Johnson resigns as Shadow Chancellor

[Yorkshire Blue]

Anyway talking of dodgy appointments, Andy Coulson's jumped.

Being a pro he times his "resignation" so that it's on the day where the War Crimes hearing will be dominating headlines.

 

[steveo]

stop the obscene bonus culture of the city and then maybe we'd all be in this together, because to me it looks like the poor are suffering for the sins of the mega rich.

I was going to reply in the same way as Neil but he did a better job. As he says, would you rather the Government didnt collect this tax?

Also, a lot of these blokes will go and spend a large percentage of this bonus money on luxury items, which again will help boost the economy and encourage employment for the "poor".

I find most people who complain about Bankers Bonus' (and I don't include you in this) are usually jealous.

 

[MK Shrimper]

I was going to reply in the same way as Neil but he did a better job. As he says, would you rather the Government didnt collect this tax?

Also, a lot of these blokes will go and spend a large percentage of this bonus money on luxury items, which again will help boost the economy and encourage employment for the "poor".

I find most people who complain about Bankers Bonus' (and I don't include you in this) are usually jealous.

But you have to admit that these bankers can employ accountants to squirrel away as much of this hard earned dosh from the eyes of the tax man. It's a fact that I pay a bigger percentage of my meagre income out in tax than people like Wayne Rooney or Joe Bloggs Hedge Fund manager regardless of a 50% tax rate or whatever else.

 

[canveyshrimper]

But you have to admit that these bankers can employ accountants to squirrel away as much of this hard earned dosh from the eyes of the tax man. It's a fact that I pay a bigger percentage of my meagre income out in tax than people like Wayne Rooney or Joe Bloggs Hedge Fund manager regardless of a 50% tax rate or whatever else.

Indeed, we've just had 13 years of New Labour it seems that Brown & Darling did the square root of bugger all in closing these loopholes.

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

But you have to admit that these bankers can employ accountants to squirrel away as much of this hard earned dosh from the eyes of the tax man. It's a fact that I pay a bigger percentage of my meagre income out in tax than people like Wayne Rooney or Joe Bloggs Hedge Fund manager regardless of a 50% tax rate or whatever else.

You are right, it is a fact that they can employ accountants (20% VAT) and that these accountants will also pay national insurance and income tax on their own earnings. Even if they escape paying income tax at 50% and decide to splash out on a new car, diamond tiarra or a £200 packet of cigarettes they'll be paying 20% VAT (and possibly additional taxes on top of these).

It's also almost certainly a fact that they work harder than you, contribute more to the public purse than you do and are less of a drain on the public purse than yourself.

But don't let that stop you thinking that they should subisdise you.

 

[Napster]

Anyway talking of dodgy appointments, Andy Coulson's jumped.

Being a pro he times his "resignation" so that it's on the day where the War Crimes hearing will be dominating headlines.

Used to work on the Echo so he did. Piers Moron is defending him - the irony.

 

[MK Shrimper]

Indeed, we've just had 13 years of New Labour it seems that Brown & Darling did the square root of bugger all in closing these loopholes.

Agreed, but they were so far from a socialist Labour party they made Keir Hardie spin in his grave.

It's also almost certainly a fact that they work harder than you, contribute more to the public purse than you do and are less of a drain on the public purse than yourself.

But don't let that stop you thinking that they should subisdise you.

They probably do, but do they work harder that a teacher in an inner city school or a nurse? Or a soldier in Helmand?

And subsiding me? I don't mate, but there's plenty who should be subsidised - such as that poor woman who had to put her disabled daughter into care because she couldn't cope despite Cameron's pre election promises.

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

Agreed, but they were so far from a socialist Labour party they made Keir Hardie spin in his grave.



They probably do, but do they work harder that a teacher in an inner city school or a nurse? Or a soldier in Helmand?

And subsiding me? I don't mate, but there's plenty who should be subsidised - such as that poor woman who had to put her disabled daughter into care because she couldn't cope despite Cameron's pre election promises.

The bankers I know work far harder than the teachers in inner city schools I know (even without factoring in the holidays) and the nurses I know. I don't know enough about the army's working hours when abroad to comment.

They subsidise you because they reduce the contribution you have to make.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

I'd love to hear your reasoning for that particular year.

I'm happy to let history be the judge(and the next GE result).:winking:

 

[canveyshrimper]

Try 1951,1970,1979 and 2010 just to mention a few post war dates.

Maybe your memory has failed you, not sure about 1951. But 1970 the Tories elected in the wake of the devaluation of Sterling in 1967. 1979 in the wake of Healey having to go cap in hand to the IMF, and finally in 2010 the coalition inherits a record deficit even by the normal financial profligacy of Labour.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

Maybe your memory has failed you, not sure about 1951. But 1970 the Tories elected in the wake of the devaluation of Sterling in 1967. 1979 in the wake of Healey having to go cap in hand to the IMF, and finally in 2010 the coalition inherits a record deficit even by the normal financial profligacy of Labour.

Nothing wrong with my memory, thanks.Just your interpretation of modern British history.
In 1951 the Labour Govenment bequeathed the NHS to a grateful nation,amongst a great deal of other monumental, landmark legislation.In 1964 Labour inherited a clapped out, unmodernised economy from Churchill,Macmillan and Home.A Tory Government brought to its knees by a squalid sexual scandal(I can still remember TW3-chortle).In 1974 Heath asked the British public Who Governs?To which the reply was not you mate.
You'll remember before last year's GE there was a worldwide economic and banking crisis which caused many countries(not just the UK) to run up record levels of debt.

 

[osymandus]

You are right, it is a fact that they can employ accountants (20% VAT) and that these accountants will also pay national insurance and income tax on their own earnings. Even if they escape paying income tax at 50% and decide to splash out on a new car, diamond tiarra or a £200 packet of cigarettes they'll be paying 20% VAT (and possibly additional taxes on top of these).

It's also almost certainly a fact that they work harder than you, contribute more to the public purse than you do and are less of a drain on the public purse than yourself.

But don't let that stop you thinking that they should subisdise you.

Forgive me YB but you really haven't read any of the Tax based blogs i posted a little while ago . And Contribution and value to society is dictated by the peer group of the said bankers and economists . No one denies that should someone make a profit but when its at the expense of those others working in an around their employment or directly related to the society they exist in (which they have done for many years , oh and Tax was 17.5% last year btw and the previous years when people had been employing those accounts to squirrel away money with avoidance techniques which are now being closed down).

And I'm sure when you define something as a fact to use the word im certain is perhaps a speculative phrase as facts are well generally by tradition accompanied with some evidence or their just , speculative observations .

Please carry on

 

[Crabby Shrimper]

Nothing wrong with my memory, thanks.Just your interpretation of modern British history.
In 1951 the Labour Govenment bequeathed the NHS to a grateful nation,amongst a great deal of other monumental, landmark legislation.

or your interpretation of the original question? I seem to recall I asked about economy, not general legislation.

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

Nothing wrong with my memory, thanks.Just yourmy interpretation of modern British history.

Corrected for you.

Forgive me YB but you really haven't read any of the Tax based blogs i posted a little while ago . And Contribution and value to society is dictated by the peer group of the said bankers and economists . No one denies that should someone make a profit but when its at the expense of those others working in an around their employment or directly related to the society they exist in (which they have done for many years , oh and Tax was 17.5% last year btw and the previous years when people had been employing those accounts to squirrel away money with avoidance techniques which are now being closed down).

And I'm sure when you define something as a fact to use the word im certain is perhaps a speculative phrase as facts are well generally by tradition accompanied with some evidence or their just , speculative observations .

Please carry on

I did read those tax based blogs; my comments were on the economic contribution not the social contribution - economic contribution being the point MK Shrimper was complaining about; I don't think 17.5% or 20% makes much difference to the principle I was pointing out; and I choose my words with care, qualifying it when I didn't have the evidence to prove it, but suggesting that it was likely to be correct, as MK essentially confirmed that it was.

 

[steveo]

Nothing wrong with my memory, thanks.Just your interpretation of modern British history.
In 1951 the Labour Govenment bequeathed the NHS to a grateful nation,amongst a great deal of other monumental, landmark legislation.In 1964 Labour inherited a clapped out, unmodernised economy from Churchill,Macmillan and Home.A Tory Government brought to its knees by a squalid sexual scandal(I can still remember TW3-chortle).In 1974 Heath asked the British public Who Governs?To which the reply was not you mate.
You'll remember before last year's GE there was a worldwide economic and banking crisis which caused many countries(not just the UK) to run up record levels of debt.

So in summary Barna, all the problems in the last 60 years have been caused by the Conservatives, whilst good old Labour have been called in to sort them out. You missed the late 70’s and 80’s when people prospered, the Country was in good shape, and Maggie had crushed Scargill and his Union henchman and done away with the strike mentality that was ruining the Country.

 

[MK Shrimper]

and I choose my words with care, qualifying it when I didn't have the evidence to prove it, but suggesting that it was likely to be correct, as MK essentially confirmed that it was.

Did I, and is that a good thing? :dizzy:

 

[Neil_F]

They probably do, but do they work harder that a teacher in an inner city school or a nurse? Or a soldier in Helmand?

Earnings are not determined by relative effort; an individual's earnings are determined by the cost to the employer of replacing them with someone of the equivalent standard. An alternative way to look at it is the amount an individual could earn elsewhere. A further way to look at it is basic supply and demand.

This is the reason why some enjoyable or gateway jobs can pay relatively low salaries for a lot of effort. For example, working for an MP is a lot of work for a graduate, especially compared to a lot of graduate jobs, and the pay is a lot less. Wages are low because demand in high for a very limited supply because it is a good access route to a long-term career in politics.

Whether you think an individual deserves it or not is entirely irrelevant as long as someone is prepared to pay it.

 

[osymandus]

Corrected for you.



I did read those tax based blogs; my comments were on the economic contribution not the social contribution - economic contribution being the point MK Shrimper was complaining about; I don't think 17.5% or 20% makes much difference to the principle I was pointing out; and I choose my words with care, qualifying it when I didn't have the evidence to prove it, but suggesting that it was likely to be correct, as MK essentially confirmed that it was.

There appeared to be much inference on the figure if it had little relevance to your point ;). While you may have though that it came across as an authoritativeness statement of fact . And unless we want to do a time and motion or profit based study on MK or say a hedge fund trader and their contributions to society as a whole (collection of resources personally I find is not always a good representation of worththis example Squirrels horde and gather (and having worked with traders over my 11 years in the city some are only slightly more intelligent)). I suppose to befiar we are influenced greatly from birth that acquisitions of wealth appears to have a direct correlation to status and value to society , yet we seem to fall short on the valuing of the methods themselves.

I think its about time we realised that Economic wealth and its procurement are not separate from social worth or impacts.

 

[osymandus]

Earnings are not determined by relative effort; an individual's earnings are determined by the cost to the employer of replacing them with someone of the equivalent standard. An alternative way to look at it is the amount an individual could earn elsewhere. A further way to look at it is basic supply and demand.

This is the reason why some enjoyable or gateway jobs can pay relatively low salaries for a lot of effort. For example, working for an MP is a lot of work for a graduate, especially compared to a lot of graduate jobs, and the pay is a lot less. Wages are low because demand in high for a very limited supply because it is a good access route to a long-term career in politics.

Whether you think an individual deserves it or not is entirely irrelevant as long as someone is prepared to pay it.

And because a demand exists for a service/product its method of production should not be scrutinised ?

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

or your interpretation of the original question? I seem to recall I asked about economy, not general legislation.

My reply, which you quoted, was to CS and not in answer to your original question.Do try and keep up.:whistling: