UsedtobeWozzer

1 hour ago, kowenicki said:

 

Not that simple pal. I do earn more than that, do have a limited company and do pay more tax than that. Admittedly when I sold my partnership to my ltd company I was able to reduce tax significantly for some time. But that can't last forever and tax is inevitable.  I also paid a shit load of tax, more than many, probably you, will ever pay in their lifetimes. I'm not complaining, but it is a fact..... 'but people who earn over 100k don't pay hardly any tax!!!??' Bullshit. Utter bullshit. What do you do? Earn? Or is it a secret? Why the chip on your shoulder? 

Why are you righties so keen to humble brag all the time. ha

4 minutes ago, kowenicki said:

 

Yes self employed contractors, particularly in certain sectors, do that. If you are saying that is typical of the self employed then you are lying or have a narrow understanding, which may not be your fault. 

No you're right I know lots of self employed people queueing up to pay more tax.

2 minutes ago, kowenicki said:

 

Really? We pay our consultant FD very handsomely too. Ah well...

Yes really. I'm fine with my current job and 2 non executive roles thanks. It's not all about the money for all of us.

8 minutes ago, kowenicki said:

 

Wasnt talking to you.  But my point stands... as it's correct, as you know. 

Sorry I didn't realise you were having a personal conversation on a public message board. My post was referenced by CS and you refuted it. You know as well as I do, because I know several of them personally, that self employed contractors earning upwards of £70k a year pay virtually no tax, despite having very few actual business overheads. They just have good Accountants. If you deny that you are either lying or really don't understand your supposed expertise. Which is it?

4 minutes ago, kowenicki said:

 

Jesus. Wouldn't let you anywhere near my company... and yes I have one.  Hyperbole and lies... that's the left for you. 

For that at least I shall remain eternally grateful.

15 minutes ago, rummytheowl said:

 

The thing is, you're comparing 21st century society as we know it, with sticking kids up chimneys and picking weevils out of bread. We've moved on, the bar has been raised.

You need to be careful with the sticking kids up chimneys stuff, May is probably looking for more archaic policies to sit alongside the reintroduction of fox hunting and supporting the ivory trade.

17 minutes ago, kowenicki said:

 

Self employed / shareholders. Wtf are you talking about. 

 

You are also confusing revenue and profit. Yes a good accountant should be able to use tax allowances and deductibles to reduce gross profit for a self employed individual.  But if the final profit after this is 100k then that's it. You will pay tax on that. There is no alchemy to avoiding tax on those earnings unless you want to commit a crime. You haven't got a clue in taxation and finance. Luckily it's my field so I can help you and educate you. 

 

Wow. Aren't we grateful. I've been FD of 4 £10m plus turnover companies and I'm a NED on the Board of 2 others so I'm alright for the lessons thanks. Chaddy Smokers point referencing my post was clearly talking about a self employed person earning (revenue not profit) £100k a year. I think you can assume I understand the difference.

You can agree or disagree with the politics but this is bloody funny.

31 minutes ago, HarryBosch said:

 

£20,000 - £11500 personal tax allowance = £8500.

£8500 x 20% income tax = £1700

 

£100,000 - £11500 = £88500

£55k of it at 40% = £22000

£33500 of it at 20% = £6700

£28700 total income tax. 

 

£28700/£1700 = 16.8 times. 

 

That new accountant would be worth his/her weight in gold if he/she could get that down to 10x.....

You seem to live in a world without national insurance - I can point you to the hmrc calculator I use if you like.

2 minutes ago, UsedtobeWozzer said:

Salary sacrifice is not what it used to be! Assuming the 2 employees in question are on PAYE at the same tax code, somebody on 100k will pay around 10x the employee on 20k in tax and NI. They will still have 4x the take home pay of course at around 1265 to 324.

Somebody self employed on 100k a year is likely to be paying much less that 10x the salaried employee on 20k and if they are they need a new accountant! 

11 minutes ago, Stevie_J said:

Of course they do, unless they find a way of sacrificing a very, very large proportion of their salary.

Salary sacrifice is not what it used to be! Assuming the 2 employees in question are on PAYE at the same tax code, somebody on 100k will pay around 10x the employee on 20k in tax and NI. They will still have 4x the take home pay of course at around 1265 to 324.

That's from the paper. The reporter described it as 3 minutes of nothing.

The missing T May's insightful interview with the Plymouth Herald yesterday, which may explain why she was missing. Clue - she doesn't have one.

Also France, Germany and Italy have corporation tax rates at least 5% higher than our new 2020 rate of 17%. 

4 minutes ago, frizzell54 said:

 

Highest tax rate in Europe:

 

1.   UK  57% (45% income tax + 12% NI)
      72% for earnings between £100,000 - £123,000 (40% higher rate tax + removal of tax free personal allowance + 12% NI)

 

2.   Austria 55%

Again, nothing like being selective with the facts. 45% applies to people earning over £150k. You seem to have missed (at least) Greece and Finland off your list too both of which are higher according to the same source (wiki)

8 minutes ago, Crusoe said:

Macclesfield offer a new deal to the skeletal Maradona, Danny Whitaker, but release another ex-Latic, Chris Sutherland.

Sutherland has signed for the Dazzler at Hyde.

6 minutes ago, HarryBosch said:

 

What's the thinking behind food being "hot" being of importance? I've seen this mentioned a few times...

 

Also, what's not been mentioned in this is I don't want my kids eating fucking cornflakes or cheerios. 

 

All parties need to focus instead on getting the parents who don't feed their kids to feed their children/feed them properly. Not to mention all the other shit they do/don't do that leaves their poor kids with little chance in life...

I think the quote I saw said "hot, nutritious" - on reflection I missed the more important of the 2 adjectives.

3 minutes ago, View Of Golden Gate said:

 

I know it is, the point is that includes those struggling. Do I believe those who can afford it shouldn't pay? No, I don't. I do, however, believe it is a lesser of two evils, and I would rather know that children are being fed at school, even if that includes those who don't need the help.

So we agree. Fine, apologies.

1 minute ago, View Of Golden Gate said:

 

Or a non brand item, and even get a banana. Some might not get to eat again until their evening dinner, as their parents can't afford to pay for their lunch. Or the lunch they get is small, and not healthy as their parents have got the best they can afford but it isn't enough, all the while that same child's mate is eating a nice hot meal. Don't forget, though, we are all in this together, just some are more in it than others, and some parents are just lazy and/or stupid.

Talk about missing the point. The Labour a party policy is free school meals for all. Just read it.

21 minutes ago, blueatheart said:

 

600g box of Cheerios currently £1.65 at tesco. 4 pints of milk (2272ml) £1.00

6 pack of organic bananas £1.39 (ooooh fancy).

 

Cheerios suggested portion is 30g each or 6.9p each with 125ml of milk costing 0.05p

Banana 23p. Call it 30p among friends.

 

With the off-brand stuff and purchasing power of the public sector, even your wozzer mates target of 6.7p could be met.

 

 

 Do I really need to explain how the deficit works?

 

I didn't ... your San Fran mate did though if thats the case.

So now I'm faced with a choice between 30g of cheerios and a splash of milk or a hot lunch. Yep you're really making this much more difficult.

34 minutes ago, blueatheart said:

 

We've had the debates about foodbanks. We've had some debate on the so call Dementia Tax. I've not heard a dicky bird about the garden tax yet. As for 67p a meal, mass produced meals should be cheap. I could make myself breakfast for 67p, I should hope a large organisation like a school some be able to do similar, if not better. The bloated public sector is only just coming to terms with the fact that they should be run like a business. The NHS has cut front line services in favour of retaining back-office senior managers.

 

Corbyn invited his 'friends' Hamas to the house of commons, he has repeatedly denied meeting with IRA terrorists despite being pictured with them on a number of occasions. He has voted against every single bit of terrorism legislation since he entered parliament over 30 years ago. His 'costed' manifesto includes expenditure that will quickly send national debt soaring with little benefit. He supports the scrapping of Trident, his party does not yet the only way he will get into government is being propped up by the Trident scrapping SNP. Tell me is this man the person you want to 'lead?' Tell me why, he is the right choice. Please give me a reason not to be afraid of this man, give me a reason not to be fearful of five years with this man at the helm.

 

So you tell me why we should let Labour spend again? Becuase the Tories will only have to sort it out again in another five or ten years time.

Trying to be impartial for a second (difficult) it's really interesting that most of the criticism of Corbyn is related to his past while much of the criticism of May is based on her future policies. If only we knew whether time travelled backwards or forwards eh?

33 minutes ago, blueatheart said:

 

We've had the debates about foodbanks. We've had some debate on the so call Dementia Tax. I've not heard a dicky bird about the garden tax yet. As for 67p a meal, mass produced meals should be cheap. I could make myself breakfast for 67p, I should hope a large organisation like a school some be able to do similar, if not better. The bloated public sector is only just coming to terms with the fact that they should be run like a business. The NHS has cut front line services in favour of retaining back-office senior managers.

 

Corbyn invited his 'friends' Hamas to the house of commons, he has repeatedly denied meeting with IRA terrorists despite being pictured with them on a number of occasions. He has voted against every single bit of terrorism legislation since he entered parliament over 30 years ago. His 'costed' manifesto includes expenditure that will quickly send national debt soaring with little benefit. He supports the scrapping of Trident, his party does not yet the only way he will get into government is being propped up by the Trident scrapping SNP. Tell me is this man the person you want to 'lead?' Tell me why, he is the right choice. Please give me a reason not to be afraid of this man, give me a reason not to be fearful of five years with this man at the helm.

 

So you tell me why we should let Labour spend again? Becuase the Tories will only have to sort it out again in another five or ten years time.

67 p yes. Unfortunately you've overstated May's figure by a power of 10. Could you still do it for 6.7p?

11 hours ago, kowenicki said:

Corbyn should have stayed away from this. It's backfired a bit.

 

The faciliator for this debate is woeful though. 

 

The debate itself is a mess, just a load of people shouting at each other. 

 

The audience is NOT typical either.  Loud applause and cheers for unilateral disarmament. Yeah right. 

Backfired more than not turning up? Or sending your Home Secretary in your place 2 days after her father's died? Complaining of left wing bias? Keep going pal it's fucking hilarious this.

6 hours ago, mikeroyboy said:

 

Is there any publication or anybody unbiased in this election? Apart from the few million uninterested.

Admittedly not a publication but the BBC are supposed to be although I don't think Kuenssberg (sp?) has been told.

6 hours ago, oafc1955 said:

From the Football rumours site...

 

30 May 2017 16:56:35
Ronnie Moore is joining Oldham as assistant manager

 

I would be quite happy with that strangely enough, he would be a pretty good appointment as a No.2.

 

Two previously sacked Latics managers back at the club and working together......that would be pretty unique!

 

Dont shoot the messenger ??

That would be quite something given the number of times he has had a go at our fans expectations and behaviours since he left. He probably had a point like.