Britain's Tax Con

I am neither left wing or right wing, I consider myself to be a centrist who is currently politically homeless.

Nobody will agree with any one poster on everything on N & P threads.

😬
Wow you really are bothered.
Just by posters who read your unclear message and said so.
And have every right to say so I may add.
Let it go.

Oreo

Ok so your feathers are ruffled Varian just move on hey?

What rubbish!

Just try not to assume that "most people" agree with you.

Unless you have evidence that they do - it is likely that they don't

Ok so your feathers are ruffled Varian just move on hey?

There may even be some people who claim to be left wing who assume that their opinion is shared by "most people"

Perhaps because they too are surrounded by people who agree. How often do we hear from the extremes of left or right that they speak for "most people"?

Have you ever seen "surveys" by the Daily Express which claim that "most people£ who responded to the survey agree with whatever opinion the Daily Express is trying to promote? When you read the small print you find that the survey did not sample the general population, it sampled readers of the Daily Express.

varian

Oreo

Dinahmo

Germanshepherdsmum

It seems she thought that if you earn above £50,284 you pay 2% NIC on your total income.

Strnge. Varian's post was quite clear to me.

No it wasn’t clear at all, it simply read that those earning over
£50,284 were only paying 2%.
That’s how it reads to most people.

It is a common assumption made by rightwingers that they speak for "most people" with no evidence whatsoever of that being true!

Since I’m a left winger that makes a nonsense of your claim.
Your comment about taxation wasn’t clear at all, take the shame girl😂

😊

Thank you

Thank you for clarifying varian. My apologies for misunderstanding your post.

Just so that nobody else is blamed, I reported your disgraceful attacks on me DAR. I will not sit by and tolerate such appalling rudeness, nor will I give your posts the dignity of a response.

Message deleted by Gransnet. Quotes a deleted post.

GrannyGravy13

DaisyAnneReturns I hope you are not including me in your rather rude rant directed at who you perceive to be right wing posters (which you are appearing to use as an insult)

My post just clarified Varian’s NI information.

I understood what varian meant but not everyone might have done. I am not questioning varian's capability as a writer at all, just that it needed some clarification, so don't try to make out that I was, DAR.

People of all political persuasions or not may have misunderstood.

DaisyAnneReturns I hope you are not including me in your rather rude rant directed at who you perceive to be right wing posters (which you are appearing to use as an insult)

My post just clarified Varian’s NI information.

Message deleted by Gransnet. Here's a link to our Talk guidelines.

Oh goodness, there was no need for that DNR 😲

varian knew what she meant, but it wasn't clearly written and could have been made plainer for anyone who might not have known.
Pointing out that fact does not signify any political allegiance.

Message deleted by Gransnet. Here's a link to our Talk guidelines.

Katie59

MaizieD

For decades in the UK the spending has NOT resulted in even an equal return so our national debt has increased AND the value of sterling has fallen. In the last 20 yrs the National debt has risen from 50% to over 100% of GDP spending has clearly not been rewarded by taxation

Are you talking about the National Debt, or the Deficit, Katie59?. They are not the same thing.

As I was comparing the yearly figures I should have used Deficit

I fell for the red herring

The National debt was 50%of GDP 20yrs ago, over 100% now
There was no annual deficit then there was a small surplus.

MaizieD

^For decades in the UK the spending has NOT resulted in even an equal return so our national debt has increased AND the value of sterling has fallen. In the last 20 yrs the National debt has risen from 50% to over 100% of GDP spending has clearly not been rewarded by taxation^

Are you talking about the National Debt, or the Deficit, Katie59?. They are not the same thing.

As I was comparing the yearly figures I should have used Deficit

Just like those earning over £52k pay tax at 40% they don’t, they pay tax at 20% up to 52k, then 40 or 45% loosing their personal allowance at higher levels as well.

For decades in the UK the spending has NOT resulted in even an equal return so our national debt has increased AND the value of sterling has fallen. In the last 20 yrs the National debt has risen from 50% to over 100% of GDP spending has clearly not been rewarded by taxation

Are you talking about the National Debt, or the Deficit, Katie59?. They are not the same thing.

Oreo

Dinahmo

Germanshepherdsmum

It seems she thought that if you earn above £50,284 you pay 2% NIC on your total income.

Strnge. Varian's post was quite clear to me.

No it wasn’t clear at all, it simply read that those earning over
£50,284 were only paying 2%.
That’s how it reads to most people.

It is a common assumption made by rightwingers that they speak for "most people" with no evidence whatsoever of that being true!

“Taxation doesn't fund spending; taxation follows spending. This is proven by research.”

In theory yes, it holds true if the spending is for growth, it’s simple logic, invest to provide more income for the future, all businesses do it providing jobs and pay taxes along the way.

Where it falls down is when spending is for social maintenence or improvement, health, education, benefits, environment, etc because the only payback is taxation of income of workers, in the UK there is no product to tax.

For decades in the UK the spending has NOT resulted in even an equal return so our national debt has increased AND the value of sterling has fallen. In the last 20 yrs the National debt has risen from 50% to over 100% of GDP spending has clearly not been rewarded by taxation

Germanshepherdsmum

Will we get an acknowledgment from varian of her error? If only I had paid so little NIC! People read something, totally misunderstand it and rant to others, who then believe them and spread the misinformation.

I asked whether a higher, not lower, charge should be paid o EXCESS earnings.*GSM*. Note the word excess. Of course I am aware that the 12% charge is applied up to the limit but why should it not at least continue at the same rate?

So Oreo and I are the entitled right because we interpret a post in a particular way? How unpleasant. The word ‘above’ was not emphasised as you have done. Your emphasis twists the original post to read the way you wish it to read. ‘Only’ was written in capitals. It remains very clear to me that the poster believed that at a certain level of earnings your entire NIC contribution was assessed at 2%.
You never miss an opportunity do you?

if of