Finance thread 2022.

[Stive Pesley]

21 minutes ago, TexasRam said:

Just doesn’t bother me if they are doing well for themselves. However again your stereotypical view on people who earn good money is rather nauseating. 

I have no problem with anyone who works hard and earns good money. On that page we are aligned

I just rather suspect that my value system defines "good money" rather differently to yours. I don't see it as "good" if that money isn't earned, but comes via cheating systems, exploiting people, donating, lobbying, tax avoidance etc

I don't care if you think it's all fair game - your choice, that's just not me

[Tamworthram]

7 minutes ago, Unlucky Alf said:

I don't think Tex was going that far...but if he was then he reminds me of Gerald Ratner...remember him, Giving a speech to an audience concerning his wares he was selling in his shops comparing one of his products as...total carp?

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/aug/22/gerald-ratner-jewellery-total-crap-1992-archive

 

I think he was. He said good luck to them and he wish he’d had the opportunity (to benefit from insider dealing which is what was being discussed).

[Gone]

5 minutes ago, 86 Hair Islands said:

Stereotyping folk, you say? Nauseous you say?

Errrr....

If you read back you would see I did that on purpose to make a point to @Stive Pesley but it’s ok you’ll get some laughing crying faces responses

[Gone]

28 minutes ago, Crewton said:

I'm fine with people doing well for themselves, but I'm also fine with the top slice paying a higher rate of tax on their earnings over £150,000. I think it's the socially responsible thing to do in difficult times.

You don’t think 40% is high? 
Do you also think it’s the responsible thing to do for people WHO CAN put something into the system but never have refusing to get hand outs? 

Edited October 3, 2022 by TexasRam

[1of4]

34 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

What I mean is that I have missed the announcement that the Government is increasing its spending as result of money saved through not cutting highest rate of tax. . Nor is it reducing taxes for us instead of reducing tax for the highest earners. So we don't lose or benefit either way directly.

Why would not cutting the upper tax rate mean there'd be more money to spend?

If Truss had carried on with her plan to cut the upper tax rate, how was she going to cover the loss of this revenue? Put more on the country's credit card or the more likely route of getting us all to pay for it with another round of austerity cuts.

So the scrapping of the tax cut means she won't have to choose on of these options.

[Comrade 86]

8 minutes ago, TexasRam said:

If you read back you would see I did that on purpose to make a point to @Stive Pesley but it’s ok you’ll get some laughing crying faces responses

LMFAO. You've been saying it for days. Would you like me to quote half a dozen or so posts? Need to build my community rep after all ?

Edited October 3, 2022 by 86 Hair Islands

[Gone]

35 minutes ago, Tamworthram said:

So you condone the illegal activity that is insider dealing with a maximum punishment of ten years imprisonment and just regret that you didn’t have the opportunity to commit the offence yourself? Weird.

I don’t condone assumptions about people wrong doing just because they are doing well

[Gone]

2 minutes ago, 86 Hair Islands said:

LMFAO. You've been saying it for days. Would you like me to quote half a dozen or so posts? Need to build my community rep after all ?

I’m more than happy to help you ?

[Comrade 86]

1 minute ago, TexasRam said:

I’m more than happy to help you ?

Surely a hardworking chap such as yourself is too busy working your nads off to waste time being my fluffer!

Anyways, I shall leave you to it. Them tins ain't gonna drink themselves, after all. ????

 

[Gone]

2 minutes ago, 86 Hair Islands said:

Surely a hardworking chap such as yourself is too busy working your nads off to waste time being my fluffer!

Anyways, I shall leave you to it. Them tins ain't gonna drink themselves, after all. ????

 

Absolutely right, someone’s got to keep the kitty topped up. I wouldn’t want to see all those electric scooters sent back or those brand new IPhone contracts and Sky TV packages cancelled. 

[Tamworthram]

16 minutes ago, TexasRam said:

I don’t condone assumptions about people wrong doing just because they are doing well

But the post wasn’t just about people doing well. It was about a call for an investigation into potential insider dealing. I think it was a fair assumption.

[Gone]

1 minute ago, Tamworthram said:

But the post wasn’t just about people doing well. It was about a call for an investigation into potential insider dealing. I think it was a fair assumption.

Potential so an assumption, I’m not sure that  should be discussed on this forum, dangerous territory. 

[Wolfie]

26 minutes ago, 1of4 said:

Why would not cutting the upper tax rate mean there'd be more money to spend?

If Truss had carried on with her plan to cut the upper tax rate, how was she going to cover the loss of this revenue? Put more on the country's credit card or the more likely route of getting us all to pay for it with another round of austerity cuts.

So the scrapping of the tax cut means she won't have to choose on of these options.

I suspect she will. The higher rate tax cut accounted for only £2bn out of the total unfunded tax cuts of £45bn+. I can see the whole mini budget unravelling over the next month or so.

[Grumpy Git]

TexasRam is fixated with peoples taxes going to fund the feckless. Would they like to tell me what percentage of the total tax take goes to fund 'the 99" TV's and 80 Bensons a day mob', v's the NHS / Defence / Education?

[Ram-Alf]

9 minutes ago, Grumpy Git said:

TexasRam is fixated with peoples taxes going to fund the feckless. Would they like to tell me what percentage of the total tax take goes to fund 'the 99" TV's and 80 Bensons a day mob', v's the NHS / Defence / Education?

This was 3 years ago 

DWP is the biggest spending department of government, accounting for nearly a quarter of all planned public spending in 2019-20. The majority of DWP’s spending is on benefits and state pensions, with the total budget sought for 2019-20 amounting to £189,928 million, 3.0% above the final budget for 2018-19.

[Crewton]

1 hour ago, TexasRam said:

You don’t think 40% is high? 
Do you also think it’s the responsible thing to do for people WHO CAN put something into the system but never have refusing to get hand outs? 

I don't think 40% is high for people earning over £150,000. The rest of your post I don't understand. 

[Gone]

7 minutes ago, Crewton said:

I don't think 40% is high for people earning over £150,000. The rest of your post I don't understand. 

I think it’s far too high. The rest of my post is simple, everyone is having a go at people earning a good wage not paying enough tax at 40% and glad it’s going back to 45%. Do you have the same outrage at those WHO CAN put in the system but never have and are happy to take their handouts? 

[Stive Pesley]

11 minutes ago, TexasRam said:

Do you have the same outrage at those WHO CAN put in the system but never have and are happy to take their handouts? 

By this do you mean the super rich who can afford to pay accountants to help them avoiding paying any income tax, but are quite happy to take the handouts when they've lobbied government to cut corporation tax, or shorted the pound due to Kwasi's Champagne Supernova Tip Line?

So hard to tell

 

[Gone]

3 minutes ago, Stive Pesley said:

By this do you mean the super rich who can afford to pay accountants to help them avoiding paying any income tax, but are quite happy to take the handouts when they've lobbied government to cut corporation tax, or shorted the pound due to Kwasi's Champagne Supernova Tip Line?

So hard to tell

 

Nope not them, pointless carrying on the debate you are obviously oblivious  to benefit fraud and down right scrounging.

[Stive Pesley]

44 minutes ago, Unlucky Alf said:

DWP is the biggest spending department of government, accounting for nearly a quarter of all planned public spending in 2019-20. The majority of DWP’s spending is on benefits and state pensions, with the total budget sought for 2019-20 amounting to £189,928 million, 3.0% above the final budget for 2018-19.

Worth remembering that the majority of the DWP bill is not benefits for "scroungers" and the "workshy". It's state pensions, carers allowance, tax credits, child benefit, disability allowance, employment support allowance, sickness benefits, personal independence payments etc

Very few (Job Seeker's allowance?) are even claimable by people who don't work because they'd just rather not - and even that is far harder than people like to make out.