View Single Post
Old 14-05-2010, 22:37   #357
Flyboy
Inactive
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 3,375
Flyboy is the helpful oneFlyboy is the helpful oneFlyboy is the helpful oneFlyboy is the helpful oneFlyboy is the helpful oneFlyboy is the helpful oneFlyboy is the helpful oneFlyboy is the helpful oneFlyboy is the helpful oneFlyboy is the helpful oneFlyboy is the helpful oneFlyboy is the helpful oneFlyboy is the helpful oneFlyboy is the helpful oneFlyboy is the helpful oneFlyboy is the helpful oneFlyboy is the helpful one
Re: [Update] The Liberal-Conservative Coalition

Quote:
Originally Posted by Xaccers View Post
Seriously, how can you not understand that when the economy is doing well, more tax is paid as more people are earning and spending, and when the economy is doing badly, less tax is paid because fewer people are earning and spending?

---------- Post added at 23:01 ---------- Previous post was at 22:55 ----------



Last time I checked it's the tax man (HMRC) which dictates that you can claim the 40ppm and 25ppm as legitimate expenses.
You don't put a claim in for the tax you would have paid had you not claimed the expenses.
What? You told Homer that he he could net over four thousand pounds by claiming forty pence per mile.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Xaccers
As a contractor you can claim back £0.40 per mile, netting you well over £4K from the tax man.
But that is not possible, as a schedule "D" tax payer, one does not "claim back" anything. One uses that amount to reduce, i.e. set against, one's taxable profits (in other word increasing ones expenditure), therefore not having to pay tax on the equivalent amount of profit. If that equivalent amount of profit is four thousand pounds, it would mean you would pay eight hundred pounds less tax.

---------- Post added at 23:37 ---------- Previous post was at 23:29 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by danielf View Post
Presumably you mean: There have been certain years under the Tories where the tax rates were higher than in certain years under Labour? Which is as valid a statement as the reverse would be, which renders the whole exercise rather pointless.
The first thirteen years of Tory rule, the mean percentage against GDP was thirty-six point three, the thirteen years of Labour it was thirty-five point three.
Flyboy is offline   Reply With Quote