https://www.gov.uk/government/stati...fter-tax-and-income-tax-for-percentile-groups Table 2.4 shows: - The top 1% of income tax payers pay 28% of all income tax - The top 5% pay 48.9% of all income tax - Top 10% - 60.1% - Top 25% - 76% - Top 50% - 90.6% It's hard to get much fairer than that, no?
But surely the very rich will of course pay the most money in to the pot…purely because they are the very ones who can afford to pay, whereas the lowest earners in society will pay far less because they are the ones who cannot afford to pay. I mean, how many mansions/cars/boats does one person need ? Don’t get me wrong, if I win the lottery tomorrow I’ll be the first one buying a 20 million pad in Dubai and living my days in a swimming pool full of champagne with 16 high class Russian prostitutes on the go……but I’d still like to think I’d happily pay my taxes without looking for some tax avoidance scheme.
Some government representative said the other day that if they were to maintain the Universal Credit uplift, they would have to put a penny on income tax, as if that was unthinkable. Why should it be?
Because of the Laffer curve. When they introduced the 50 (now 45) per cent tax bracket it raised very little money. Tax at too high a level pushes the rich (who are most mobile) away and then you have less money, or have to tax the less rich even more. We've also already had a 1% tax increase via NICs (or was that 1.5?). Marginal tax rates are already really high for some earners. The solution can't be to keep adding to that or it will work against what you want to achieve.
I guess I was trying to show with those figures that there doesn't appear to be all that much tax avoidance going on. Party sounds fun, but I think you'd be a soppy so and so and end up looking after your family instead!
The kids have already been told they will be dumped for Ivana, 10 kilos of Colombia’s finest and gallons of poncy French fizzy stuff. My socialist principles will of course be a thing of the past. You’ll all be invited
All the sh*t going on and Labour are obsessed with cervixes, that'll bring the red wall stampeding back...
For anyone (like me) that's confused: Sex refers to “the different biological and physiological characteristics of males and females, such as reproductive organs, chromosomes, hormones, etc.” Gender refers to "the socially constructed characteristics of women and men – such as norms, roles and relationships of and between groups of women and men.
please log in to view this image Hugo Gye @HugoGye · 8h Gina Miller is launching a new political party which will be called True & Fair https://trueandfair.uk The anti-Brexit campaigner says: "This Government needs to be held to account. Voters deserve better than the current politics of incompetence and self-interest."
Same voters who voted for Brexit and Gina Miller spent a fortune attempting block? She should remember what happened to Soubry, Chukka and all the other Remoaners who formed a new party. Her self-importance knows no bounds...
It's fundamentally different from trickle down economics. It's about finding the point between 0% (which would raise no tax revenue) and 100% (which would also raise no tax revenue) which would provide the maximum tax yield. Seeking the maximum yield should be seen as a good thing to someone left leaning. One can disagree about if that maximum point is at 80% or 40% or in the middle, but it's nowt to do with trickle down.
I can (just about) get on board with sex being a scientific descriptor and gender being a social construct. The issue I have is that a hardcore lobby are now arguing that sex is a social construct, which is (ironically) clearly a load of bow locks.
And so it has started, one of my employees vans was drilled through for the diesel last night! Great start to the day. Its going to cost me a few quid and there wasnt even a 1/4 of a tank in it!!! Twats
Agreed, and as the commentator said on the tweet posted earlier, that's confusing when the NHS is scanning for cervix cancer
