The Chronicles of Rishi

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by jfman

I’m not convinced the vast, vast, majority of higher earners in this country will have the skills or expertise to move abroad for a marginal tax advantage. Those that could have would have done so.

Indeed, You’d be surprised how many “high earners”, by definition, aren’t really.

They’re comfortable, have a nice house, have at least one decent fortnight abroad at a good hotel, maybe even sneak a week at half term, probably have two cars.

But they still live month to month with their pay, and if either lost their job they could soon see themselves in the shit.

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

All that 'most people' you mentioned need to do is to read my previous post. Then they'll understand how it all works.

If those '£100K' bods are overtaxed, they'll leave and take the jobs they employ with them. I suggest you join the dots.

As to effective tax rates, I didn't understand your calculation by reason of the cumulative increase you cited. What did you mean by 'your wealth increasing by £60K (or £100K) per year'? After tax? After spending? What is the taxable salary within those figures?

Everybody, gather round and read Seph's previous post to understand the detail of how the global, pan-tax jurisdiction, corporate capitalist market works and the intricacies of arcane financial instruments. You're a funny man

I never mentioned '£100K bods' so not sure where you got that from. As to leaving and taking their jobs with them, your Brexit put paid to most of that.

Finally, for such a financial guru, you would think that when we are discussing effective tax rates, it is blindingly obvious we are discussing the tax rate applied to gross income/wealth gains.

---------- Post added at 21:06 ---------- Previous post was at 21:01 ----------

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Ah - but Ian kept it vague as to what he meant by wealth growing by £100K/year. So there's no real reference point.

Ian doesn't like the idea of people being wealthy and only paying a top rate of 45% tax. If those people have their tax increased, they'll leave, imo. The wealthy may well have big business here and I have no doubt that they would move those business to a lower taxation country.

Again, I never mentioned people paying 45% tax rate. Classic deflection from addressing the point I made.

I also like the idea of people being wealthy e.g. I like myself. I am not saying that middle income earners are to be impacted. Please stop making up BS.

I'll ask the question again:

Let's take this example: your wealth increases each year by £60k, principally through income, and you pay an overall effective tax rate of, say, 35%. Let's then say that my wealth increases by £100m each year but my overall effective tax rate is 10% or less. Do you think this is fair & equitable?

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Pierre

Indeed, You’d be surprised how many “high earners”, by definition, aren’t really.

They’re comfortable, have a nice house, have at least one decent fortnight abroad at a good hotel, maybe even sneak a week at half term, probably have two cars.

But they still live month to month with their pay, and if either lost their job they could soon see themselves in the shit.

This is where the Tories have let their base down. Folk on 100 grand a year, big house, good job weren’t meant to be worse off.

Interest rates and energy shaft everyone and that wasn’t the deal.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by ianch99

Everybody, gather round and read Seph's previous post to understand the detail of how the global, pan-tax jurisdiction, corporate capitalist market works and the intricacies of arcane financial instruments. You're a funny man

I never mentioned '£100K bods' so not sure where you got that from. As to leaving and taking their jobs with them, your Brexit put paid to most of that.

Finally, for such a financial guru, you would think that when we are discussing effective tax rates, it is blindingly obvious we are discussing the tax rate applied to gross income/wealth gains.

---------- Post added at 21:06 ---------- Previous post was at 21:01 ----------



Again, I never mentioned people paying 45% tax rate. Classic deflection from addressing the point I made.

I also like the idea of people being wealthy e.g. I like myself. I am not saying that middle income earners are to be impacted. Please stop making up BS.

I'll ask the question again:

Let's take this example: your wealth increases each year by £60k, principally through income, and you pay an overall effective tax rate of, say, 35%. Let's then say that my wealth increases by £100m each year but my overall effective tax rate is 10% or less. Do you think this is fair & equitable?

I never mentioned '£100K bods' so not sure where you got that from. As to leaving and taking their jobs with them, your Brexit put paid to most of that.

You're splitting hairs here. What you have avoided explaining is what the heck you meant by this £60m/£100m 'example'.

Again, I never mentioned people paying 45% tax rate. Classic deflection from addressing the point I made.

You don't have to have mentioned the 45% tax rate for me to introduce it into the conversation. You go on about the tax gap between the £60m bod and the £100m bod. The only inference to be drawn is that you wish the richer person to be subject to a higher tax rate, or a wealth tax, or something because you never defined the £60m/£100m wealth increase.

... it is blindingly obvious we are discussing the tax rate applied to gross income/wealth gains.

You mentioned an effective tax rate (I now assume CGT) of 10% for the £100m bod. Where does that come from?

[GrimUpNorth]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

You're splitting hairs here. What you have avoided explaining is what the heck you meant by this £60m/£100m 'example'.



You don't have to have mentioned the 45% tax rate for me to introduce it into the conversation. You go on about the tax gap between the £60m bod and the £100m bod. The only inference to be drawn is that you wish the richer person to be subject to a higher tax rate, or a wealth tax, or something because you never defined the £60m/£100m wealth increase.



You mentioned an effective tax rate (I now assume CGT) of 10% for the £100m bod. Where does that come from?

I think everyone (even you) knows what Ian is saying, I also think you're just going out of your way to be obtuse because you know he's got a point and cant bring yourself to agree.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by GrimUpNorth

I think everyone (even you) knows what Ian is saying, I also think you're just going out of your way to be obtuse because you know he's got a point and cant bring yourself to agree.

Not at all, Grim. Ian seems to hate all things Tory (possibly due to Brexit) and uses social injustice through the wealth gap as his illustration in the current exchange of words.

There are better reasons to dislike the Tories.

What I have done is to point out the consequences of narrowing the wealth gap due to human nature. I have also asked Ian to provide a better definition of his £60K/£100K wealth increase (which he has done) and as a consequence I've asked him where he got his 10% effective tax rate from (because CGT has two bands of rates).

Iain has also cited Denmark as a model for income equality and has recommended that model for the UK. He's right about his description of Denmark and wrong about its applicability to the UK. Denmark has 1/10 of the UK's population and its economic activity is vastly different from that of the UK. With only 6m people, there aren't as many pips to be squeezed by the ultra-rich, so they aren't present.

It's all about understanding how the various economies work. Labour's 13 years of rule didn't change the dynamics of the UK's economy and couldn't touch the wealth gap; nor can the Tories.

The economy pretty much runs itself through business activity. The Government just needs to stimulate the economy through tax/investment incentives, which is not their current approach.

All I ask of Ian is that gets real on this particular subject.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Iain has also cited Denmark as a model for income equality and has recommended that model for the UK. He's right about his description of Denmark and wrong about its applicability to the UK. Denmark has 1/10 of the UK's population and its economic activity is vastly different from that of the UK. With only 6m people, there aren't as many pips to be squeezed by the ultra-rich, so they aren't present.

Thanks for, inadvertently I assume, making the case for Scottish independence.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by jfman

Thanks for, inadvertently I assume, making the case for Scottish independence.

You're welcome.

[Ms NTL]

The incompetence of this government :

* if you make £125,000 or more you lose your tax free allowance (the first £12,570)

Hunt announced that ( for every two quid you make above 100K you lose £1 of your tax allowance ). A complicated way to say: we are getting your allowance.

* But when you get your state pension, this is also taken from your tax free allowance.

What???? The allowance is already gone!

The tax people do not know what to do. "to be reviewed next April" and you get an X (not twitter) in your tax code!

Another by-election (probably…)

https://news.sky.com/story/peter-bon...weeks-12990803

Peter Bone: Ex-Tory MP accused of sexual misconduct and bullying suspended from Commons for six weeks

The sanction means he will face a recall petition in his constituency, which could lead to yet another by-election for Rishi Sunak's party.

[denphone]

Conservative MP arrested on suspicion of rape and possession of drugs.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...ugs-possession

A Conservative MP has been arrested on suspicion of rape and possession of drugs, the Guardian has learned.

Police said a man was arrested on Wednesday morning before being released on conditional bail.

Westminster sources confirmed the man, whom the Guardian is not naming, is a sitting MP.

A spokesperson for a UK police force, which is also not being named, said: “We can confirm a man … was arrested yesterday morning … on suspicion of rape and possession of controlled substances.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by denphone

Conservative MP arrested on suspicion of rape and possession of drugs.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...ugs-possession

Actually quite sad to read this.

[Mr K]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Actually quite sad to read this.

Do they put viagra into the gin at CCHQ? They should just turn it into a jail. Problem sorted.

Originally Posted by denphone

Conservative MP arrested on suspicion of rape and possession of drugs.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...ugs-possession

https://news.sky.com/story/senior-to...ances-12993261

Conservative MP Crispin Blunt says he has been arrested on suspicion of rape and possession of controlled substances.

In a statement on X, the Reigate MP said: "It has been reported that an MP was arrested yesterday in connection with an allegation of rape.

"I am confirming that MP was me. The fact of the arrest requires a formal notification of the Speaker and then my Chief Whip.

"I have now been interviewed twice in connection with this incident, the first time three weeks ago, when I initially reported my concern over extortion. The second time was earlier this morning under caution following arrest.

"The arrest was unnecessary as I remain ready to co-operate fully with the investigation that I am confident will end without charge.

"I do not intend to say anything further on this matter until the police have completed their inquiries."