I'm not sure tim's ever had a payslip from his ignorance..
In tim's defence on this, he might well be self employed.
If tim was self employed I'd expect him to have a even higher knowledge of how the tax system works...
I am, and have not had a payslip since 2002 (I was self employed / limited company from 1986-199 and again from 2002-date), so I couldn't tell you what is on a payslip. Personal allowance maybe, the rest I leave to my accountant.
Allister Heath has long been a critic of Coalition economic policy. I'm more than happy to endorse his view on personal allowance increases but what I think would be more significant would be to move the threshhold at which people enter the higher tax rates.
While recognising that in some parts of the country, a £35k annual salary would be worth a lot, for many in the South and around London, it's not that much yet it brings people into higher rate tax. It's time I think for Osborne to recognise this anomaly and raise the higher rate threshhold to £45k. I don't know what the "cost" of that would be in terms of revenue but it would send a powerful message that the Coalition isn't just interested in the very wealthy or even the very poor.
£35k is not in the higher tax bracket. You don't pay higher rate tax until about the £42k level.
Basic tax rate
20% on annual earnings above the PAYE tax threshold and up to £32,010
Caviar is being produced in the UK for the first time. The Times reports on a fish farm in north Devon that has just put its caviar on sale - £59.95 for a 30g tin. That's about three teaspoonfuls. But before you start your own farm, it can take 25 years for a sturgeon to start producing eggs.
BBC Business Live
Will make a change for Len & Co, from beer and sandwiches, as they can afford it.
That's failing to take into account the personal allowance.
Whether the figure is £32k, £35k or £42k doesn't invalidate the basic argument. Do you think the threshholds should be raised so more people are taken out of higher rate tax ?
The ShakySheikh claims that the average wage earner at £25k should be the target of any largesse from the Chancellor, others argue for an across-the-board cut in basic rates or NI.
What is your opinion ?
Scrap NI, push the personal allowance up so that it covers a full time job on minimum wage.
I'm not sure tim's ever had a payslip from his ignorance..
In tim's defence on this, he might well be self employed.
If tim was self employed I'd expect him to have a even higher knowledge of how the tax system works...
The threshold is £32k.
You don't even know what you're talking about anymore...
hint: less posting, more reading. You might learn something.
Do you refer to the £150,000 threshold or not?
Eh... what I've been only talking about basic and higher rate tax?
Stop digging a hole. You've been shown to be a fool, and got it wrong.
And I'm talking about thresholds, 32k and 150k.
You should know full well that over £100k the personal allowance is phased out, so at £150k there IS no personal allowance, but for anyone less than £100k there certainly is.
Don't try to trip me up. You don't have the knowledge for it.
I'm not sure tim's ever had a payslip from his ignorance..
In tim's defence on this, he might well be self employed.
If tim was self employed I'd expect him to have a even higher knowledge of how the tax system works...
The threshold is £32k.
tim's black wednesday - what a plum.
I'll offer you £500 at evens that 40% tax does not get paid by people on say £35k per annum
Wouldn't 40% be payable on the £32,011 -> £35,000 portion ? Obvious answer is to pay £250 a month into a pension on salary exchange if you earn this much
That's failing to take into account the personal allowance.
Whether the figure is £32k, £35k or £42k doesn't invalidate the basic argument. Do you think the threshholds should be raised so more people are taken out of higher rate tax ?
The ShakySheikh claims that the average wage earner at £25k should be the target of any largesse from the Chancellor, others argue for an across-the-board cut in basic rates or NI.
What is your opinion ?
I would say that cuts would be sensible to cut would be national insurance first and foremost, as it affects lower wagers sooner (as the limit for Ni is lower than for tax).
Theres any number of things you could do, it's a matter of how much it costs, who it effects, but it does get complicated quickly, and that's bad for the system.
I agree the Chancellor has a number of cards he can play. I'm not convinced which one he should play either. It occurs to me that both an NI cut and a threshhold rise may be far more "expensive" in terms of potential lost revenue than I imagine.
Heath quoted this morning that raising the personal allowance by £500 will "cost" £3.25 billion while a 1p across the board rate cut would be £4.3 billion.
I suppose there's alos an argument that any "surplus" should go toward paying down the debt interest rather than being "returned" in the form of tax cuts and that's a debate worth having.
I'm afraid too many people on here jump on the slightest inaccuracy in someone's contribution and spend more time vilifying one particular poster than trying to put forward a constructive argument or hypothesis.
Labour Party's attack dog Michael Dugher barks up the wrong tree again Every good parliamentarian – like every good barrister – knows how foolhardy it is to ask a question in an open forum without having a good idea what the answer is going to be.
Michael Dugher, the Labour Party’s increasingly accident-prone “attack dog”, who was once a spinmeister for Gordon Brown, demanded to know in the Commons what the rates of absenteeism through sickness or other reasons were in Eric Pickles’s Communities and Local Government department.
Brandon Lewis, a minister in the department, responded that an average of 6.3 working days were lost per member of staff in the year to March, but couldn’t resist pointing out that when Dugher worked as a special adviser at the department the average was 7.0 in 2001, rising to 7.7 in 2002.
That's failing to take into account the personal allowance.
Whether the figure is £32k, £35k or £42k doesn't invalidate the basic argument. Do you think the threshholds should be raised so more people are taken out of higher rate tax ?
The ShakySheikh claims that the average wage earner at £25k should be the target of any largesse from the Chancellor, others argue for an across-the-board cut in basic rates or NI.
What is your opinion ?
I would say that cuts would be sensible to cut would be national insurance first and foremost, as it affects lower wagers sooner (as the limit for Ni is lower than for tax).
Theres any number of things you could do, it's a matter of how much it costs, who it effects, but it does get complicated quickly, and that's bad for the system.
I agree the Chancellor has a number of cards he can play. I'm not convinced which one he should play either. It occurs to me that both an NI cut and a threshhold rise may be far more "expensive" in terms of potential lost revenue than I imagine.
Heath quoted this morning that raising the personal allowance by £500 will "cost" £3.25 billion while a 1p across the board rate cut would be £4.3 billion.
I suppose there's alos an argument that any "surplus" should go toward paying down the debt interest rather than being "returned" in the form of tax cuts and that's a debate worth having.
I'm afraid too many people on here jump on the slightest inaccuracy in someone's contribution and spend more time vilifying one particular poster than trying to put forward a constructive argument or hypothesis.
I wouldn't do it to normal posters, but tim can take it as he gives it out and then some.
I'm not sure tim's ever had a payslip from his ignorance..
In tim's defence on this, he might well be self employed.
If tim was self employed I'd expect him to have a even higher knowledge of how the tax system works...
The threshold is £32k.
tim's black wednesday - what a plum.
I'll offer you £500 at evens that 40% tax does not get paid by people on say £35k per annum
Wouldn't 40% be payable on the £32,011 -> £35,000 portion ? Obvious answer is to pay £250 a month into a pension on salary exchange if you earn this much
Again....that's not taking into account the personal allowance
That's failing to take into account the personal allowance.
Whether the figure is £32k, £35k or £42k doesn't invalidate the basic argument. Do you think the threshholds should be raised so more people are taken out of higher rate tax ?
The ShakySheikh claims that the average wage earner at £25k should be the target of any largesse from the Chancellor, others argue for an across-the-board cut in basic rates or NI.
What is your opinion ?
I would say that cuts would be sensible to cut would be national insurance first and foremost, as it affects lower wagers sooner (as the limit for Ni is lower than for tax).
Theres any number of things you could do, it's a matter of how much it costs, who it effects, but it does get complicated quickly, and that's bad for the system.
I agree the Chancellor has a number of cards he can play. I'm not convinced which one he should play either. It occurs to me that both an NI cut and a threshhold rise may be far more "expensive" in terms of potential lost revenue than I imagine.
Heath quoted this morning that raising the personal allowance by £500 will "cost" £3.25 billion while a 1p across the board rate cut would be £4.3 billion.
I suppose there's alos an argument that any "surplus" should go toward paying down the debt interest rather than being "returned" in the form of tax cuts and that's a debate worth having.
I'm afraid too many people on here jump on the slightest inaccuracy in someone's contribution and spend more time vilifying one particular poster than trying to put forward a constructive argument or hypothesis.
That argument would hold water if the poster in question didn't spend every waking vilifying everyone that disagrees with him. In addition he pertains to know everything when as proved this morning he is seriously dim.
Every argument he has ever put forward regarding tax/economics has been shown to be a waste of time by his ignorance.
Was Oct 2012 unusually low, or Oct 2013 unusually high? A graph of the past ten years would provide context.
@faisalislam: oct 2013 CML gross mortgages £17.6bn: 37% up on last oct... But just over half peak in oct 2007: of £33.5bn! http://t.co/iRn03lPPaS
So mortgage lending still significantly depressed? ;-)
Compare it to the lowest supply since the 20 s and what happens to prices?
They go down?
"Our October HPI shows a monthly change of -0.2%. Average house price in England and Wales is now £165,515. Full #HPI out 28 Nov"
I would assume raising the NI lower threshold would cost less than an equivalent increase in the Income Tax threshold since pensioners and savers don't pay NI so NI is the tax giveaway I would look at.
"Our October HPI shows a monthly change of -0.2%. Average house price in England and Wales is now £165,515. Full #HPI out 28 Nov"
twitter.com/LandRegGov/status/402436766957056000
I assume that if the housing market kicks off in areas that are: out of London out of London Commuter belts out of Home Counties,
then the average house price will show deflation, as a greater percentage of sales will be at a lower value from the areas not subject to the London influence.
Was Oct 2012 unusually low, or Oct 2013 unusually high? A graph of the past ten years would provide context.
@faisalislam: oct 2013 CML gross mortgages £17.6bn: 37% up on last oct... But just over half peak in oct 2007: of £33.5bn! http://t.co/iRn03lPPaS
So mortgage lending still significantly depressed? ;-)
Compare it to the lowest supply since the 20 s and what happens to prices?
They go down?
"Our October HPI shows a monthly change of -0.2%. Average house price in England and Wales is now £165,515. Full #HPI out 28 Nov"
I would assume raising the NI lower threshold would cost less than an equivalent increase in the Income Tax threshold since pensioners and savers don't pay NI so NI is the tax giveaway I would look at.
The issue with the NI is indeed it would only effect workers.. so maybe that's a good thing. (no doubt pensioners would grumble they didn't anything from it though).
"Our October HPI shows a monthly change of -0.2%. Average house price in England and Wales is now £165,515. Full #HPI out 28 Nov"
twitter.com/LandRegGov/status/402436766957056000
I assume that if the housing market kicks off in areas that are: out of London out of London Commuter belts out of Home Counties,
then the average house price will show deflation, as a greater percentage of sales will be at a lower value from the areas not subject to the London influence.
Land Reg figures are chained to the previous sale of that property and the price change calculated from that so in theory it should not matter where the property is in the country. It also includes non-mortgage purchases compared with most of the other indexes which only look at mortgage sales.
I'm not sure tim's ever had a payslip from his ignorance..
In tim's defence on this, he might well be self employed.
If tim was self employed I'd expect him to have a even higher knowledge of how the tax system works...
The threshold is £32k.
tim's black wednesday - what a plum.
I'll offer you £500 at evens that 40% tax does not get paid by people on say £35k per annum
Wouldn't 40% be payable on the £32,011 -> £35,000 portion ? Obvious answer is to pay £250 a month into a pension on salary exchange if you earn this much
Again....that's not taking into account the personal allowance
Sigh...
Hmm indeed - I've just ran the numbers through TGOHF's calculator. The odd thing is that £150,000 -> £151,000 yields a marginal rate of 45%. Edit - See the PA drops past £100k. The HMRC page is still piss poor in its wording though.
Conclusion - The HMRC page is shockingly worded, you're right and Tim was wrong.
The Scotsman - Brian Wilson: Scots tradition of dissent in peril "People in Scotland must be able to speak freely in the coming months without fear of retribution, writes Brian Wilson
THE Chris Whatley affair is, at one level, just another spat along the long road to the referendum. At another, it tells us a great deal that is disturbing about how public life in Scotland is now being orchestrated.
The full e-mail sent by Shona Robison MSP to the principal of Dundee University, expressing “dismay” over Professor Whatley’s participation in the city’s Better Together launch, makes unpleasant reading. It leaves little doubt about the intentions of its author – to silence the individual and put the frighteners on his employers."
This story has had a lot of coverage in the Dundee Courier and caused a great deal of concern. The determination of the Scottish Government to control what is said by those in public employ or dependent upon the public purse is alarming.
The hero of this particular spat is the princial of St Andrews who sent an e-mail to all of his staff stating that they were free to say what they wanted and that he would back them to the hilt. At that point Eck's finely tuned political radar was alerted and the SNP backed off in the way described. I hope the Principal of Dundee University is suitably embarrassed that it was the principal of another University that stood up for a member of his staff having the audacity to have an opinion.
Bollocks, the principal was a woman and despite urging her staff to speak she refused to give her own opinion , self seeking half wit just wanting her face in the paper.
I'm not sure tim's ever had a payslip from his ignorance..
In tim's defence on this, he might well be self employed.
If tim was self employed I'd expect him to have a even higher knowledge of how the tax system works...
The threshold is £32k.
tim's black wednesday - what a plum.
I'll offer you £500 at evens that 40% tax does not get paid by people on say £35k per annum
Wouldn't 40% be payable on the £32,011 -> £35,000 portion ? Obvious answer is to pay £250 a month into a pension on salary exchange if you earn this much
Again....that's not taking into account the personal allowance
Sigh...
Feel free to go through every post referring to a £150,000 threshold and correcting them. What was it that attracted you to the fascinating world of accountancy again?
Ahem: The Personal Allowance reduces where the income is above £100,000 - by £1 for every £2 of income above the £100,000 limit. This reduction applies irrespective of age or date of birth.
There is no PA if you earn £150k. Afraid you're wrong on this one Tim.
I'm not sure tim's ever had a payslip from his ignorance..
In tim's defence on this, he might well be self employed.
If tim was self employed I'd expect him to have a even higher knowledge of how the tax system works...
The threshold is £32k.
tim's black wednesday - what a plum.
I'll offer you £500 at evens that 40% tax does not get paid by people on say £35k per annum
Wouldn't 40% be payable on the £32,011 -> £35,000 portion ? Obvious answer is to pay £250 a month into a pension on salary exchange if you earn this much
Again....that's not taking into account the personal allowance
Sigh...
Feel free to go through every post referring to a £150,000 threshold and correcting them. What was it that attracted you to the fascinating world of accountancy again?
Stop being an idiot. We're talking about average earners not the £150k you seem to be clinging to.
I'm not sure tim's ever had a payslip from his ignorance..
In tim's defence on this, he might well be self employed.
If tim was self employed I'd expect him to have a even higher knowledge of how the tax system works...
The threshold is £32k.
tim's black wednesday - what a plum.
I'll offer you £500 at evens that 40% tax does not get paid by people on say £35k per annum
Wouldn't 40% be payable on the £32,011 -> £35,000 portion ? Obvious answer is to pay £250 a month into a pension on salary exchange if you earn this much
Again....that's not taking into account the personal allowance
Sigh...
Feel free to go through every post referring to a £150,000 threshold and correcting them. What was it that attracted you to the fascinating world of accountancy again?
You are going to be able to watch the test match live you've dug so far!
I would assume raising the NI lower threshold would cost less than an equivalent increase in the Income Tax threshold since pensioners and savers don't pay NI so NI is the tax giveaway I would look at.
Yes if you only raise it for employees / self-employed as the rates are much lower. More complicated if you raise it for all NI (ie including employers). Then you would have to factor in the people who would benefit from a higher NI threshold but not a higher IT threshold (ie lower earners between the two) and vice versa (people with non-earned income). I guess the answer is probably still yes but much closer.
tim - probably time to drop the tax thresholds issue
The issue with the NI is indeed it would only effect workers.. so maybe that's a good thing. (no doubt pensioners would grumble they didn't anything from it though).
I don't think pensioners would grumble about that, since nothing would be taken away from them.
Stodge was asking earlier about whether Osborne should increase the point (£42K or so of income) where higher-rate tax starts. In isolation, the answer of course is yes, but it's the wrong question; the right question to ask is what priority should be given to that compared with other possible measures. I agree with those who have been saying that reducing NI should be a higher priority. In the medium term, mitigating the absurd anomaly that PAYE income is taxed at a much higher rate than other forms of income should be a key goal IMO.
Yesterday, right-wing think-tank the Institute of Fiscal Studies issued a document entitled “Fiscal sustainability in an independent Scotland“. It’s rather less than glowing about the prospects of an independent Scottish economy.
One year ago, yesterday:
The latest report from the Institute of Fiscal Studies reinforces the fact that Scotland is in a stronger financial position than the UK as a whole, and would as an independent country have lower debt levels than the rest of the UK.
Welcoming the report, SNP Treasury spokesman Stewart Hosie MP
Yesterday, right-wing think-tank the Institute of Fiscal Studies issued a document entitled “Fiscal sustainability in an independent Scotland“. It’s rather less than glowing about the prospects of an independent Scottish economy.
One year ago, yesterday:
The latest report from the Institute of Fiscal Studies reinforces the fact that Scotland is in a stronger financial position than the UK as a whole, and would as an independent country have lower debt levels than the rest of the UK.
Welcoming the report, SNP Treasury spokesman Stewart Hosie MP
I'm not sure tim's ever had a payslip from his ignorance..
In tim's defence on this, he might well be self employed.
If tim was self employed I'd expect him to have a even higher knowledge of how the tax system works...
The threshold is £32k.
tim's black wednesday - what a plum.
I'll offer you £500 at evens that 40% tax does not get paid by people on say £35k per annum
Wouldn't 40% be payable on the £32,011 -> £35,000 portion ? Obvious answer is to pay £250 a month into a pension on salary exchange if you earn this much
Again....that's not taking into account the personal allowance
Sigh...
Feel free to go through every post referring to a £150,000 threshold and correcting them. What was it that attracted you to the fascinating world of accountancy again?
Yesterday, right-wing think-tank the Institute of Fiscal Studies issued a document entitled “Fiscal sustainability in an independent Scotland“. It’s rather less than glowing about the prospects of an independent Scottish economy.
One year ago, yesterday:
The latest report from the Institute of Fiscal Studies reinforces the fact that Scotland is in a stronger financial position than the UK as a whole, and would as an independent country have lower debt levels than the rest of the UK.
Welcoming the report, SNP Treasury spokesman Stewart Hosie MP
Just proves how useless the IFS are , their reports are biased to who is paying
Er....you might want to do a bit of homework before rushing to shoot the messenger....a year on from being happy to praise it.....neither the unionists, nor the SNP 'paid for it'......
In line with the thread discussion - I would be massively in favour of tax simplification - and abolition of National Insurance / wrapping it up into Income Tax would be a key one if it was possible. I note that the Office of Tax Simplification reported on this early in the parliament, and then focused on smaller things that are less controversial / impactful across the board.
Certainly some of the steps on that path would potentially be - to raise the level at which you start paying NI to the same as the Personal Allowance. To equalise who pays NI and Income Tax / equalise what "Income" it is charged on. (this latter part is clearly more controversial as "grannies paying NI on there savings" would be trotted out as hard done by).
Paul Flowers, the former Co-op Bank chairman, Methodist minister and local councillor, was forced to refer himself to the Standards Board for England for sending a “joke” message that is alleged to have “sexual connotations” to council colleagues in 2005.
Although councillors who had been sent the message raised their concerns with the Labour-run council at the time, five years later Mr Flowers was selected by Ed Miliband, the Labour leader, for his Business and Industry Advisory Group.
I don't think pensioners would grumble about that, since nothing would be taken away from them.
Stodge was asking earlier about whether Osborne should increase the point (£42K or so of income) where higher-rate tax starts. In isolation, the answer of course is yes, but it's the wrong question; the right question to ask is what priority should be given to that compared with other possible measures. I agree with those who have been saying that reducing NI should be a higher priority. In the medium term, mitigating the absurd anomaly that PAYE income is taxed at a much higher rate than other forms of income should be a key goal IMO.
Great point Richard, also there's the point that over 65s don't pay NI (does this include employer's NI, I'm not sure) for paid employment while under 65s do.
What's the point of NI, at some stage I remember politicians saying it paid for the NHS (re: Gordon Brown 2002 increase in ENI).
Is it that pensioners are less of a burden on the NHS, so they don't pay need to pay it?
That argument would hold water if the poster in question didn't spend every waking vilifying everyone that disagrees with him. In addition he pertains to know everything when as proved this morning he is seriously dim.
Every argument he has ever put forward regarding tax/economics has been shown to be a waste of time by his ignorance.
I'll be honest - said poster has never bothered me. I learnt a long time ago that some people just enjoy provoking a response from others - I've fallen for it myself a couple of times. The option is to fight or flight and that's open to all and anyone.
I would also suggest that said poster isn't the only one who gets things wrong or puts forward arguments based on ignorance nor is that poster the only one who is openly provocative but that's the nature of forums like this.
In line with the thread discussion - I would be massively in favour of tax simplification - and abolition of National Insurance / wrapping it up into Income Tax would be a key one if it was possible. I note that the Office of Tax Simplification reported on this early in the parliament, and then focused on smaller things that are less controversial / impactful across the board.
Certainly some of the steps on that path would potentially be - to raise the level at which you start paying NI to the same as the Personal Allowance. To equalise who pays NI and Income Tax / equalise what "Income" it is charged on. (this latter part is clearly more controversial as "grannies paying NI on there savings" would be trotted out as hard done by).
The NI/Tax level was the same..
Until Gordon Brown cocked up his 10p tax removal, and had to increase the PA to correct it...
Conclusion - The HMRC page is shockingly worded, you're right and Tim was wrong.
Wow, the HMRC page is really misleading. I can well understand why @tim got the wrong end of the stick, bless him.
I once asked HMRC a question - can't remember what on (But it was definitely regarding a rule) - they said I should ask an accountant... I thought to myself - no - I'm asking about a rule, you set the bloody rules !
The issue with the NI is indeed it would only effect workers.. so maybe that's a good thing. (no doubt pensioners would grumble they didn't anything from it though).
I don't think pensioners would grumble about that, since nothing would be taken away from them.
Stodge was asking earlier about whether Osborne should increase the point (£42K or so of income) where higher-rate tax starts. In isolation, the answer of course is yes, but it's the wrong question; the right question to ask is what priority should be given to that compared with other possible measures. I agree with those who have been saying that reducing NI should be a higher priority. In the medium term, mitigating the absurd anomaly that PAYE income is taxed at a much higher rate than other forms of income should be a key goal IMO.
Indeed, and as Heath argued this morning, to look at some 7.8 million mortgage holders in isolation and concentrate economic policy on keeping them happy is foolish when there are 20 million or so wage earners and savers for whom HTB as a policy means nothing and who are suffering from artificially-low interest rates.
I would agree there are a number of measures Osborne could implement - I suspect none of them are as easy as we think otherwise, I'm tempted to say, he'd have done it already. The problem I have is while I understand the ideological and political rationale behind each of these proposals, I don't know the fiscal impact which presumably Osborne does.
I don't think pensioners would grumble about that, since nothing would be taken away from them.
Stodge was asking earlier about whether Osborne should increase the point (£42K or so of income) where higher-rate tax starts. In isolation, the answer of course is yes, but it's the wrong question; the right question to ask is what priority should be given to that compared with other possible measures. I agree with those who have been saying that reducing NI should be a higher priority. In the medium term, mitigating the absurd anomaly that PAYE income is taxed at a much higher rate than other forms of income should be a key goal IMO.
Great point Richard, also there's the point that over 65s don't pay NI (does this include employer's NI, I'm not sure) for paid employment while under 65s do.
What's the point of NI, at some stage I remember politicians saying it paid for the NHS (re: Gordon Brown 2002 increase in ENI).
Is it that pensioners are less of a burden on the NHS, so they don't pay need to pay it?
If Tax and NI were rolled up, and the rates kept as was it would mean more cash back to the treasury. An income generator with the headline 'NI scrapped' and tax simplification.
No doubt there would be a Daily Mail headline 'Tax bombshell for over 65s' though. But tough times and all that.
I don't think pensioners would grumble about that, since nothing would be taken away from them.
Stodge was asking earlier about whether Osborne should increase the point (£42K or so of income) where higher-rate tax starts. In isolation, the answer of course is yes, but it's the wrong question; the right question to ask is what priority should be given to that compared with other possible measures. I agree with those who have been saying that reducing NI should be a higher priority. In the medium term, mitigating the absurd anomaly that PAYE income is taxed at a much higher rate than other forms of income should be a key goal IMO.
Great point Richard, also there's the point that over 65s don't pay NI (does this include employer's NI, I'm not sure) for paid employment while under 65s do.
What's the point of NI, at some stage I remember politicians saying it paid for the NHS (re: Gordon Brown 2002 increase in ENI).
Is it that pensioners are less of a burden on the NHS, so they don't pay need to pay it?
Employers still have to pay employers NI (which makes sense, otherwise pensioners would suddenly become a much cheaper workforce!)
Paul Flowers has quite the track reord. It does beg the question how he managed to brush off all these escapades until now.
Good question
Labour faced further damaging questions last night about its links with shamed Co-op bank chief Paul Flowers.
Pictures emerged of a lavish reception hosted by Ed Miliband and Ed Balls at 10 Downing Street for drug abuser Flowers and fellow Co-op grandees while Labour was in power.
Three meetings followed between Flowers and Mr Miliband.
If Tax and NI were rolled up, and the rates kept as was it would mean more cash back to the treasury. An income generator with the headline 'NI scrapped' and tax simplification.
No doubt there would be a Daily Mail headline 'Tax bombshell for over 65s' though. But tough times and all that.
No need for IR35 style rules either. Expect grumblings from accountants who specialise in tax avoidance.
Paul Flowers has quite the track reord. It does beg the question how he managed to brush off all these escapades until now.
I discussed this morning, the incident in the toilets, he could explain away by saying it was in an era when homosexuality and homosexuals were under fire and targeted.
Re the email, who hasn't been sent and opened an inappropriate email/picture to their work email address/on a work laptop from their private email account.
The rest, he could get away with charm, wit and good looks.
Re the email, who hasn't been sent and opened an inappropriate email/picture to their work email address/on a work laptop from their private email account.
Most people, under those circumstances, would delete it. Rev Flowers apparently handed the machine in for service with material still on it.
Paul Flowers has quite the track reord. It does beg the question how he managed to brush off all these escapades until now.
It was a political failure. Labour did not ask enough questions, perhaps because he was so involved not just with them, but also organisations closely linked to, and funding, them.
It was all rather incestuous.
It was a media failure. Whilst the events in Hampshire were long in the past, I wonder why a bigger thing was not made of the fact he was forced to resign as a councillor in 2011. You would have thought that would have been a big story since he was the Co-pp bank chairman at the time.
I don't think pensioners would grumble about that, since nothing would be taken away from them.
Stodge was asking earlier about whether Osborne should increase the point (£42K or so of income) where higher-rate tax starts. In isolation, the answer of course is yes, but it's the wrong question; the right question to ask is what priority should be given to that compared with other possible measures. I agree with those who have been saying that reducing NI should be a higher priority. In the medium term, mitigating the absurd anomaly that PAYE income is taxed at a much higher rate than other forms of income should be a key goal IMO.
Great point Richard, also there's the point that over 65s don't pay NI (does this include employer's NI, I'm not sure) for paid employment while under 65s do.
What's the point of NI, at some stage I remember politicians saying it paid for the NHS (re: Gordon Brown 2002 increase in ENI).
Is it that pensioners are less of a burden on the NHS, so they don't pay need to pay it?
Employers still have to pay employers NI (which makes sense, otherwise pensioners would suddenly become a much cheaper workforce!)
I don't understand the purpose of Employers NI, I'd be tempted to scrap it, with the condition that employers have to increase employee pay by the amount they save. I'd also end all pension relief and roll it into ISAs so that we just had one savings pot that we used over our whole life.
As stodge said, easy for us to make suggestions but unless we are in the Treasury, its difficult to see all the implications. Really to do any large scale tax reform, the Chancellor needs a bumper year of fiscal surplus where piles of money can be thrown at those who loose out due to their peculiar circumstances.
Re the email, who hasn't been sent and opened an inappropriate email/picture to their work email address/on a work laptop from their private email account.
Most people, under those circumstances, would delete it. Rev Flowers apparently handed the machine in for service with material still on it.
1) Not everyone is IT literate,
2) Far too many delete things, but don't empty their recycle bin
3) One of my old work laptop, automatically stored all files and pictures to the part of the hard drive, you could delete it in one place, and it was stored elsewhere.
So, I have some business with the Co-operative Bank and was already wondering about jumping ship at some point over concerns that their ethical policy might get watered down once the takeover goes through. They've said the policy will remain, though, so I was happy to stay put for the time being.
But all this stuff about Paul Flowers is making me think again... It's not his own lifestyle, that's pretty much his own business IMO, but the flakiness of the selection process when he became chairman and his links with the Labour party. It seems he was wholly unsuitable to be chairman of a bank and only got there through political connections. The more details that get released, the more I'm thinking of getting out.
So, I have some business with the Co-operative Bank and was already wondering about jumping ship at some point over concerns that their ethical policy might get watered down once the takeover goes through. They've said the policy will remain, though, so I was happy to stay put for the time being.
But all this stuff about Paul Flowers is making me think again... It's not his own lifestyle, that's pretty much his own business IMO, but the flakiness of the selection process when he became chairman and his links with the Labour party. It seems he was wholly unsuitable to be chairman of a bank and only got there through political connections. The more details that get released, the more I'm thinking of getting out.
As Peston says today
"One version of the "better" that mutuals have to be is that they have to be seen by customers to be more "decent" than other businesses - because that provides a motive for some consumers to spend their money with them.
And the second version of the better is that they have to be conspicuously competent.
It won't have escaped your notice that the appointment as Co-op Bank's chairman of a former local councillor with an apparent taste for hard drugs, a history of downloading porn on to a municipally owned computer and - by his own admission - limited knowledge of modern banking, somewhat undermines Co-op's claims to be better than the rest in both those important senses.
Which is why Co-op Group's review of its internal democratic system, that allowed the Rev Flowers to bloom quite so lustrously in the organisation, will have an important bearing on whether co-ops and mutuals will continue to be an important part of the UK's mixed economy."
Paul Flowers, the former Co-op Bank chairman, Methodist minister and local councillor, was forced to refer himself to the Standards Board for England for sending a “joke” message that is alleged to have “sexual connotations” to council colleagues in 2005.
Although councillors who had been sent the message raised their concerns with the Labour-run council at the time, five years later Mr Flowers was selected by Ed Miliband, the Labour leader, for his Business and Industry Advisory Group.
What's the point of NI, at some stage I remember politicians saying it paid for the NHS (re: Gordon Brown 2002 increase in ENI).
NI is just a tax, plain and simple. In theory it's hypothecated to NI benefits and the NHS but that's just jiggery pokery in the Government's accounts. Only a small proportion is hypothecated to the NHS (and certainly nowhere near enough to actually pay for the NHS) though almost all of Brown's increases in 2002 went to the NHS (as good as 100% within the complicated apportionment rules for NI).
Brown made significant advances in aligning IT and NI (the Coalition have moved the two further apart again). No politician is ever going to be brave enough to align them fully.
It won't have escaped your notice that the appointment as Co-op Bank's chairman of a former local councillor with an apparent taste for hard drugs, a history of downloading porn on to a municipally owned computer and - by his own admission - limited knowledge of modern banking, somewhat undermines Co-op's claims to be better than the rest in both those important senses [more decent and conspicuously competent].
Yes, agreed. IMO, the alleged drug use and pornography use are, to some extent, private matters that shouldn't impinge on his ability to do his job. But the limited knowledge of modern banking is a huge problem. I know the role of a non-exec chairman is not to run the organisation but, still; how can he challenge and give long-term direction to the organisation with such limited knowledge of the sector? Which raises the obvious question - how, then, did he get to such a lofty position? Awful selection process and excessive friendliness with the Labour Party, ISTM...
I don't understand the purpose of Employers NI, I'd be tempted to scrap it, with the condition that employers have to increase employee pay by the amount they save. I'd also end all pension relief and roll it into ISAs so that we just had one savings pot that we used over our whole life.
As stodge said, easy for us to make suggestions but unless we are in the Treasury, its difficult to see all the implications. Really to do any large scale tax reform, the Chancellor needs a bumper year of fiscal surplus where piles of money can be thrown at those who loose out due to their peculiar circumstances.
As an example, I find the argument for a "flat tax" compelling. This would, as I understand it, be a single rate which would bring together the disparate rates of income tax and NI under a single rate. The problem is I suspect it would mean more tax for the lower paid. However, proponents argue with some merit that a much simplified tax system would reduce avoidance which of course would be a huge loss to the raft of firms in the City which specialise in such matters and doubtless charge accordingly.
I don't understand the purpose of Employers NI, I'd be tempted to scrap it, with the condition that employers have to increase employee pay by the amount they save. I'd also end all pension relief and roll it into ISAs so that we just had one savings pot that we used over our whole life.
As stodge said, easy for us to make suggestions but unless we are in the Treasury, its difficult to see all the implications. Really to do any large scale tax reform, the Chancellor needs a bumper year of fiscal surplus where piles of money can be thrown at those who loose out due to their peculiar circumstances.
As an example, I find the argument for a "flat tax" compelling. This would, as I understand it, be a single rate which would bring together the disparate rates of income tax and NI under a single rate. The problem is I suspect it would mean more tax for the lower paid. However, proponents argue with some merit that a much simplified tax system would reduce avoidance which of course would be a huge loss to the raft of firms in the City which specialise in such matters and doubtless charge accordingly.
I feel rather sorry for the chap myself as it must be pretty gruesome on a personal level, but the politics are epic.
At least it's given you an interest in politics again.
It hasn't. I'm busy on another board talking about Fringe, a TV show. Talking about the plots and continuity issues is much more fascinating. And it was cancelled a couple of yrs ago.
Re the email, who hasn't been sent and opened an inappropriate email/picture to their work email address/on a work laptop from their private email account.
Most people, under those circumstances, would delete it. Rev Flowers apparently handed the machine in for service with material still on it.
1) Not everyone is IT literate,
But only a true numpty would use a work laptop for 'adult material' - let alone a work email for hiring 'company' and discussing drug use.....
Paul Flowers has quite the track reord. It does beg the question how he managed to brush off all these escapades until now.
I discussed this morning, the incident in the toilets, he could explain away by saying it was in an era when homosexuality and homosexuals were under fire and targeted.
Re the email, who hasn't been sent and opened an inappropriate email/picture to their work email address/on a work laptop from their private email account.
The rest, he could get away with charm, wit and good looks.
What he gets up to in his own time is his own business (illegality aside) - but having to move three times because of reckless behaviour does suggest he was not suitable board material - let alone chairman....
Guido Fawkes @GuidoFawkes 3m "I'd rather have a relationship with Co-Op than dodgy hedgefunds" says @MichaelDugherMP. "The Co-Op is owned by hedgefunds" says @afneil.
"Official crime statistics are regularly skewed to make a police force’s performance appear far better than it is in reality, the House of Commons Public Administration Committee heard."
This begs some questions.
Q: Why would you need to fiddle crime stats in areas where crime was going down? A: You wouldn't.
Q: In areas where crime was going up - possibly dramatically - why fiddle the stats. Why not just deal with the crime? A: Maybe cos the BBC and political class insist that that crime doesn't exist and isn't going up dramatically (even it does and is).
Q: Why would senior plod go along with that insistence? Q: Cos if they didn't they wouldn't be senior plod.
Paul Flowers has quite the track reord. It does beg the question how he managed to brush off all these escapades until now.
I discussed this morning, the incident in the toilets, he could explain away by saying it was in an era when homosexuality and homosexuals were under fire and targeted.
Re the email, who hasn't been sent and opened an inappropriate email/picture to their work email address/on a work laptop from their private email account.
The rest, he could get away with charm, wit and good looks.
What he gets up to in his own time is his own business (illegality aside) - but having to move three times because of reckless behaviour does suggest he was not suitable board material - let alone chairman....
Re the email, who hasn't been sent and opened an inappropriate email/picture to their work email address/on a work laptop from their private email account.
Most people, under those circumstances, would delete it. Rev Flowers apparently handed the machine in for service with material still on it.
1) Not everyone is IT literate,
But only a true numpty would use a work laptop for 'adult material' - let alone a work email for hiring 'company' and discussing drug use.....
Paul Flowers has quite the track reord. It does beg the question how he managed to brush off all these escapades until now.
I discussed this morning, the incident in the toilets, he could explain away by saying it was in an era when homosexuality and homosexuals were under fire and targeted.
Re the email, who hasn't been sent and opened an inappropriate email/picture to their work email address/on a work laptop from their private email account.
The rest, he could get away with charm, wit and good looks.
What he gets up to in his own time is his own business (illegality aside) - but having to move three times because of reckless behaviour does suggest he was not suitable board material - let alone chairman....
Some of the best executives and board members are reckless, that's how their businesses became successful.
Mr Flowers was ideal. He was left wing, he was gay, he was a minister (so clearly of the upmost personal integrity) and we was heavily involved with the Labour party. What other qualifications could a man need to lead a co-operative bank?
He had 2 real bankers on his Board to keep them right even although they didn't have any problem in ignoring their advice and preferring the advice of that nice Mr Balls to take over the Britannia. Mr Balls is apparently on target to look after the finances of the entire country. Any sensible person would take his advice wouldn't they? Not the board's fault the man is an idiot.
Shapps says the furthest north you can get in this country is Berwick on Tweed
well he is only out by two miles, Marshall Meadows bay is further north in this country. He was talking about England unless you happen to think he was actually in Scotland or Wales....
Paul Flowers has quite the track reord. It does beg the question how he managed to brush off all these escapades until now.
I discussed this morning, the incident in the toilets, he could explain away by saying it was in an era when homosexuality and homosexuals were under fire and targeted.
Re the email, who hasn't been sent and opened an inappropriate email/picture to their work email address/on a work laptop from their private email account.
The rest, he could get away with charm, wit and good looks.
What he gets up to in his own time is his own business (illegality aside) - but having to move three times because of reckless behaviour does suggest he was not suitable board material - let alone chairman....
Some of the best executives and board members are reckless, that's how their businesses became successful.
Paul Flowers has quite the track reord. It does beg the question how he managed to brush off all these escapades until now.
I discussed this morning, the incident in the toilets, he could explain away by saying it was in an era when homosexuality and homosexuals were under fire and targeted.
Re the email, who hasn't been sent and opened an inappropriate email/picture to their work email address/on a work laptop from their private email account.
The rest, he could get away with charm, wit and good looks.
What he gets up to in his own time is his own business (illegality aside) - but having to move three times because of reckless behaviour does suggest he was not suitable board material - let alone chairman....
Some of the best executives and board members are reckless, that's how their businesses became successful.
I can't see 'Lesson 1 - Snorting crystal meth off the backs of rent boys' on the syllabus of the world's leading business schools any time soon.
Comments
So perhaps some housing recovery 'op north
https://maps.google.com/maps?q=s21+1bu&hl=en&ll=53.325055,-1.318789&spn=0.009151,0.018561&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=49.310476,76.025391&hnear=Killamarsh+S21+1BU,+United+Kingdom&t=m&z=16&layer=c&cbll=53.325059,-1.318616&panoid=dTL96U9H5DfYp9eCDBL2jA&cbp=12,191.73,,1,4.33
I daren't look at prices
hint: less posting, more reading. You might learn something.
Are you on benefits and have never received a payslip or completed a tax return?
Not sure how many people ever took you seriously before but they certainly never will again.
What's its like?
tim's black wednesday - what a plum.
I'll offer you £500 at evens that 40% tax does not get paid by people on say £35k per annum
Stop digging a hole. You've been shown to be a fool, and got it wrong.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/iainmartin1/100246807/nick-boles-and-the-cameroons-have-been-getting-it-wrong-for-almost-a-decade/
Don't try to trip me up. You don't have the knowledge for it.
http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/rates/it.htm
Unless I'm missing something major.
Heath quoted this morning that raising the personal allowance by £500 will "cost" £3.25 billion while a 1p across the board rate cut would be £4.3 billion.
I suppose there's alos an argument that any "surplus" should go toward paying down the debt interest rather than being "returned" in the form of tax cuts and that's a debate worth having.
I'm afraid too many people on here jump on the slightest inaccuracy in someone's contribution and spend more time vilifying one particular poster than trying to put forward a constructive argument or hypothesis.
"Our October HPI shows a monthly change of -0.2%. Average house price in England and Wales is now £165,515. Full #HPI out 28 Nov"
twitter.com/LandRegGov/status/402436766957056000
Labour Party's attack dog Michael Dugher barks up the wrong tree again
Every good parliamentarian – like every good barrister – knows how foolhardy it is to ask a question in an open forum without having a good idea what the answer is going to be.
Michael Dugher, the Labour Party’s increasingly accident-prone “attack dog”, who was once a spinmeister for Gordon Brown, demanded to know in the Commons what the rates of absenteeism through sickness or other reasons were in Eric Pickles’s Communities and Local Government department.
Brandon Lewis, a minister in the department, responded that an average of 6.3 working days were lost per member of staff in the year to March, but couldn’t resist pointing out that when Dugher worked as a special adviser at the department the average was 7.0 in 2001, rising to 7.7 in 2002.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10460752/Labour-Partys-attack-dog-Michael-Dugher-barks-up-the-wrong-tree-again.html
Sigh...
Every argument he has ever put forward regarding tax/economics has been shown to be a waste of time by his ignorance.
They go down?
"Our October HPI shows a monthly change of -0.2%. Average house price in England and Wales is now £165,515. Full #HPI out 28 Nov"
I would assume raising the NI lower threshold would cost less than an equivalent increase in the Income Tax threshold since pensioners and savers don't pay NI so NI is the tax giveaway I would look at.
out of London
out of London Commuter belts
out of Home Counties,
then the average house price will show deflation, as a greater percentage of sales will be at a lower value from the areas not subject to the London influence.
Land Reg figures are chained to the previous sale of that property and the price change calculated from that so in theory it should not matter where the property is in the country. It also includes non-mortgage purchases compared with most of the other indexes which only look at mortgage sales.
Conclusion - The HMRC page is shockingly worded, you're right and Tim was wrong.
There is no PA if you earn £150k. Afraid you're wrong on this one Tim.
Witless unionist spin debunked.
http://wingsoverscotland.com/stacking-the-deck/
tim - probably time to drop the tax thresholds issue
Stodge was asking earlier about whether Osborne should increase the point (£42K or so of income) where higher-rate tax starts. In isolation, the answer of course is yes, but it's the wrong question; the right question to ask is what priority should be given to that compared with other possible measures. I agree with those who have been saying that reducing NI should be a higher priority. In the medium term, mitigating the absurd anomaly that PAYE income is taxed at a much higher rate than other forms of income should be a key goal IMO.
Yesterday:
Yesterday, right-wing think-tank the Institute of Fiscal Studies issued a document entitled “Fiscal sustainability in an independent Scotland“. It’s rather less than glowing about the prospects of an independent Scottish economy.
One year ago, yesterday:
The latest report from the Institute of Fiscal Studies reinforces the fact that Scotland is in a stronger financial position than the UK as a whole, and would as an independent country have lower debt levels than the rest of the UK.
Welcoming the report, SNP Treasury spokesman Stewart Hosie MP
http://www.snp.org/media-centre/news/2012/nov/ifs-report-shows-scotlands-economy-stronger
Will Tim admit the same ?
Certainly some of the steps on that path would potentially be - to raise the level at which you start paying NI to the same as the Personal Allowance. To equalise who pays NI and Income Tax / equalise what "Income" it is charged on. (this latter part is clearly more controversial as "grannies paying NI on there savings" would be trotted out as hard done by).
Paul Flowers, the former Co-op Bank chairman, Methodist minister and local councillor, was forced to refer himself to the Standards Board for England for sending a “joke” message that is alleged to have “sexual connotations” to council colleagues in 2005.
Although councillors who had been sent the message raised their concerns with the Labour-run council at the time, five years later Mr Flowers was selected by Ed Miliband, the Labour leader, for his Business and Industry Advisory Group.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/10461306/Paul-Flowers-investigated-eight-years-ago.html
What's the point of NI, at some stage I remember politicians saying it paid for the NHS (re: Gordon Brown 2002 increase in ENI).
Is it that pensioners are less of a burden on the NHS, so they don't pay need to pay it?
I would also suggest that said poster isn't the only one who gets things wrong or puts forward arguments based on ignorance nor is that poster the only one who is openly provocative but that's the nature of forums like this.
Until Gordon Brown cocked up his 10p tax removal, and had to increase the PA to correct it...
I would agree there are a number of measures Osborne could implement - I suspect none of them are as easy as we think otherwise, I'm tempted to say, he'd have done it already. The problem I have is while I understand the ideological and political rationale behind each of these proposals, I don't know the fiscal impact which presumably Osborne does.
No doubt there would be a Daily Mail headline 'Tax bombshell for over 65s' though. But tough times and all that.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2510259/How-did-Labour-know-disgraced-Co-op-chief-Paul-Flowers.html#ixzz2lBM9JmZT
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
Re the email, who hasn't been sent and opened an inappropriate email/picture to their work email address/on a work laptop from their private email account.
The rest, he could get away with charm, wit and good looks.
It was all rather incestuous.
It was a media failure. Whilst the events in Hampshire were long in the past, I wonder why a bigger thing was not made of the fact he was forced to resign as a councillor in 2011. You would have thought that would have been a big story since he was the Co-pp bank chairman at the time.
If so, the mind boggles.
I don't understand the purpose of Employers NI, I'd be tempted to scrap it, with the condition that employers have to increase employee pay by the amount they save. I'd also end all pension relief and roll it into ISAs so that we just had one savings pot that we used over our whole life.
As stodge said, easy for us to make suggestions but unless we are in the Treasury, its difficult to see all the implications. Really to do any large scale tax reform, the Chancellor needs a bumper year of fiscal surplus where piles of money can be thrown at those who loose out due to their peculiar circumstances.
2) Far too many delete things, but don't empty their recycle bin
3) One of my old work laptop, automatically stored all files and pictures to the part of the hard drive, you could delete it in one place, and it was stored elsewhere.
But all this stuff about Paul Flowers is making me think again... It's not his own lifestyle, that's pretty much his own business IMO, but the flakiness of the selection process when he became chairman and his links with the Labour party. It seems he was wholly unsuitable to be chairman of a bank and only got there through political connections. The more details that get released, the more I'm thinking of getting out.
As Peston says today
"One version of the "better" that mutuals have to be is that they have to be seen by customers to be more "decent" than other businesses - because that provides a motive for some consumers to spend their money with them.
And the second version of the better is that they have to be conspicuously competent.
It won't have escaped your notice that the appointment as Co-op Bank's chairman of a former local councillor with an apparent taste for hard drugs, a history of downloading porn on to a municipally owned computer and - by his own admission - limited knowledge of modern banking, somewhat undermines Co-op's claims to be better than the rest in both those important senses.
Which is why Co-op Group's review of its internal democratic system, that allowed the Rev Flowers to bloom quite so lustrously in the organisation, will have an important bearing on whether co-ops and mutuals will continue to be an important part of the UK's mixed economy."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25014619
More than one chancellor has done this.
Brown made significant advances in aligning IT and NI (the Coalition have moved the two further apart again). No politician is ever going to be brave enough to align them fully.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-25007869
http://ippr.org/images/media/files/publication/2013/11/no-more-neets_Nov2013_11516.pdf
"I'd rather have a relationship with Co-Op than dodgy hedgefunds" says @MichaelDugherMP. "The Co-Op is owned by hedgefunds" says @afneil.
Awesome...
"Official crime statistics are regularly skewed to make a police force’s performance appear far better than it is in reality, the House of Commons Public Administration Committee heard."
This begs some questions.
Q: Why would you need to fiddle crime stats in areas where crime was going down?
A: You wouldn't.
Q: In areas where crime was going up - possibly dramatically - why fiddle the stats. Why not just deal with the crime?
A: Maybe cos the BBC and political class insist that that crime doesn't exist and isn't going up dramatically (even it does and is).
Q: Why would senior plod go along with that insistence?
Q: Cos if they didn't they wouldn't be senior plod.
Mr Flowers was ideal. He was left wing, he was gay, he was a minister (so clearly of the upmost personal integrity) and we was heavily involved with the Labour party. What other qualifications could a man need to lead a co-operative bank?
He had 2 real bankers on his Board to keep them right even although they didn't have any problem in ignoring their advice and preferring the advice of that nice Mr Balls to take over the Britannia. Mr Balls is apparently on target to look after the finances of the entire country. Any sensible person would take his advice wouldn't they? Not the board's fault the man is an idiot.