If you earn £1,000,000, you still get to enjoy the rewards of your efforts whether you pay a flat tax rate of 30% or a top rate tax band of 50%. Under either system, you take home more than than anyone earning less than you.
Those who can afford to pay more, should pay more. Be grateful for what you've got rather than bitter about what you haven't got.
Those who can afford to pay more, should pay more.
If you earn £1,000,000, you still get to enjoy the rewards of your efforts whether you pay a flat tax rate of 30% or a top rate tax band of 50%. Under either system, you take home more than than anyone earning less than you.
Those who can afford to pay more, should pay more. Be grateful for what you've got rather than bitter about what you haven't got.
50% is a stupid percentage and you clearly haven't thought that through. No-one pays half of their entire salary now, why would they agree to do so under a flat rate system?
Personally, I feel 30-35% with no personal allowance at all for those earning over a threshold salary, but with the allowance remaining to protect low earners.
I disagree. Those who earn more do pay more. They would pay more under the current system or a flat rate system. I've explained this several times now, it's not rocket science.
The voting system has to be fair to everyone, you cannot fairly argue that the electorate in one country should have more influence than those in another if they have fewer voters; that's madness.
Or the 'poor' could use it as incentive to get off their arses, take control of their own life and stop taking handouts.
There must be some indication in the preparatory documents and negotiations? Any indication whatsoever?
There have been lots of scare stories, but like the couple I refuted earlier... they're not all true. It's weird how there are all these scare stories, but no evidence... even though there's loads of documents available/the process is pretty transparent...
![]()
I personally think that the additional rate should not exist
With respect, you've proven you have no clue whatsoever about politics, taxation or anything else you've posted in this thread. You have no legitimacy to call my understanding of taxation, or anything else into question.
You can't live on 8 k a year but you can on 800kWhy?
They already pay more from the fact they earn more, why should they then pay EVEN MORE on top?
Let assume a flat rate of 20% to make it easy.
You earn 10,000 a year, I earn 1,000,000.
You pay a £2000 tax bill, I pay a £200,000 tax bill.
So im already paying 100x the tax you are, why should I then have to pay more than that?
I personally think that the additional rate should not exist
do you remember the "codex alimentarius" thread in SC where the EU was going to legislate everything and ban garlic etc lol
still waiting for that one.
WHAT CODEX WILL BRING
What can we expect under Codex? To give you an idea, here are some important points:
* Dietary supplements could not be sold for preventive (prophylactic) or therapeutic use.
* Potencies would be limited to extremely low dosages. Only the drug companies and the big phytopharmaceutical companies would have the right to produce and sell the higher potency products (at inflated prices).
* Prescriptions would be required for anything above the extremely low doses allowed (such as 35 mg. on niacin).
* Common foods such as garlic and peppermint would be classified as drugs or a third category (neither food nor drugs) that only big pharmaceutical companies could regulate and sell. Any food with any therapeutic effect can be considered a drug, even benign everyday substances like water.
* Codex regulations for dietary supplements would become binding (escape clauses would be eliminated).
* All new dietary supplements would be banned unless they go through Codex testing and approval.
* Genetically altered food would be sold worldwide without labeling.
This comes into power in 2009. I hope you have enough vegetable patches ready to keep your family going.
Why?
They already pay more from the fact they earn more, why should they then pay EVEN MORE on top?
Let assume a flat rate of 20% to make it easy.
You earn 10,000 a year, I earn 1,000,000.
You pay a £2000 tax bill, I pay a £200,000 tax bill.
So im already paying 100x the tax you are, why should I then have to pay more than that?
Do you believe the current wage disparity is justifiable then?
50% is a stupid percentage and you clearly haven't thought that through. No-one pays half of their entire salary now, why would they agree to do so under a flat rate system?
Personally, I feel 30-35% with no personal allowance at all for those earning over a threshold salary, but with the allowance remaining to protect low earners.