Well you certainly must be an extremely well informed chap, of considerable knowledge in a great many topics.
I will consider it a huge honour should you engage in any kind of discussion with me in future
Tax.... what is everyone’s problem with it?
- Thread starter eviled
- Start date
I will consider it a huge honour should you engage in any kind of discussion with me in future
That's your spin on it. Given that you haven't/won't read anything about it, because the idea itself is not important to you, then everything you just said is your own assumption.
That it must only be a few companies is nothing but your assumption.
Again tho, please don't both reading about what anyone else thinks. It's much more important to keep posting here and pretending to be vastly more informed than me.
Well given that you're just being argumentative instead of engaging in conversation then what am I supposed to read about it?
I mean several posters just asked you for clarification and you didn't really provide much... now you're saying there is stuff we should have read based on the vague stuff you posted... perhaps some clarification could have included some links re: what you're even referring to.
It's about engaging in a conversation, rather than getting upset when people ask for more substance. Doesn't mean you need to be an expert.Well you certainly must be an extremely well informed chap, of considerable knowledge in a great many topics.
I will consider it a huge honour should you engage in any kind of discussion with me in future
I did list some things that can and have happened when the focus becomes solely how best to satisfy shareholders. Which doesn't have to be dividends can be in terms of short-term share price increases.
Like cost cutting and producing an inferior product which is more profitable in the short term.
Like excessive desire to reduce wage costs, driving down conditions and pay.
Like not being able to invest properly in the future.
Perhaps you're right that it isn't the shareholders directly pulling the strings and directly making those decisions. But the general consensus of opinion is that a desire to please shareholders has had negative consequences in the behaviour of many businesses.
I don't think that's controversial?
If you want to speak as an authority and say, "This doesn't happen it's all fantasy and don't believe what you read," then I'll bow out and stop reading articles in places like Forbes
You're not going to tho. I have more than enough experience of you on this forum to know that you aren't interested in the idea. This idea, any idea. You are never happier than when you're in full attack mode and posting 50-a-minute, when you think you can show someone else up as an idiot or whatever.
That's what you do. We've been here a full 15 mins at least and I know for 100% fact you won't spend a single minute investigating any of the points I raised. It's much more important to just argue. And then claim you're the innocent party and it's the other guy at fault.
It's you, dowie. That's you.
I literally asked you for clarification as did others, I asked questions which you ignored and instead of adding anything or engaging in conversation you've just spent several posts being argumentative. It is a bit ironic to accuse me of that when you're the one doing it. Again investigate what exactly - you completely lack any clarity here? Why am I going to run off and google some non-specific stuff you've posted about vaguely... I'm not a mind reader - if you want to convey some idea or discuss something then the onus is on you to explain/clarify your position/pov and post relevant links that might aid in that clarification, not me.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2013
- Posts
- 29,909
Just in case anybody was still confused
I'm not sure why what FoxEye is saying comes across as so controversial?
Shareholders generally want short term profits at any cost, regardless of how sustainable or ethical they may be. The 2007-2012 property crash in America is a prime example of companies gambling on short term earnings to appease their shareholders without considering further ramifications.
Shareholders generally want short term profits at any cost, regardless of how sustainable or ethical they may be. The 2007-2012 property crash in America is a prime example of companies gambling on short term earnings to appease their shareholders without considering further ramifications.
Do you also draw the conclusion that the very concept of shareholders has has its day?
Just in case anybody was still confused
And they choose the exact point before it starts to get silly.... wonder why that is.
It almost seems like a straw man argument at times - hey guys it's only a Netflix subscription etc.. or "did you know that it is only 5p in the £1 for amounts earned over X" well no ****.
Ye gads, I'm not even sure if you're aware of yourself.
I expressed a position clear enough to be wrong and you were able to dismiss it for being wrong (to your own complete satisfaction), but it was also utterly vague and lacked anything that could be checked or investigated in any way.
Well that is odd, isn't it.
Anyway, I believe we've both reinforced our opinion of the other tonight, and not much more. Until tomorrow, then.
Actually I think the idea of shareholders is fantastic, in a co-op based business where the workers have a stake and therefore the performance of the business (both short and long term) has a direct effect on their earnings and the sustainability of their job.
When it comes to a few people trading stocks/shares like they are Pokemon cards with zero regard to the workers, end product or consumers then yeah, I'd say it should have had its day.
But it never gets 'silly'? The maximum tax rate is 45%. On £120k you pay 32.8% in income tax. On £1,000,000 you pay 43.4%. On £10,000,000 you pay 44.8%. You can never pay as much as 45% total income tax.
Last edited:
I asked you questions/ asked for clarification and you immediately got hostile. I’m not the only one to have asked you questions either.
You seem to have a massive chip on your shoulder tbh...
Caporegime
- Joined
- 29 Aug 2007
- Posts
- 28,758
- Location
- Auckland
YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!
I think he’s referring to the point where personal allowance starts to decrease.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 29 Aug 2007
- Posts
- 28,758
- Location
- Auckland
Colonel Jessep! Did you order the Code Red?!
Regardless you can still never pay more than 44.999999999999% income tax.
Sir are you absolutely sure? That does mean changing the bulb.
The picture is illustrating the marginal rates, it gets silly right after the 100k point where you get a marginal rate of 60% because the personal allowance disappears.
Then add in NI contributions and whatever Corbyn wants to hit high earners with in his manifesto pledge and potential further increases and it can easily become even sillier... yet you'll just get these overly simplistic arguments of "but but but it's only an extra 5p", "hey look guys, I've solved it, you don't pay 45% on the whole amount"...
£125k is the point where you receive no non-taxable income, not £100k. Also, whilst there is a steep increase in the amount of tax paid between £100k and £125k you would still be around £10,000 better off on £125k vs £100k. At no point do you pay 60% tax on your total earnings? Also, please keep in mind that less than 2% of the population make £100k or more, anyone that's lucky enough to be affected by this is very much in the minority.
So yeah, you're paying 60% on that £25k between 100-125k but you're still paying less than 45% in total, which is the relevant number. It's incredibly disingenuous to say you're paying a 60% tax rate when it only applies to 20% or less of your earnings and it only affects 2% or less of the population.
Last edited: