Cyclone Posted January 6, 2012 Share Posted January 6, 2012 We'll all be pensioners at some point, how has the system lasted for decades if everyone ultimately claims more than they contribute? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chem1st Posted January 6, 2012 Author Share Posted January 6, 2012 We'll all be pensioners at some point, how has the system lasted for decades if everyone ultimately claims more than they contribute? Did you know that pensioners claim the most pensions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted January 6, 2012 Share Posted January 6, 2012 They are not necessarily the rich though are they, they most certainly are not, your talking about income for the purposes of income tax. Are you telling me that the super rich (who someone was suggesting should be taxed more) aren't the people in the top 1% income bracket? Did you know the top 1% of students get the most A grades... I'm not sure what point you think you're making here, did the top 1% of students get 25% of all the A marks awarded? I doubt it. That doesn't mean they work, it doesn't mean they pay tax, it doesn't mean they're rich, it doesn't mean they own land via a company registered in the BVI, it doesn't mean they're the largest taxpayer. That's right, it doesn't mean anything, it's completely irrelevant, thanks for wasting my time with it. And nor does the fact, that those with the highest income pay a greater proportion of income tax in numerical terms, mean that they work etc. etc. too. It does however mean that they pay the most tax already. Work has nothing to do with it, my point was the rich and super rich already pay a massive amount of tax in this country. Benefit £10000, EMTR 100% = No incentive to earn £50 Benefit £100, EMTR 100% = No incentive to earn £50 It is neither the level of wages or benefits, it is the EMTR of 100%. Something which you well know will be changed when the unified benefits system is introduced, assuming that labour don't manage to block it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted January 6, 2012 Share Posted January 6, 2012 Did you know that pensioners claim the most pensions? Have you been taking drugs or something? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chem1st Posted January 6, 2012 Author Share Posted January 6, 2012 Are you telling me that the super rich (who someone was suggesting should be taxed more) aren't the people in the top 1% income bracket? Yes. Income for the purposes of income taxdoesn't mean that your rich. There are many other forms of 'income'. I'm not sure what point you think you're making here, did the top 1% of students get 25% of all the A marks awarded? I doubt it. It is an analogy. That's right, it doesn't mean anything, it's completely irrelevant, thanks for wasting my time with it. http://www.osiristrust.com/whatsnew/Using%20a%20%20BVI%20company%20to%20purchase%20UK%20real%20estate.pdf Yes, I do mean to say that not all forms of income are subject to income tax. And that we should not consider income for the purposes of income tax only, we must consider all forms of income. It does however mean that they pay the most tax already. Work has nothing to do with it, my point was the rich and super rich already pay a massive amount of tax in this country. What about alcohol DUTY, cigarette DUTY, VAT, stamp DUTY, capital gains, expenses etc. etc. Something which you well know will be changed when the unified benefits system is introduced, assuming that labour don't manage to block it. Aye, and something that will be good for work incentives, i.e. improve them, even though wages and benefits will remain constant. So you concur EMTRs do make a difference? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chem1st Posted January 6, 2012 Author Share Posted January 6, 2012 Have you been taking drugs or something? I am still alive, so we'll have to assume that is a 'yes'. But if you means 'drugs' as in 'drugz' as in 'drugs that are illegal in the eyes of the law under the MOD act 1974', then not for a few days, but I will be smoking some hash tonight. You should try it some time Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TJC1 Posted January 6, 2012 Share Posted January 6, 2012 No it isn't. That's world wide profit you're thinking about, did you bother to check what tax they have paid elsewhere? . ....what's Phillip Greens excuse? If we all did what HSBC/TOPSHOP etc. does where would that leave our economy? It's legal (for the time being) but it's not responsible or ethical. UK companies making 14 billion should pay UK taxes... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGuy Posted January 6, 2012 Share Posted January 6, 2012 Slightly different issue, but along the same lines. Any woman who gets pregnant under the age of 21 and then goes running to the DWP for a house should be referred back to her parents. A lot of social housing could be clawed back by stopping these tarts who decide that they're gonna stick their legs in the air for a council house. Quoted for truth. That was your 666'th post btw Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGuy Posted January 6, 2012 Share Posted January 6, 2012 Bye then, they'd better not let the door hit their ass on the way out! Lol, you'd soon know about it if the big earners left the country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chem1st Posted January 6, 2012 Author Share Posted January 6, 2012 Lol, you'd soon know about it if the big earners left the country. Such as? Many of them don't do anything productive and are rich through land subsidies, they stop land from being used for productive means. I don't care whether they leave, are taxed accordingly, have subsidies removed or are executed, but they add nothing to this country, they are parasites. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.