Retrobike Forum Index

It is currently Sat Dec 10, 2016 10:14 am

* Login   * Register * Search  * FAQ



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 29 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Beer economics...
PostPosted: Sat Mar 16, 2013 9:23 pm 
North Wales AEC / OWMTBC 2010 Champion
North Wales AEC / OWMTBC 2010 Champion
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 11, 2008 10:13 pm
Posts: 6066
Location: Chester
Neil wrote:
Easy_Rider wrote:
gtRTSdh wrote:
I get the point, but how deos the wealth of the 10 men actually relate in reality?

Very few of us are net tax contributes. That means even though we may not get direct benefits we still use services such as schools, hospital, roads etc etc. That means if we had to pay for everything directly but didn't pay any tax, very few of us would actually pay less than our current tax bill. So it takes large corporation taxes and rich top tax band people to balance the books (or not balance as we currently do)
This article explains it a bit better
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news ... state.html
I don't recall what the percentages are.

There's a big fallacy of the occluded middle in all of that - and big liberties being taking and assumed in the arguments made.

Probably the biggest number of higher rate taxpayers are nothing like mega rich - look at the top incomes in that table.

Going off an average month of direct taxation deductions in PAYE an NI, I've worked out my payments in direct taxation over 12 months are a few hundred shy of 20k - and whilst I'm probably a ways away from minimum wage, I'm hardly highly paid, nor mega rich. That's before you get to indirect taxation I'm paying, and in many cases, VAT on top of that. Are these articles considering any of that? The indirect taxation that probably cuts a lot harder at the lower end.

The people who you'd truly think of buggering off because of too much direct personal taxation are probably likely to be earning in the millions, and probably have mucho assistance by reasonably well paid accountants to minimise how much of their "income" actual goes to the tax-man. Something I very much expect is either not cost effective for, or they do not have the luxury of, for the occluded middle.

The reality is, it's rare, really, to see the super-rich directly affected by personal taxation - it tends to be Mr Average, in suburbia that takes the hit - after all, that's probably where the numbers are, in personal taxation.


Sounds like you are in the 5th quintile of the household income split according to the article I posted so you would be a be contributer by far.

I don't think it's talking about the mega rich at all, simply only 40% of households are net contributors. That is those with a household income above £35,500.


Attachments:
image.jpg
image.jpg [ 120.06 KiB | Viewed 147 times ]
image.jpg
image.jpg [ 59.58 KiB | Viewed 147 times ]
Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Beer economics...
PostPosted: Sat Mar 16, 2013 9:40 pm 
Special Retro Guru
Special Retro Guru
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 29, 2008 11:34 am
Posts: 5663
Location: Don't mess with monkeys, man
Thing is - the initial "tale" plus your post in support of it, and citing this argument, was conflating higher-rate taxpayers, with the "rich" and suggesting a certain degree of keeping them sweet, else they'd bugger off elsewhere.

But that is detached from reality. The true reality is, it's middle-England footing the tax bill, not the mega rich.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Beer economics...
PostPosted: Sat Mar 16, 2013 10:01 pm 
North Wales AEC / OWMTBC 2010 Champion
North Wales AEC / OWMTBC 2010 Champion
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 11, 2008 10:13 pm
Posts: 6066
Location: Chester
Like I said its the trend that's worrying, if the "middle" are now only a 2.7% net contributor now then the balance must have shifted somewhere, becauses taxes certainly haven't decreased then I believe its because the cost of services has increased quite significantly. A simple analogy would be the cost per head of a child in school has far outstripped inflation over the last two decades probably because teachers salaries have increased a lot, increased in insurance, energy, technology, h&s etc have all made it more expensive to educate a child now.

The reason I liked the original post is because it showed less than half paid the actual cost of the pint, the rest paid less, just like a net contributors or not in our society. Where the line falls is debatable for sure but I think more households are receivers than those households may believe.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Beer economics...
PostPosted: Sat Mar 16, 2013 10:05 pm 
aka Leo Swayer
aka Leo Swayer
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 18, 2008 7:15 pm
Posts: 6365
Location: Wales.UK
Neil wrote:
Thing is - the initial "tale" plus your post in support of it, and citing this argument, was conflating higher-rate taxpayers, with the "rich" and suggesting a certain degree of keeping them sweet, else they'd bugger off elsewhere.

But that is detached from reality. The true reality is, it's middle-England footing the tax bill, not the mega rich.


You make my point much better than i do :lol: :lol: :lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Beer economics...
PostPosted: Sat Mar 16, 2013 10:06 pm 
Special Retro Guru
Special Retro Guru
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 29, 2008 11:34 am
Posts: 5663
Location: Don't mess with monkeys, man
Easy_Rider wrote:
Like I said its the trend that's worrying, if the "middle" are now only a 2.7% net contributor now then the balance must have shifted somewhere, becauses taxes certainly haven't decreased then I believe its because the cost of services has increased quite significantly. A simple analogy would be the cost per head of a child in school has far outstripped inflation over the last two decades probably because teachers salaries have increased a lot, increased in insurance, energy, technology, h&s etc have all made it more expensive to educate a child now.

The reason I liked the original post is because it showed less than half paid the actual cost of the pint, the rest paid less, just like a net contributors or not in our society. Where the line falls is debatable for sure but I think more households are receivers than those households may believe.

No doubt there are some groups in society who don't have that accurate picture of whether they are net contributor, or not - but all the same - the "middle" is occluded. There's no real talk about the rich, or their tax scenario, just the natural limits for "normal" earners, and their tax scenario.

In short, it very much doesn't relate to the conclusion postulated in the initial "tale". And I'm really not buying into the almost consequential area your proposition is taking us too - voodoo economics.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Beer economics...
PostPosted: Sat Mar 16, 2013 10:26 pm 
North Wales AEC / OWMTBC 2010 Champion
North Wales AEC / OWMTBC 2010 Champion
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 11, 2008 10:13 pm
Posts: 6066
Location: Chester
Ok here is some basic economics. Again this is just some quick Internet research and I haven't taken into account any indirect tax which would be quite significant.

Average cost of educating one child in a state school as far as I can find out is £9000/yr
To pay £9000 is tax and NI one must earn £40,000, so that just covers one child and no other services. £40,000 happens to be the average household income.
Like I said that's very basic just to make a point, I know there is council tax, VAT etc I really don't have the inclination to put together a detailed point, but just want to point out when a service is used it does cost a lot.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Beer economics...
PostPosted: Sat Mar 16, 2013 11:02 pm 
Special Retro Guru
Special Retro Guru
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 29, 2008 11:34 am
Posts: 5663
Location: Don't mess with monkeys, man
Easy_Rider wrote:
Ok here is some basic economics. Again this is just some quick Internet research and I haven't taken into account any indirect tax which would be quite significant.

Average cost of educating one child in a state school as far as I can find out is £9000/yr
To pay £9000 is tax and NI one must earn £40,000, so that just covers one child and no other services. £40,000 happens to be the average household income.
Like I said that's very basic just to make a point, I know there is council tax, VAT etc I really don't have the inclination to put together a detailed point, but just want to point out when a service is used it does cost a lot.

I get what you want to point out.

Thing is, that has digressed quite a bit with the point being made by the "tale" which is what you supported with, in agreement, and cited your argument - which is where I came in.

I get, for a lot of people, what they pay in what many assume they are paying in taxation (funny how much of that has slid from visibility in recent decades, though, ain't it - almost as if it's not un-coincidental...) may not seem that different to what they are putting in - perhaps even worse.

All the same - the suggestion that all of this hits the rich worst - which is where the thread came in with accusations and suggestions about what the rich would tolerate, is worlds apart.

NONE of what we've been discussing, either in the thread, or in the tables and commentary, has actually been focused on the rich - just the trite platitudes that society should be grateful for their continuing forbearance - which was the conclusion of the original post.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Beer economics...
PostPosted: Sat Mar 16, 2013 11:07 pm 
North Wales AEC / OWMTBC 2010 Champion
North Wales AEC / OWMTBC 2010 Champion
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 11, 2008 10:13 pm
Posts: 6066
Location: Chester
Yes it does tie into the original post. The cost of the pint was £10, only the 8th, 9th and 10th men paid £10 or more and so covering their costs.
Much the same way only 40% of society are net contributors.
I liked the analogy because fewer people were contributors than receivers.

Just to add, someone on a £1,000,000 salary will pay £460,000 tax a year and they would probably have private health care and private schooling for their children so not burdening the state much. It will take the average household of £40,000 income 50 years to contribute the same tax, (not taking into account any benefits).


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Beer economics...
PostPosted: Sun Mar 17, 2013 12:03 am 
Special Retro Guru
Special Retro Guru
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 29, 2008 11:34 am
Posts: 5663
Location: Don't mess with monkeys, man
Easy_Rider wrote:
Yes it does tie into the original post. The cost of the pint was £10, only the 8th, 9th and 10th men paid £10 or more and so covering their costs.
Much the same way only 40% of society are net contributors.
I liked the analogy because fewer people were contributors than receivers.

The analogy failed - because the assumption / conclusion was that the 10th guy will just take his ball home.

The reality is, there's a whole swathe of middle England paying that 40%.
Easy_Rider wrote:
Just to add, someone on a £1,000,000 salary will pay £460,000 tax a year and they would probably have private health care and private schooling for their children so not burdening the state much. It will take the average household of £40,000 income 50 years to contribute the same tax, (not taking into account any benefits).

So you suspect the people really propping up the tax bucket, out of personal taxation, are the 1 mil + earners?

How many of those earning in the 100s of thousands, to millions, would you imagine, are simply paying taxation like the plebs, as PAYE?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Beer economics...
PostPosted: Sun Mar 17, 2013 12:34 am 
North Wales AEC / OWMTBC 2010 Champion
North Wales AEC / OWMTBC 2010 Champion
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 11, 2008 10:13 pm
Posts: 6066
Location: Chester
Jeez Neil, did I say they were propping anything up? Yes there are over 11,000 people earning £1million or a lot more, i would be interested to know just how much they did contribute as a percentage of total revenues but i think you're just making an argument for yourself to try to say I think they are propping the system up.

My point is there are fewer net contributors than receivers, and some may be surprised to learn they are not net contributors despite earning a good income and not claiming benefits, it's a point of interest. That is all, thank you and good night.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 29 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Adruzzz and 14 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

About Us

Follow Retrobike

Other cool stuff

All content © 2005-2015 Retrobike unless otherwise stated.
Cookies Policy.
bikedeals - the best bike deals in one place
FatCOGS - Fat Chance Owner's Group

Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group