Insert - I think your personal experience is skewing your judgment on the matter.
https://www.ifs.org.uk/uploads/BN254-Characteristics-and-Incomes-Of-The-Top-1%25.pdf
60% of the income of the top 1 is employment that was in 2014-2015.
Employed and self-employed are totally different to company ‘owners’ who pay coprporation tax and dividend tax.
Our estimates here suggest that almost one-in-three people in the top 1% are business owners, meaning that this policy choice provides substantial tax breaks to some of the highest-income people in society.
Income tax is more top-heavy than the two other biggest revenue-raisers, National Insurance Contributions (NICs) and VAT, although less top heavy than some other (smaller) taxes, notably Stamp Duty Land Tax and Inheritance Tax.*5 Overall, this small group undoubtedly pays a significant share of all of our taxes.
*5. See H. Miller and B. Roantree, ‘Tax revenues: where does the money come from and what are the next government’s challenges?’, IFS Briefing Note 198, May 2017, https://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/9178
Overall whilst there are loopholes and ways to be more tax efficient, that doesn’t mean that the statement that the wealthy (and we’re talking about the top 1%) don’t pay more than their fair share of tax just because part of that 1% don’t.
It is illegal to set up a company for yourself and “sell” yourself as a consultant or whatever under IR35. If you are genuinely self employed or a business you have to demonstrate that you have a number of clients none of whom can take up such a proportion of your time you could be considered an employee. Practically impossible to get round unless you’re into fraud.
-----------------
It's illegal, but all the contractors at my company have been basically working as full-time employees while supposedly outside IR35, some for years
I think the IR35 changes coming in next year will help tighten up that particular scam though
Overall whilst there are loopholes and ways to be more tax efficient, that doesn’t mean that the statement that the wealthy (and we’re talking about the top 1%) pay more than their fair share of tax is incorrect just because a minority part of that 1% pay less. Ie. They’re not all paying 11% as you suggest.
Like I said earlier, if we were talking about the top 0.01% then you’d probably be right but we’re not.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
comment by renoog (U4449)
posted 36 seconds ago
It is illegal to set up a company for yourself and “sell” yourself as a consultant or whatever under IR35. If you are genuinely self employed or a business you have to demonstrate that you have a number of clients none of whom can take up such a proportion of your time you could be considered an employee. Practically impossible to get round unless you’re into fraud.
-----------------
It's illegal, but all the contractors at my company have been basically working as full-time employees while supposedly outside IR35, some for years
I think the IR35 changes coming in next year will help tighten up that particular scam though
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think a lot of this goes on and actually tightening up will save us and/or make us a lot of money also.
The furlough and business loan schemes have suffered from a lot of fraud also unfortunately, fking ctnus.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
comment by Insert random username (U10647)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by renoog (U4449)
posted 4 minutes ago
Yes but someone, not me
Also zachsda...
Also renoog still hasn't put the golden rule in the OP, it's been a decent thread after this morning though, so thanks everyone for keeping me entertained on my day off
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What's the golden rule? thought it was strictly no trade links
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't you buggers ever read back?!
The condition admin posted yesterday, no personal attacks, it has to be kept on topic. Someone ran afoul of them today, their post was deleted and it seems their account is under moderation (so other factors, such as those surrounding the deletion of the other thread probably had their part)
If people are going to post here under those conditions, it's fair they should know about them before engaging.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Aye
I wonder if it would be fair to have one warning first just to cover for accidents/forgetting? Makes it messy but I could see one of us forgetting just about of stupidity 😂😂😂
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 26 seconds ago
comment by Insert random username (U10647)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by renoog (U4449)
posted 4 minutes ago
Yes but someone, not me
Also zachsda...
Also renoog still hasn't put the golden rule in the OP, it's been a decent thread after this morning though, so thanks everyone for keeping me entertained on my day off
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What's the golden rule? thought it was strictly no trade links
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't you buggers ever read back?!
The condition admin posted yesterday, no personal attacks, it has to be kept on topic. Someone ran afoul of them today, their post was deleted and it seems their account is under moderation (so other factors, such as those surrounding the deletion of the other thread probably had their part)
If people are going to post here under those conditions, it's fair they should know about them before engaging.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Aye
I wonder if it would be fair to have one warning first just to cover for accidents/forgetting? Makes it messy but I could see one of us forgetting just about of stupidity 😂😂😂
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I am a bookies certainty.
comment by Insert random username (U10647)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by renoog (U4449)
posted 4 minutes ago
Yes but someone, not me
Also zachsda...
Also renoog still hasn't put the golden rule in the OP, it's been a decent thread after this morning though, so thanks everyone for keeping me entertained on my day off
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What's the golden rule? thought it was strictly no trade links
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't you buggers ever read back?!
The condition admin posted yesterday, no personal attacks, it has to be kept on topic. Someone ran afoul of them today, their post was deleted and it seems their account is under moderation (so other factors, such as those surrounding the deletion of the other thread probably had their part)
If people are going to post here under those conditions, it's fair they should know about them before engaging.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
OK I'll update the OP.
Who enforces it though?
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
comment by renoog (U4449)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Insert random username (U10647)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by renoog (U4449)
posted 4 minutes ago
Yes but someone, not me
Also zachsda...
Also renoog still hasn't put the golden rule in the OP, it's been a decent thread after this morning though, so thanks everyone for keeping me entertained on my day off
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What's the golden rule? thought it was strictly no trade links
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't you buggers ever read back?!
The condition admin posted yesterday, no personal attacks, it has to be kept on topic. Someone ran afoul of them today, their post was deleted and it seems their account is under moderation (so other factors, such as those surrounding the deletion of the other thread probably had their part)
If people are going to post here under those conditions, it's fair they should know about them before engaging.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
OK I'll update the OP.
Who enforces it though?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Myself and Just Shoot, for balance.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
comment by Insert random username (U10647)
posted 15 seconds ago
You then
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorted.
I will be fare as 4za can valleydate
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
comment by Insert random username (U10647)
posted 6 minutes ago
That's up to admin I guess sat Nav, I'd suggest he's more likely to be lenient and give a warning if it's a one off and the thread has returned to this far nicer level of conversation in general.
It's only a matter of time before someone says GingerTesticles or TBABbler etc...
Not me though
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah I think he’s a reasonable chap from what I’ve seen.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
comment by Insert random username (U10647)
posted 9 minutes ago
So let's get down to the real business..
Female 007, will she be a womaniser?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I remember NPE disagree massively on this. I felt there was no need to make her the new 007 she could have been any other number. He feels that it doesn’t mean anything culturally etc.
A womaniser, I dunno I think I’d rather her be a bit of a man eater. Think Xenia Onnatop from Goldeneye but for the good guys.
comment by Insert random username (U10647)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Insert random username (U10647)
posted 6 minutes ago
That's up to admin I guess sat Nav, I'd suggest he's more likely to be lenient and give a warning if it's a one off and the thread has returned to this far nicer level of conversation in general.
It's only a matter of time before someone says GingerTesticles or TBABbler etc...
Not me though
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah I think he’s a reasonable chap from what I’ve seen.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He used to post here quite a lot in the "before" times, he's posted twice today so possibly signs of a revival..
He's basically king of the hobos, (please don't ban me) drove an old banger, puts train tickets in his shoes when he gets holes in the sole.
I've always found him interesting, perhaps I'm starstruck, perhaps it's a peasants affection for their king.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That does sound like something you would admire. Would fit in well in Hampstead, there’s loads of that type around; living in an £8m home but you’d never know it.
I met a chap there once who has a huge house there which Madonna tried to buy off him for £20m, the place was very erm....tramp-chic? He used to rent out his driveway for money.
I was like, here’s me loving money and material crap with nothing like that kind of asset and there’s you who lives on like £80 a month probably. England is a great place for individuality and eccentricities.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
comment by Insert random username (U10647)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by Insert random username (U10647)
posted 9 minutes ago
So let's get down to the real business..
Female 007, will she be a womaniser?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I remember NPE disagree massively on this. I felt there was no need to make her the new 007 she could have been any other number. He feels that it doesn’t mean anything culturally etc.
A womaniser, I dunno I think I’d rather her be a bit of a man eater. Think Xenia Onnatop from Goldeneye but for the good guys.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I guess they wanted the designation to fit it in with the existing series of films, I'm just glad they didn't use "Jane Bond"
Again (and I'm banging the drum a bit here) this is what really annoys me about the Carano situation, there was a really strong iconic female Role, they didn't need to retcon a man, they just did it, and they did it without making it feel forced, and the final episode of season 2 (no spoilers as renoog intends to watch it) was the mirror of that ridiculous avengers scene where they did everything wrong with regards to female power...
I'm not that interested in the 007 spinoff, for that reason.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Back on the mandalorian
Turns out Pedro Pascal posted this:
https://images.app.goo.gl/72jdX2oGh5g2T6rK8
Wonder if he’ll get fired also. This is where it gets messy people.
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 0 seconds ago
comment by Insert random username (U10647)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by Insert random username (U10647)
posted 9 minutes ago
So let's get down to the real business..
Female 007, will she be a womaniser?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I remember NPE disagree massively on this. I felt there was no need to make her the new 007 she could have been any other number. He feels that it doesn’t mean anything culturally etc.
A womaniser, I dunno I think I’d rather her be a bit of a man eater. Think Xenia Onnatop from Goldeneye but for the good guys.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I guess they wanted the designation to fit it in with the existing series of films, I'm just glad they didn't use "Jane Bond"
Again (and I'm banging the drum a bit here) this is what really annoys me about the Carano situation, there was a really strong iconic female Role, they didn't need to retcon a man, they just did it, and they did it without making it feel forced, and the final episode of season 2 (no spoilers as renoog intends to watch it) was the mirror of that ridiculous avengers scene where they did everything wrong with regards to female power...
I'm not that interested in the 007 spinoff, for that reason.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Back on the mandalorian
Turns out Pedro Pascal posted this:
https://images.app.goo.gl/72jdX2oGh5g2T6rK8
Wonder if he’ll get fired also. This is where it gets messy people.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And Disney+ thanked the Chinese government in their credits of Mulan, a country where comparison to the Holocaust is actually totally justified.
They should fire themselves
Morning renoog.
Loving the code of conduct OP.
I am upping Meds as I type, taking Calms and valium, while being placed into my Hannibal Lectre restraints.
Should be fine.🤹♂️
Sign in if you want to comment
Politics and Percentages Thread
Page 34 of 6112
35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39
posted on 11/2/21
Insert - I think your personal experience is skewing your judgment on the matter.
https://www.ifs.org.uk/uploads/BN254-Characteristics-and-Incomes-Of-The-Top-1%25.pdf
60% of the income of the top 1 is employment that was in 2014-2015.
Employed and self-employed are totally different to company ‘owners’ who pay coprporation tax and dividend tax.
Our estimates here suggest that almost one-in-three people in the top 1% are business owners, meaning that this policy choice provides substantial tax breaks to some of the highest-income people in society.
Income tax is more top-heavy than the two other biggest revenue-raisers, National Insurance Contributions (NICs) and VAT, although less top heavy than some other (smaller) taxes, notably Stamp Duty Land Tax and Inheritance Tax.*5 Overall, this small group undoubtedly pays a significant share of all of our taxes.
*5. See H. Miller and B. Roantree, ‘Tax revenues: where does the money come from and what are the next government’s challenges?’, IFS Briefing Note 198, May 2017, https://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/9178
Overall whilst there are loopholes and ways to be more tax efficient, that doesn’t mean that the statement that the wealthy (and we’re talking about the top 1%) don’t pay more than their fair share of tax just because part of that 1% don’t.
posted on 11/2/21
It is illegal to set up a company for yourself and “sell” yourself as a consultant or whatever under IR35. If you are genuinely self employed or a business you have to demonstrate that you have a number of clients none of whom can take up such a proportion of your time you could be considered an employee. Practically impossible to get round unless you’re into fraud.
-----------------
It's illegal, but all the contractors at my company have been basically working as full-time employees while supposedly outside IR35, some for years
I think the IR35 changes coming in next year will help tighten up that particular scam though
posted on 11/2/21
Overall whilst there are loopholes and ways to be more tax efficient, that doesn’t mean that the statement that the wealthy (and we’re talking about the top 1%) pay more than their fair share of tax is incorrect just because a minority part of that 1% pay less. Ie. They’re not all paying 11% as you suggest.
Like I said earlier, if we were talking about the top 0.01% then you’d probably be right but we’re not.
posted on 11/2/21
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 11/2/21
comment by renoog (U4449)
posted 36 seconds ago
It is illegal to set up a company for yourself and “sell” yourself as a consultant or whatever under IR35. If you are genuinely self employed or a business you have to demonstrate that you have a number of clients none of whom can take up such a proportion of your time you could be considered an employee. Practically impossible to get round unless you’re into fraud.
-----------------
It's illegal, but all the contractors at my company have been basically working as full-time employees while supposedly outside IR35, some for years
I think the IR35 changes coming in next year will help tighten up that particular scam though
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think a lot of this goes on and actually tightening up will save us and/or make us a lot of money also.
The furlough and business loan schemes have suffered from a lot of fraud also unfortunately, fking ctnus.
posted on 11/2/21
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 11/2/21
comment by Insert random username (U10647)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by renoog (U4449)
posted 4 minutes ago
Yes but someone, not me
Also zachsda...
Also renoog still hasn't put the golden rule in the OP, it's been a decent thread after this morning though, so thanks everyone for keeping me entertained on my day off
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What's the golden rule? thought it was strictly no trade links
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't you buggers ever read back?!
The condition admin posted yesterday, no personal attacks, it has to be kept on topic. Someone ran afoul of them today, their post was deleted and it seems their account is under moderation (so other factors, such as those surrounding the deletion of the other thread probably had their part)
If people are going to post here under those conditions, it's fair they should know about them before engaging.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Aye
I wonder if it would be fair to have one warning first just to cover for accidents/forgetting? Makes it messy but I could see one of us forgetting just about of stupidity 😂😂😂
posted on 11/2/21
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 11/2/21
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 26 seconds ago
comment by Insert random username (U10647)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by renoog (U4449)
posted 4 minutes ago
Yes but someone, not me
Also zachsda...
Also renoog still hasn't put the golden rule in the OP, it's been a decent thread after this morning though, so thanks everyone for keeping me entertained on my day off
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What's the golden rule? thought it was strictly no trade links
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't you buggers ever read back?!
The condition admin posted yesterday, no personal attacks, it has to be kept on topic. Someone ran afoul of them today, their post was deleted and it seems their account is under moderation (so other factors, such as those surrounding the deletion of the other thread probably had their part)
If people are going to post here under those conditions, it's fair they should know about them before engaging.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Aye
I wonder if it would be fair to have one warning first just to cover for accidents/forgetting? Makes it messy but I could see one of us forgetting just about of stupidity 😂😂😂
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I am a bookies certainty.
posted on 11/2/21
comment by Insert random username (U10647)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by renoog (U4449)
posted 4 minutes ago
Yes but someone, not me
Also zachsda...
Also renoog still hasn't put the golden rule in the OP, it's been a decent thread after this morning though, so thanks everyone for keeping me entertained on my day off
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What's the golden rule? thought it was strictly no trade links
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't you buggers ever read back?!
The condition admin posted yesterday, no personal attacks, it has to be kept on topic. Someone ran afoul of them today, their post was deleted and it seems their account is under moderation (so other factors, such as those surrounding the deletion of the other thread probably had their part)
If people are going to post here under those conditions, it's fair they should know about them before engaging.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
OK I'll update the OP.
Who enforces it though?
posted on 11/2/21
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 11/2/21
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 11/2/21
comment by renoog (U4449)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Insert random username (U10647)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by renoog (U4449)
posted 4 minutes ago
Yes but someone, not me
Also zachsda...
Also renoog still hasn't put the golden rule in the OP, it's been a decent thread after this morning though, so thanks everyone for keeping me entertained on my day off
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What's the golden rule? thought it was strictly no trade links
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't you buggers ever read back?!
The condition admin posted yesterday, no personal attacks, it has to be kept on topic. Someone ran afoul of them today, their post was deleted and it seems their account is under moderation (so other factors, such as those surrounding the deletion of the other thread probably had their part)
If people are going to post here under those conditions, it's fair they should know about them before engaging.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
OK I'll update the OP.
Who enforces it though?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Myself and Just Shoot, for balance.
posted on 11/2/21
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 11/2/21
comment by Insert random username (U10647)
posted 15 seconds ago
You then
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorted.
I will be fare as 4za can valleydate
posted on 11/2/21
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 11/2/21
comment by Insert random username (U10647)
posted 6 minutes ago
That's up to admin I guess sat Nav, I'd suggest he's more likely to be lenient and give a warning if it's a one off and the thread has returned to this far nicer level of conversation in general.
It's only a matter of time before someone says GingerTesticles or TBABbler etc...
Not me though
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah I think he’s a reasonable chap from what I’ve seen.
posted on 11/2/21
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 11/2/21
comment by Insert random username (U10647)
posted 9 minutes ago
So let's get down to the real business..
Female 007, will she be a womaniser?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I remember NPE disagree massively on this. I felt there was no need to make her the new 007 she could have been any other number. He feels that it doesn’t mean anything culturally etc.
A womaniser, I dunno I think I’d rather her be a bit of a man eater. Think Xenia Onnatop from Goldeneye but for the good guys.
posted on 11/2/21
comment by Insert random username (U10647)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Insert random username (U10647)
posted 6 minutes ago
That's up to admin I guess sat Nav, I'd suggest he's more likely to be lenient and give a warning if it's a one off and the thread has returned to this far nicer level of conversation in general.
It's only a matter of time before someone says GingerTesticles or TBABbler etc...
Not me though
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah I think he’s a reasonable chap from what I’ve seen.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He used to post here quite a lot in the "before" times, he's posted twice today so possibly signs of a revival..
He's basically king of the hobos, (please don't ban me) drove an old banger, puts train tickets in his shoes when he gets holes in the sole.
I've always found him interesting, perhaps I'm starstruck, perhaps it's a peasants affection for their king.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That does sound like something you would admire. Would fit in well in Hampstead, there’s loads of that type around; living in an £8m home but you’d never know it.
I met a chap there once who has a huge house there which Madonna tried to buy off him for £20m, the place was very erm....tramp-chic? He used to rent out his driveway for money.
I was like, here’s me loving money and material crap with nothing like that kind of asset and there’s you who lives on like £80 a month probably. England is a great place for individuality and eccentricities.
posted on 11/2/21
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 11/2/21
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 11/2/21
comment by Insert random username (U10647)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by Insert random username (U10647)
posted 9 minutes ago
So let's get down to the real business..
Female 007, will she be a womaniser?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I remember NPE disagree massively on this. I felt there was no need to make her the new 007 she could have been any other number. He feels that it doesn’t mean anything culturally etc.
A womaniser, I dunno I think I’d rather her be a bit of a man eater. Think Xenia Onnatop from Goldeneye but for the good guys.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I guess they wanted the designation to fit it in with the existing series of films, I'm just glad they didn't use "Jane Bond"
Again (and I'm banging the drum a bit here) this is what really annoys me about the Carano situation, there was a really strong iconic female Role, they didn't need to retcon a man, they just did it, and they did it without making it feel forced, and the final episode of season 2 (no spoilers as renoog intends to watch it) was the mirror of that ridiculous avengers scene where they did everything wrong with regards to female power...
I'm not that interested in the 007 spinoff, for that reason.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Back on the mandalorian
Turns out Pedro Pascal posted this:
https://images.app.goo.gl/72jdX2oGh5g2T6rK8
Wonder if he’ll get fired also. This is where it gets messy people.
posted on 11/2/21
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 0 seconds ago
comment by Insert random username (U10647)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by Insert random username (U10647)
posted 9 minutes ago
So let's get down to the real business..
Female 007, will she be a womaniser?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I remember NPE disagree massively on this. I felt there was no need to make her the new 007 she could have been any other number. He feels that it doesn’t mean anything culturally etc.
A womaniser, I dunno I think I’d rather her be a bit of a man eater. Think Xenia Onnatop from Goldeneye but for the good guys.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I guess they wanted the designation to fit it in with the existing series of films, I'm just glad they didn't use "Jane Bond"
Again (and I'm banging the drum a bit here) this is what really annoys me about the Carano situation, there was a really strong iconic female Role, they didn't need to retcon a man, they just did it, and they did it without making it feel forced, and the final episode of season 2 (no spoilers as renoog intends to watch it) was the mirror of that ridiculous avengers scene where they did everything wrong with regards to female power...
I'm not that interested in the 007 spinoff, for that reason.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Back on the mandalorian
Turns out Pedro Pascal posted this:
https://images.app.goo.gl/72jdX2oGh5g2T6rK8
Wonder if he’ll get fired also. This is where it gets messy people.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And Disney+ thanked the Chinese government in their credits of Mulan, a country where comparison to the Holocaust is actually totally justified.
They should fire themselves
posted on 12/2/21
Morning renoog.
Loving the code of conduct OP.
I am upping Meds as I type, taking Calms and valium, while being placed into my Hannibal Lectre restraints.
Should be fine.🤹♂️
Page 34 of 6112
35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39