We're All In This Together .....

[MrGongGong]

I weep.

me too
what's a "pension right" ?????

FFS some people seem to want a wet nurse !

(JOKE :laugh:)

[ahinton]

I weep.

You needn't - at least, not on my account. "Pension rights" were raised by another member and I responded to that reference on the understanding that they mean rights in accordance with the contributions that have been made towards said pensions - no more, no less; if that happens to bring tears to your eyes, then so be it, I guess - but I felt that it was worth mentioning that the wealthier pension contributors cannot any longer use pension contributions as the tax dodge that they used to be able to do before the latest restrictions that have been placed upon them - no more, no less.

[ahinton]

me too
what's a "pension right" ?????

Quite simply, one that relates and is directly proportionate to the contributions towards a pension that the contributor has made and continues to make - no more, no less; if you happen not to believe that such rights exist or should exist, then fine, but all that this would presumably mean is that those who contribute towards their future pensions may as well stop doing so because they should have no "rights" in respect of their contributions.

[Flosshilde]

... I felt that it was worth mentioning that the wealthier pension contributors cannot any longer use pension contributions as the tax dodge that they used to be able to do before the latest restrictions that have been placed upon them - no more, no less.

Maybe, but that's not how I would have interpreted " "pay freezes and cuts, increased workloads, pensions rights being slashed, unemployment, endlessly increasing costs of living" can affect people on all income levels otherthan those who are able to live without any need to derive an income from working? The pension rights of those on higher incomes, for example, have been reduced immensely.", which is what you said. My 'weeping' was intended to be ironic; the pensions people on high incomes (over £100,000, say) get, even when reduced, are still probably more than the annual pay of people who's earnings are closer to a tenth of that. It's for the latter that I really weep.

I also weep for you, as your arguments suggest that your sympathies lie with those who feel that paying tax is for the 'little people', & who do their utmost to avoid paying tax legitimately charged to their income.

[MrGongGong]

Quite simply, one that relates and is directly proportionate to the contributions towards a pension that the contributor has made and continues to make - no more, no less; if you happen not to believe that such rights exist or should exist, then fine, but all that this would presumably mean is that those who contribute towards their future pensions may as well stop doing so because they should have no "rights" in respect of their contributions.

that was meant to be a joke !
Those of us who work for ourselves have none even though we pay NI etc :laugh:

[teamsaint]

I weep.

Pass the tissues please..................

[ahinton]

I also weep for you, as your arguments suggest that your sympathies lie with those who feel that paying tax is for the 'little people', & who do their utmost to avoid paying tax legitimately charged to their income.

Then once again you needn't bother, since I do not take that view at all. Most people, regardless of their levels of income, have some form of tax avoidance open to them (ISAs, pension contributions, etc.); furthermore, I don't see why everyone should simply pay what's asked of them and not challenge the amount under any circumstances as, for one thing, mistakes are frequently made by HMRC and, for another, every taxpayer has a right to form and express an opinion of the fairness or otherwise of tax takes, irrespective of the extent or otherwise to which others might agree.

[ahinton]

that was meant to be a joke !
Those of us who work for ourselves have none even though we pay NI etc :laugh:

For the record, I am one of those!

[ahinton]

Pass the tissues please..................

Only if their cost is a tax-deductible expense...

[teamsaint]

Only if their cost is a tax-deductible expense...

oh I am sure that can be organised if you have enough financial clout !

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

remider for dave 1

reminder to dave 2


tax the rich ... needs to be done ... for now ...when i was a lad there was a 95% rate because the country was truly broke ....

[ahinton]

remider for dave 1
reminder to dave 2
tax the rich ... needs to be done ... for now ...when i was a lad there was a 95% rate because the country was truly broke ....

They won't pay - some because they refuse to and others because they'll be unable to afford to (i.e. those with plenty of assets but relatively small disposable incomes - unless, of course, you'd exempt these well-off people) - but even if this did happen, these rich people would very soon no longer be rich and then they'd no longer be so highly taxed, ergo the Treasury's profits from such an exercise would be very short-lived indeed; as someone once said,

Tax the rich until you make them poor,
But then you just can't tax them any more.

[Flosshilde]

these rich people would very soon no longer be rich and then they'd no longer be so highly taxed,

No. The rich, whether they be the Duke of Westminster or a footballer or the man paid a huge bonus for losing his company several million pounds, have an annual income, which would be taxed (the clue is in the name 'income tax'). When they are taxed in one year they still get the same amount of money (or thereabouts) the following year. They would not become 'no longer rich'. The Duke will still have huge properties in London which provide him with a massive income, the footballer will still be kicking a ball about (leaving asside injury etc) and the director will still be paid his bonus.

[Serial_Apologist]

No. The rich, whether they be the Duke of Westminster or a footballer or the man paid a huge bonus for losing his company several million pounds, have an annual income, which would be taxed (the clue is in the name 'income tax'). When they are taxed in one year they still get the same amount of money (or thereabouts) the following year. They would not become 'no longer rich'. The Duke will still have huge properties in London which provide him with a massive income, the footballer will still be kicking a ball about (leaving asside injury etc) and the director will still be paid his bonus.

Mind, it wouldn't be such a bad thing if ahinton was right. :smiley: Just think if, across the world, governments were prepared to tax rich people till their pips squeaked, instead of saying, "Aah - does your government take all your money away from you? Poor diddums! Come here to our country: we'll make you welcome". Then we'd have a situation in which the ability to run a business was treated just as another skill, like being a lathe operator, and chairpersons and managing directors could take in pride in giving of their god-given skills to the community in return for a modicum of a better lifestyle for putting in the years of promotion and acquiring experience, and being thereby appreciated by the community instead of envied.

Wasn't it Neil Kinnock who once said that the benefit of high taxes to the rich was to surround them with a safe society in which they would have no need to shut themselves away in gated communities with thugs, guard dogs and CCTV to keep the marauding hoards at bay? I think it was Kinnock, because I remember that as being the one sensible thing he ever said.

[Lateralthinking1]

Is there a research team at Oxford arguing that high tax payers are only "potential persons"?