. Also worth noting that in the years after the 2008 recession public sector pay increases outstripped private sector pay and the reverse has only just materialised.

Damien
dotorgsponsor
dotorgsponsor
Posts: 9789
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2007 7:23 pm
Location: Northern Ireland

Re: Mrs May

Post by Damien » Sun Jul 02, 2017 8:19 pm

SheepRanger wrote:
Sat Jul 01, 2017 7:51 pm
Damien wrote:
Sat Jul 01, 2017 3:33 pm
Put up Vat on luxury goods. There seem to be plenty of people out there with obscene amounts of money... let them pay. Labour missed a trick by not putting a tax on Premiership transfers.
How many jobs will be lost in the Bentley factory do you think?
If you can afford a Bentley or Roller, you don't worry about the cost of it. I worked for them for 15 years, so believe me when I say a "luxury tax" would not affect sales. It's only a small thing, but if we could make tax fairer in all it's forms - surely we would be better of as a society. Wishful thinking probably though on my behalf.

User avatar
SheepRanger
dotorgsponsor
dotorgsponsor
Posts: 6969
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2007 1:09 pm
Location: Swine Down

Re: Mrs May

Post by SheepRanger » Mon Jul 03, 2017 11:37 am

Damien wrote:
Sun Jul 02, 2017 8:19 pm
SheepRanger wrote:
Sat Jul 01, 2017 7:51 pm
Damien wrote:
Sat Jul 01, 2017 3:33 pm
Put up Vat on luxury goods. There seem to be plenty of people out there with obscene amounts of money... let them pay. Labour missed a trick by not putting a tax on Premiership transfers.
How many jobs will be lost in the Bentley factory do you think?
If you can afford a Bentley or Roller, you don't worry about the cost of it. I worked for them for 15 years, so believe me when I say a "luxury tax" would not affect sales. It's only a small thing, but if we could make tax fairer in all it's forms - surely we would be better of as a society. Wishful thinking probably though on my behalf.
I agree.
And with 43% of the population not paying any income tax at all perhaps we should consider that they should - or sweep the street.

User avatar
Esox Lucius
dot.org legend
dot.org legend
Posts: 19607
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2007 7:17 pm
Location: Banbury, Oxon.

Re: Mrs May

Post by Esox Lucius » Mon Jul 03, 2017 12:19 pm

SheepRanger wrote:
Mon Jul 03, 2017 11:37 am
I agree.
And with 43% of the population not paying any income tax at all perhaps we should consider that they should - or sweep the street.
Is that 43% of the total population, including the underage & the retired?
It's not the despair that will kill you, it's the hope.

User avatar
SheepRanger
dotorgsponsor
dotorgsponsor
Posts: 6969
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2007 1:09 pm
Location: Swine Down

Re: Mrs May

Post by SheepRanger » Mon Jul 03, 2017 12:35 pm

Esox Lucius wrote:
Mon Jul 03, 2017 12:19 pm
SheepRanger wrote:
Mon Jul 03, 2017 11:37 am
I agree.
And with 43% of the population not paying any income tax at all perhaps we should consider that they should - or sweep the street.
Is that 43% of the total population, including the underage & the retired?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04 ... ich-incre/

Clearly this articles goes against the Corbyn rhetoric - but let's not let the facts get in the way of convincing the naive youf.

User avatar
222gers
Level 4 dot.orger
Level 4 dot.orger
Posts: 3646
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2007 3:55 pm
Location: LONDON

Re: Mrs May

Post by 222gers » Mon Jul 03, 2017 1:35 pm

SheepRanger wrote:
Sun Jul 02, 2017 5:30 pm
222gers wrote:
Sun Jul 02, 2017 3:00 pm
SheepRanger wrote:
Sun Jul 02, 2017 11:09 am


No, they wouldnt accept it because Labour only wanted tax rises for companies and those earning over £80k. My limited company allows for hotel bills, food and travel to be classed as an expense which is tax deductible. The next step will be that you can ge reimbursed the money but it wont be tax deductible. All these legal allowances, which most would class as loopholes, will be removed. What about tax free savings and pensions contributions. I think these will go before tax rises. Theres a pdf from the ifs below if you want a heavy Sunday read. The interesting bit is that half of income tax collected come from 3% of the population and the ''rich'' would argue that they pay enough already and by contrast increasing on the poorly paid wouldnt bring in enough so whats the point? This is the money tree view. Remember that the rich spend more of goods and services which all mean they pay more tax. This may be reduced if it was increased at source or theyd just leave the country.

Hence my view that tax allowances need to reduced and avoidance laws increased. Thats the start and then we should see where we are.

Read from page 36 if you want to see the increase in revenue from any given action. The impacts of these are in the early part of the document.

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&sourc ... 2rMpeEv1Xg
Thanks Sheepy - I can't wade through all of it but on the very first page it has 5.5 billion from a one pence increase on income tax. Surely people rich and poor wouldn't object to this if ringfenced for a public sector pay rise ?
Unfortunately the ifs have also stated that Labour's planned increases in public sector pay would cost £9.6bln a year to 20/21. So the 1% rise in income tax you suggested won't be enough on its own. Also worth noting that in the years after the 2008 recession public sector pay increases outstripped private sector pay and the reverse has only just materialised.
Well yes but then again no. Public sector pay rose by slightly less than inflation so no bonanza. Private sector pay hardly rose at all as bosses took advantage of the banking-led recession to peg pay. But don't let the facts etc etc. :wink:

QPR_John
Level 5 dot.orger
Level 5 dot.orger
Posts: 5826
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2007 12:35 pm
Location: Reading

Re: Mrs May

Post by QPR_John » Mon Jul 03, 2017 3:59 pm

Esox Lucius wrote:
Mon Jul 03, 2017 12:19 pm
SheepRanger wrote:
Mon Jul 03, 2017 11:37 am
I agree.
And with 43% of the population not paying any income tax at all perhaps we should consider that they should - or sweep the street.
Is that 43% of the total population, including the underage & the retired?
Retired people pay income tax

User avatar
222gers
Level 4 dot.orger
Level 4 dot.orger
Posts: 3646
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2007 3:55 pm
Location: LONDON

Re: Mrs May

Post by 222gers » Mon Jul 03, 2017 4:50 pm

QPR_John wrote:
Mon Jul 03, 2017 3:59 pm
Esox Lucius wrote:
Mon Jul 03, 2017 12:19 pm
SheepRanger wrote:
Mon Jul 03, 2017 11:37 am
I agree.
And with 43% of the population not paying any income tax at all perhaps we should consider that they should - or sweep the street.
Is that 43% of the total population, including the underage & the retired?
Retired people pay income tax
A very good point John and one that is often forgotten.

User avatar
SheepRanger
dotorgsponsor
dotorgsponsor
Posts: 6969
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2007 1:09 pm
Location: Swine Down

Re: Mrs May

Post by SheepRanger » Wed Jul 05, 2017 7:25 am

222gers wrote:
Mon Jul 03, 2017 4:50 pm
QPR_John wrote:
Mon Jul 03, 2017 3:59 pm
Esox Lucius wrote:
Mon Jul 03, 2017 12:19 pm

Is that 43% of the total population, including the underage & the retired?
Retired people pay income tax
A very good point John and one that is often forgotten.
Children pay income tax if they earn enough but no NIC. Child actors and clever IT bods pay income tax. If they were exempt successful adults would route their earning through their children. There would be a lot of child Managing Directors out there.

User avatar
BiscuitRanger
Level 5 dot.orger
Level 5 dot.orger
Posts: 5063
Joined: Sat Aug 01, 2009 6:19 am
Location: Johannesburg

Re: Mrs May

Post by BiscuitRanger » Thu Jul 06, 2017 1:55 pm

SheepRanger wrote:
Wed Jul 05, 2017 7:25 am

... There would be a lot of child Managing Directors out there.
You mean there isn't?
Keep an open mind, but not so open that your brain falls out.

User avatar
Giorgio
dotorgsponsor
dotorgsponsor
Posts: 4022
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2007 6:03 pm
Location: Dublin

Re: Mrs May

Post by Giorgio » Thu Jul 06, 2017 8:13 pm

...sack her...she is incompetent and go for Harry....please Harry..save England.. :twisted:

User avatar
SheepRanger
dotorgsponsor
dotorgsponsor
Posts: 6969
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2007 1:09 pm
Location: Swine Down

Re: Mrs May

Post by SheepRanger » Thu Jul 06, 2017 8:55 pm

SheepRanger wrote:
Mon Jul 03, 2017 11:37 am
Damien wrote:
Sun Jul 02, 2017 8:19 pm
SheepRanger wrote:
Sat Jul 01, 2017 7:51 pm


How many jobs will be lost in the Bentley factory do you think?
If you can afford a Bentley or Roller, you don't worry about the cost of it. I worked for them for 15 years, so believe me when I say a "luxury tax" would not affect sales. It's only a small thing, but if we could make tax fairer in all it's forms - surely we would be better of as a society. Wishful thinking probably though on my behalf.
I agree.
And with 43% of the population not paying any income tax at all perhaps we should consider that they should - or sweep the street.
The net closesl.........

http://m.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/40505296

User avatar
222gers
Level 4 dot.orger
Level 4 dot.orger
Posts: 3646
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2007 3:55 pm
Location: LONDON

Re: Mrs May

Post by 222gers » Thu Jul 13, 2017 3:19 pm

She seems to be more stable now after her three month "horribilis". I'd rather she stays than someone like Johnston take over.

User avatar
WA Hoop
Level 5 dot.orger
Level 5 dot.orger
Posts: 5581
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 4:04 pm
Location: Perth, Western Australia

Re: Mrs May

Post by WA Hoop » Fri Jul 14, 2017 9:23 am

222gers wrote:
Thu Jul 13, 2017 3:19 pm
She seems to be more stable now after her three month "horribilis". I'd rather she stays than someone like Johnston take over.
Boris & Donald, now that would be a 'hands across the Atlantic water', 'special relationship', what's not to like? :wink:
Question everything.

User avatar
222gers
Level 4 dot.orger
Level 4 dot.orger
Posts: 3646
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2007 3:55 pm
Location: LONDON

Re: Mrs May

Post by 222gers » Fri Jul 14, 2017 10:23 am

WA Hoop wrote:
Fri Jul 14, 2017 9:23 am
222gers wrote:
Thu Jul 13, 2017 3:19 pm
She seems to be more stable now after her three month "horribilis". I'd rather she stays than someone like Johnston take over.
Boris & Donald, now that would be a 'hands across the Atlantic water', 'special relationship', what's not to like? :wink:
A relationship not matched since the days of Thatcher and Reagan !!

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests