Pound slumps to all-time low against dollar

[puchooay]

2 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Putting aside your facetious humour, raising the tax free allowance would have given very direct help to those on low incomes and would have avoided handing large tax breaks to the wealthy.

 

All earners would receive the same assistance. 
 

But of course that would not have handed large sums to the already wealthy.

The wealthy? To what figure would you raise the allowance to reach your goal of the wealthy not being the main winners?

[Chomper Higgot]

29 minutes ago, puchooay said:

The wealthy? To what figure would you raise the allowance to reach your goal of the wealthy not being the main winners?

You clearly do not understand that raising the zero tax allowance gives a single flat rate tax reduction to all who pay income tax, regardless of how much they earn above the revised ‘zero tax allowance’.

 

 

[Woof999]

37 minutes ago, puchooay said:

The wealthy? To what figure would you raise the allowance to reach your goal of the wealthy not being the main winners?

Any raise in the zero tax allowance alone would help the poor more than the wealthy. £100 extra a month in the pocket is worth a lot more to a £2000 earner than a £200,000 earner.

[puchooay]

24 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

You clearly do not understand that raising the zero tax allowance gives a single flat rate tax reduction to all who pay income tax, regardless of how much they earn above the revised ‘zero tax allowance’.

 

 

 

15 minutes ago, Woof999 said:

Any raise in the zero tax allowance alone would help the poor more than the wealthy. £100 extra a month in the pocket is worth a lot more to a £2000 earner than a £200,000 earner.

Neither of you are  making any sense at all. First, who earns two thousand pounds a year? Second, you are still not addressing your disdain for high earners getting more benefit from the current tax system. In fact, you have totally turned your stance by saying £100 is worth more to lower earners than to high earners. Thus not worrying about the fact that high earners get the same. It is still a benefit to high earners. By the way, you still have not given a figure of salary for high earner although you have mentioned 100k and 200k. If a low earner is happy with £100 why would they worry about what others are getting? I have no concern about what others earn or pay. It has no bearing on my own financial situation. 

 

So, in short. If the budget had raised tax allowance, rather than lowered the rate, you would not have been bothered that a 50k earner pays the same rate of tax and has the same allowance as a 13k earner. That is laughable. 13 pages of drivel from you because of a 1% tax reduction that benefits ALL tax payers but at the end of the day at 20% its rosy for all.

Edited October 5, 2022 by puchooay

[Chomper Higgot]

5 minutes ago, puchooay said:

 

Neither of you are  making any sense at all. First, who earns two thousand pounds a year? Second, you are still not addressing your disdain for high earners getting more benefit from the current tax system. In fact, you have totally turned your stance by saying £100 is worth more to lower earners than to high earners. Thus not worrying about the fact that high earners get the same. It is still a benefit to high earners. By the way, you still have not given a figure of salary for high earner although you have mentioned 100k and 200k. If a low earner is happy with £100 why would they worry about what others are getting? I have no concern about what others earn or pay. It has no bearing on my own financial situation. 

 

So, in short. If the budget had raised tax allowance, rather than lowered the rate, you would not have been bothered that a 50k earner pays the same rate of tax and has the same allowance as a 13k earner. That is laughable. 13 pages of drivel from you because of a 1% tax reduction that benefits ALL tax payers but at the end of the day at 20% its rosy for all.

You’ve addressed two different members in the same post with comments that can not possibly apply to both.

 

 

[puchooay]

Just now, Chomper Higgot said:

You’ve addressed two different members in the same post with comments that can not possibly apply to both.

 

 

Your suggestions were the same. You both suggested the same outcome. You both made the same contradictions. That applied to both of your comments. Care to answer any of the questions I posed or counter suggestions I made? Thought not.

[Chomper Higgot]

3 minutes ago, puchooay said:

Your suggestions were the same. You both suggested the same outcome. You both made the same contradictions. That applied to both of your comments. Care to answer any of the questions I posed or counter suggestions I made? Thought not.

Making reference to my post, identify a ‘contradiction’ and I’ll address it for you.

[Woof999]

Just now, puchooay said:

Your suggestions were the same. You both suggested the same outcome. You both made the same contradictions. That applied to both of your comments. Care to answer any of the questions I posed or counter suggestions I made? Thought not.

Sure. I was talking about monthly earnings. I would not class someone earning £200k per year as being anywhere near the top end of wealthy even though 50k of those earnings would have attracted the 45% tax bracket.

 

Someone earning 50k is paying way more tax than someone earning 13k, even if there was a single tax bracket covering them both (but there are at least 3).

 

If you can't understand why £100 is worth way more to someone earning £2k (per month, before you ask again) than someone earning £200k per month then there really is little point in continuing.

[puchooay]

10 minutes ago, Woof999 said:

Someone earning 50k is paying way more tax than someone earning 13k, even if there was a single tax bracket covering them both (but there are at least 3).

You are talking on a different scale if these are monthly salaries too. My mistake. I was talking annual salaries. 

[placeholder]

16 minutes ago, puchooay said:

Your suggestions were the same. You both suggested the same outcome. You both made the same contradictions. That applied to both of your comments. Care to answer any of the questions I posed or counter suggestions I made? Thought not.

Somebody else who saves the people the bother of answering questions he asks by answering those questions themselves. So thoughtful!

[Woof999]

16 minutes ago, puchooay said:

You are talking on a different scale if these are monthly salaries too. My mistake. I was talking annual salaries. 

If it was £2k per annum then any hike in the zero allowance wouldn't help as they already pay no tax. For clarity, the answer I gave to  your £13k / £50k was based on annual earnings, as that was clearly your intent. The current allowance being only a little under £13k would mean any hike would take that lower scale person out of income tax altogether.

 

I would have no issue with a single personal allowance and a single tax bracket. That still means that the wealthy pay more tax, considerably in many circumstances, although this would need to go hand in hand with a massive tightening of the tax avoidance loop holes. However, we live in a world where the poor can't always do too much to improve their circumstances, although that shouldn't be an excuse for them not to at least try, so the wealthy are expected to pay a larger share. It's a fine balance between attracting those that can create wealth to pay UK tax without punishing the peasants who don't have a choice.

Edited October 5, 2022 by Woof999

[puchooay]

12 minutes ago, Woof999 said:

If it was £2k per annum then any hike in the zero allowance wouldn't help as they already pay no tax. For clarity, the answer I gave to  your £13k / £50k was based on annual earnings, as that was clearly your intent. The current allowance being only a little under £13k would mean any hike would take that lower scale person out of income tax altogether.

 

I would have no issue with a single personal allowance and a single tax bracket. That still means that the wealthy pay more tax, considerably in many circumstances, although this would need to go hand in hand with a massive tightening of the tax avoidance loop holes. However, we live in a world where the poor can't always do too much to improve their circumstances, although that shouldn't be an excuse for them not to at least try, so the wealthy are expected to pay a larger share. It's a fine balance between attracting those that can create wealth to pay UK tax without punishing the peasants who don't have a choice.

Thank you for your explanation. So nice to see some are able to explain themselves fully. So much more understandable.

[puchooay]

1 hour ago, placeholder said:

Somebody else who saves the people the bother of answering questions he asks by answering those questions themselves. So thoughtful!

Well. It's the only way when others are in denial. 

 

Shame really. If some would answer questions the whole conversation could become a lot clearer. Never mind.

[placeholder]

27 minutes ago, puchooay said:

Well. It's the only way when others are in denial. 

 

Shame really. If some would answer questions the whole conversation could become a lot clearer. Never mind.

Your claim would be more believable if you hadn't left the following unanswered:

Edited October 5, 2022 by placeholder

[puchooay]

1 hour ago, placeholder said:

Your claim would be more believable if you hadn't left the following unanswered:

Your claim would be valid if that was the first question left unanswered. List all the question I have been involved with, both asking and asked, in order and we'll see who's waiting for answers first and foremost.

Edited October 5, 2022 by puchooay

[placeholder]

4 minutes ago, puchooay said:

Your claim would be valid if that was the first question left unanswered. List all the question I have been involved with, both asking and asked, in order and we'll see who's waiting for answers first and foremost.

All you had to do was name one for starters.

Edited October 5, 2022 by placeholder

[puchooay]

4 hours ago, placeholder said:

All you had to do was name one for starters.

What salary bracket would you define as "wealthy"? That one is still unanswered. 

Edited October 5, 2022 by puchooay

[placeholder]

5 hours ago, puchooay said:

What salary bracket would you define as "wealthy"? That one is still unanswered. 

Because it's the wrong question. The right question would be related to assets. Usually "wealthyi" is defined as those in the top 10% as far as net worth is concerned. "Super wealthy" applies to the top 1%. Of course, there is a strong correlation between the two of them.

[James105]

2 hours ago, placeholder said:

Because it's the wrong question. The right question would be related to assets. Usually "wealthyi" is defined as those in the top 10% as far as net worth is concerned. "Super wealthy" applies to the top 1%. Of course, there is a strong correlation between the two of them.

Due to the housing market it wouldn't be fair to use assets to determine someones wealth for tax purposes.   There would be situations of trying to extract money from cash poor pensioners that bought a house worth £20,000 decades ago that is now worth millions but they can barely afford to heat it in the winter.    

 

A top 10% earner makes £54,000 per year which is £3291 a month salary after tax.   After mortgage, council tax, energy etc that probably leaves about £1500-2000 per month.    If they have a mortgage then each interest rate rise is a big hit on their disposable income as each 1 or 2% rise will probably take away at least 10% of this.  If they don't have a mortgage then on that amount saving for a deposit means years of living frugally and they are probably trapped inside the rental market.  I think if you told someone on that amount they were wealthy they would laugh at you.    

[BritManToo]

8 hours ago, puchooay said:

What salary bracket would you define as "wealthy"? That one is still unanswered. 

Income over 100kGBP should have a 100% tax rate.

Alternatively set a maximum wage of 10x the minimum wage.

[placeholder]

1 hour ago, James105 said:

Due to the housing market it wouldn't be fair to use assets to determine someones wealth for tax purposes.   There would be situations of trying to extract money from cash poor pensioners that bought a house worth £20,000 decades ago that is now worth millions but they can barely afford to heat it in the winter.    

 

A top 10% earner makes £54,000 per year which is £3291 a month salary after tax.   After mortgage, council tax, energy etc that probably leaves about £1500-2000 per month.    If they have a mortgage then each interest rate rise is a big hit on their disposable income as each 1 or 2% rise will probably take away at least 10% of this.  If they don't have a mortgage then on that amount saving for a deposit means years of living frugally and they are probably trapped inside the rental market.  I think if you told someone on that amount they were wealthy they would laugh at you.    

I was asked what I thought would qualify as wealthy. I wasn't asked how they should be taxed.

[puchooay]

5 hours ago, placeholder said:

Because it's the wrong question. The right question would be related to assets. Usually "wealthyi" is defined as those in the top 10% as far as net worth is concerned. "Super wealthy" applies to the top 1%. Of course, there is a strong correlation between the two of them.

That is what I said. However, the poster I asked was constantly telling us that the wealthy were benefitting the most from tax cuts. Seeing as the tax cuts in question are based solely on salary, it was a valid question. One that remains unanswered.

[puchooay]

1 hour ago, placeholder said:

I was asked what I thought would qualify as wealthy. I wasn't asked how they should be taxed.

No. You were not asked that. You asked me for an example of one of my unanswered  questions. I gave one.

Edited October 6, 2022 by puchooay

[puchooay]

2 hours ago, BritManToo said:

Income over 100kGBP should have a 100% tax rate.

Alternatively set a maximum wage of 10x the minimum wage.

Excellent idea. Let's kerb ambition, drive, vision, and any real feeling of wanting to go onwards and upwards. Let's stagnate business, job creation and exports. Let's limit production, expansion and new technology. Let's depress the housing market, the motor industry and hospitality business.

Edited October 6, 2022 by puchooay

[nigelforbes]

6 minutes ago, puchooay said:

Excellent idea. Let's kerb ambition, drive, vision, and any real feeling of wanting to go onwards and upwards. Let's stagnate business, job creation and exports. Let's limit production, expansion and new technology. Let's depress the housing market, the motor industry and hospitality business.

Whilst we're at it we can establish reeducation camps and rebadge Parliament as the Central Committee, comrade.

[thaibeachlovers]

On 10/4/2022 at 2:22 PM, RayC said:

Which is totally irrelevant.

As is your reply.

[thaibeachlovers]

22 hours ago, puchooay said:

Excellent idea. Let's kerb ambition, drive, vision, and any real feeling of wanting to go onwards and upwards. Let's stagnate business, job creation and exports. Let's limit production, expansion and new technology. Let's depress the housing market, the motor industry and hospitality business.

Rubbish. I can remember when the country I live in was in a far better situation, and functioned far better ( little crime, full employment, houses for all, hardly any antisocial hooliganism etc ) when most large essential industries ( railways, electricity generation, ports, buses etc ) were owned and operated by the state, by government bureaucrats that were not paid outlandish salaries and did not work because they expected to mint it ripping off the consumer, as is the present case in the greed economy.

The only people well off now are the rich, while the rest of us get the dregs.

[puchooay]

4 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Rubbish. I can remember when the country I live in was in a far better situation, and functioned far better ( little crime, full employment, houses for all, hardly any antisocial hooliganism etc ) when most large essential industries ( railways, electricity generation, ports, buses etc ) were owned and operated by the state, by government bureaucrats that were not paid outlandish salaries and did not work because they expected to mint it ripping off the consumer, as is the present case in the greed economy.

The only people well off now are the rich, while the rest of us get the dregs.

And the bosses, top engineers, consultants, IT guys, finance guys, etc were all earning a salary that, in modern times, would be well over 100k a year. 

 

What is it about this misconception that nationalisation means there are no high earners? There are. The only difference is the tax payer has to pay for their salaries as the nationalized companies are making losses.

 

By the way, I have never had a salary above 30k. Through good investment, saving when times are good, not over stretching myself financially and thinking ahead, I am well off. Not rich but well off. Certainly not living off dregs. I know a plethora of people in the same boat as me too.

Edited October 7, 2022 by puchooay

[candide]

4 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Rubbish. I can remember when the country I live in was in a far better situation, and functioned far better ( little crime, full employment, houses for all, hardly any antisocial hooliganism etc ) when most large essential industries ( railways, electricity generation, ports, buses etc ) were owned and operated by the state, by government bureaucrats that were not paid outlandish salaries and did not work because they expected to mint it ripping off the consumer, as is the present case in the greed economy.

The only people well off now are the rich, while the rest of us get the dregs.

That sounds a bit socialist! ????

Edited October 7, 2022 by candide

[youreavinalaff]

17 minutes ago, puchooay said:

And the bosses, top engineers, consultants, IT guys, finance guys, etc were all earning a salary that, in modern times, would be well over 100k a year. 

 

What is it about this misconception that nationalisation means there are no high earners? There are. The only difference is the tax payer has to pay for their salaries as the nationalized companies are making losses.

 

Not to mention the trade union bosses.

 

I still remember the images of Arthur Scargill at the miners' strikes.

 

"Come on lads. That's it. Get that picket line going. Don't worry about your bills. Don't worry about feeding your families. Don't worry about the violence. It's all for a cause".

 

How did he travel to the picket line??? In a chauffeur driven Jag.