The Chronicles of Rishi

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by ianch99

Not quite Mr Holmes. When you come back with the supporting evidence that Huw Edwards did something wrong, people might listen to you.

When you rant & rage based on an incorrect clickbait article from a Tabloid Rag then I am not surprised no one took you seriously.

I reminded of that wonderful quote again.

Originally Posted by ianch99

Just because it is legal does not make it right.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by ianch99

Nope, that was New Seph! Old Seph would listen to the logic of the argument and try and reason based on worked examples rather that generic, unsupported, statements.

<SNIP>

Nope to you, Ian. That was Old Seph applying the logic of the bleedin' obvious.

If a nurse earns, say, £50K and an ultra-wealthy person earns £1 million in the UK, then it is bleedin' obvious that the wealthy person pays more tax than the nurse.

You accuse me of making unsupported statements - you said:

I am confident that a significant majority of the population would agree with the proposition that an ultra wealthy individual should contribute, at a minimum, the same as a Nurse.

Show us please, where Sunak has contributed less than a nurse?

Pretty sure Ian meant as a percentage of salary, not gross amount…

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Pretty sure Ian meant as a percentage of salary, not gross amount…

Maybe he did - but he hangs onto my words so I'm right to hang on his.

Even if that is what he meant, let's analyse this. On £50K gross, a nurse would pay c. 18.5% = c. £9,200.

On £1 million gross, the rich person will have paid nearly £440,00 in tax = 44%.

So you're getting it as wrong as Ian did.

Hope that helps.

Originally Posted by Pierre

I reminded of that wonderful quote again.

If your just going to be an ass in every topic, you'll soon find you cant post in them.

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Maybe he did - but he hangs onto my words so I'm right to hang on his.

Even if that is what he meant, let's analyse this. On £50K gross, a nurse would pay c. 18.5% = c. £9,200.

On £1 million gross, the rich person will have paid nearly £440,00 in tax = 44%.

So you're getting it as wrong as Ian did.

Hope that helps.

£50k gross - tax & NI = £12,444, rate of 24.9%

https://uk.talent.com/tax-calculator...+Britain-50000

Sunak gross (over 3 years)

£4.766m gross across the three years of 2019/20, 2020/21 and 2021/22 - tax £1.053m, rate of 22%.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/b...-a9566211.html

Some of the wealthiest people in the UK are paying an effective tax rate of just 20 per cent, pioneering new research has found.

Researchers from Warwick University and the London School of Economics (LSE) analysed anonymised HMRC tax returns of higher earners and found that the average person with £10m in total remuneration had an effective tax rate of just 21 per cent – less than someone on median earnings of £30,000.

And a tenth of people receiving more than £1m paid a lower rate than someone earning just £15,000.

The very rich are able to – entirely legally – reduce their taxes by structuring their affairs to take their remuneration as capital gains and corporate dividends.

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Nope to you, Ian. That was Old Seph applying the logic of the bleedin' obvious.

If a nurse earns, say, £50K and an ultra-wealthy person earns £1 million in the UK, then it is bleedin' obvious that the wealthy person pays more tax than the nurse.

You accuse me of making unsupported statements - you said:



Show us please, where Sunak has contributed less than a nurse?

(Old) Seph, of course I am talking about, as Hugh mentions, the same percentage contribution. I felt it was sort of obvious but hey ho.

I would love to give you the evidence of the Sunak's actual effective tax rate but he, like others, deliberately obfuscates this via off shore tax havens and assorted chicanery

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by Hugh

£50k gross - tax & NI = £12,444, rate of 24.9%

https://uk.talent.com/tax-calculator...+Britain-50000

Sunak gross (over 3 years)

£4.766m gross across the three years of 2019/20, 2020/21 and 2021/22 - tax £1.053m, rate of 22%.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/b...-a9566211.html

There's bugger all difference between 24.9% and 22% for the purposes of this discussion.

What is the fair rate for Sunak?

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

There's bugger all difference between 24.9% and 22% for the purposes of this discussion.

What is the fair rate for Sunak?

Seph, I think your are so missing the point here. I am contrasting Sunak (together with many of his kind) with a Nurse for effect. Of course, given the ultra wealth these people have, he (and they) should be paying effective tax rates nearer the upper end of the PAYE scale i.e. towards 40%

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by ianch99

Seph, I think your are so missing the point here. I am contrasting Sunak (together with many of his kind) with a Nurse for effect. Of course, given the ultra wealth these people have, he (and they) should be paying effective tax rates nearer the upper end of the PAYE scale i.e. towards 40%

I did show in my example that a person earning £1 million per annum would pay 44% in income tax. I did not take into account any tax wheezes because I believe that government should legislate properly to close down tax avoidance schemes.

I hear you say "Exactly". I further hear you think "never would a Tory government close the loopholes" and you'd prolly be right because they've done bugger all since 2010. Furthermore, I hear you think, "it's their donors that the Tories are protecting". All of the foregoing are valid criticisms.

Now I'll ruin it all: John Redwood put forward a plan a few years ago that also has merit. https://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2012/0...-the-rich-pay/

.... However, at a time of economic difficulty, when the government wishes to spend so much more than it is currently collecting in revenue, there are many cries to tax the rich more. To do this successfully you need to have a tax system which attracts more very rich people here, and which tempts rich people to invest, venture and spend in ways which trigger more tax revenue from them. The higher rates introduced by the outgoing Labour and incoming Coalition governments have led to a predictable continuing drop in revenues. Taxes on wealth and income yielded 3.5% less to August 2012 than the same period the previous year.

The USA has lower tax rates on the very rich than the UK. Top rate federal income tax is 35%, compared to 50% (plus 2% NI) here. State income tax varies from 0% to 11%. Allowing an average of around 5% means the US top tax rate is more than 10% lower than the UK one.

Despite this- or more likely because of it – the US top 1% earn 17% of all the income. More importantly , they pay 37% of all the Income Tax paid. So with lower tax rates the USA achieves the goal of getting the rich to pay much more. It also has more seriously rich people, which some will dislike and others will see as helpful to pay all that extra tax. In the US the rich pay more than twice their income level. They make an overall bigger contribution than in the UK.

Just when you think Liz Truss’s favourite Right Wing think tank (the IEA) can’t get any more batshit-crazy, they say "hold my beer!"…

https://iea.org.uk/in-the-media/pres...cies-should-go

“The police don’t need to be told what to do by politicians who wouldn’t have a clue about how to run a police force. Nor do they need to be rewarded with increased budgets when they underperform. They need to be put in the position of private enterprises, whose fortunes depend on how well they provide for their customers.

“Most importantly, if ACME cannot deter crime well enough, the tariffs it pays London will be so high that it will make a loss and, ultimately, go out of business. Good. The London contract can be awarded to a more proficient policing company, which might hire Acme’s police officers and put them to better use.”

Full article here

https://thecritic.co.uk/policing-a-radical-solution/

Most importantly, if ACME cannot deter crime well enough, the tariffs it pays London will be so high that it will make a loss and, ultimately, go out of business. Good. The London contract can be awarded to a more proficient policing company, which might hire Acme’s police officers and put them to better use.

Competition between profit-seeking policing companies would lead to continual improvements in their methods. We could expect both crime rates and policing fees to fall, reducing the cost of crime to society.

<cough cough> Water Companies <cough cough>

[jfman]

I look forward to the first contract going to Wagner PMC.

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

I did show in my example that a person earning £1 million per annum would pay 44% in income tax. I did not take into account any tax wheezes because I believe that government should legislate properly to close down tax avoidance schemes.

I hear you say "Exactly". I further hear you think "never would a Tory government close the loopholes" and you'd prolly be right because they've done bugger all since 2010. Furthermore, I hear you think, "it's their donors that the Tories are protecting". All of the foregoing are valid criticisms.

Now I'll ruin it all: John Redwood put forward a plan a few years ago that also has merit. https://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2012/0...-the-rich-pay/

Seph, I am not sure if you are doing this deliberately but you keep referring to Income Tax in your responses. You know very well that the ultra wealthy do not accrue wealth via "income", rather they use other, more tax efficient, vehicles which attract far lower tax rates, if indeed they pay tax at all.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by ianch99

Seph, I am not sure if you are doing this deliberately but you keep referring to Income Tax in your responses. You know very well that the ultra wealthy do not accrue wealth via "income", rather they use other, more tax efficient, vehicles which attract far lower tax rates, if indeed they pay tax at all.

Good for them, as long as it’s legal.

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Pierre

Good for them, as long as it’s legal.

Love the shilling for the ultra wealthy, such a good look