Viking Supporters Co-operative
Viking Chat => Off Topic => Topic started by: wilts rover on February 09, 2024, 07:37:18 pm
-
With the news today that Sunak payed a lower rate of tax on the £2.2 million he gained in wealth last year than a nurse would pay, is it surprising that Britain has:
the dirtiest rivers in Europe
the most expensive energy in Europe
the least reliable trains in Europe
the most overcrowded trains in Europe
the widest gap between rich and poor in Europe
and are these things related?
-
How many NHS nurses pay 45% rate on income tax?
I haven’t heard anyone, or read anything, saying whether his profit from the Investment Fund was subject to CGT or Income Tax.
-
Wilts your havin a larf if you think we have the worst trains in Europe try Germany for a start!
-
Wilts your havin a larf if you think we have the worst trains in Europe try Germany for a start!
I'd like to see evidence of all those claims, but then again it's probably just Wilts being............................................... Well, Wilts.
-
8.30am train out of Berlin this morning:
-
One thing about Wilts, you can always get a bit of escapism from the real world with his outrageous takes on the truth.
-
If you are challenging what wilts has written, the onus is on yourself to provide the evidence he is incorrect I would have thought.
-
If you are challenging what wilts has written, the onus is on yourself to provide the evidence he is incorrect I would have thought.
wow if someone posts they are going for a shit you want proof, ive heard it all now lol
-
If you are challenging what wilts has written, the onus is on yourself to provide the evidence he is incorrect I would have thought.
wow if someone posts they are going for a shit you want proof, ive heard it all now lol
I can always tell when you are having a shit bp
-
If you are challenging what wilts has written, the onus is on yourself to provide the evidence he is incorrect I would have thought.
wow if someone posts they are going for a shit you want proof, ive heard it all now lol
I can always tell when you are having a shit bp
At least his comes out at the right end.
-
Glad to know you're watching bb
-
How many NHS nurses pay 45% rate on income tax?
I haven’t heard anyone, or read anything, saying whether his profit from the Investment Fund was subject to CGT or Income Tax.
Sunak paid 23%
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/feb/09/rishi-sunak-paid-effective-tax-rate-of-23-on-22m-income-last-year
-
Sunak's wife paid 0.27% on her £11.2 million. And you would vote for these shameless out of touch thieves - effectively gangsters.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/apr/07/rishi-sunaks-wife-says-its-not-relevant-to-say-where-she-pays-tax-overseas
-
How many NHS nurses pay 45% rate on income tax?
I haven’t heard anyone, or read anything, saying whether his profit from the Investment Fund was subject to CGT or Income Tax.
Sunak paid 23%
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/feb/09/rishi-sunak-paid-effective-tax-rate-of-23-on-22m-income-last-year
Yes I know.
The OP suggests he paid less tax than a nurse would pay.
I bet most of them only pay 20%.
As the next tax rate up is 45% I suggested that not many nurses pay that rate.
-
Fair enough. Splitting hairs aside, Sunak and his wife paying about 500k tax on £13.5 million income is THE national scandal of our time. "legal" is not the issue, obviously.
-
They won’t be the only people who have got away with stuff like that though.
People have financial advisors and accountants to help them reduce their tax liabilities.
Because a Sunak is a Tory he will have opposition people scouring around for every bit of dirt they can find.
Other people will get off lightly as there is no political gain for calling them out.
Which tax did Sunak and his wife pay, was it CGT.
-
Can't recall the taxes they paid. Partly is by paying it abroad at the cheapest poss rates, and all legal. But loop holes etc arent good. And he is PM, that is the very very significant difference.
-
How many NHS nurses pay 45% rate on income tax?
I haven’t heard anyone, or read anything, saying whether his profit from the Investment Fund was subject to CGT or Income Tax.
Sunak paid 23%
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/feb/09/rishi-sunak-paid-effective-tax-rate-of-23-on-22m-income-last-year
Yes I know.
The OP suggests he paid less tax than a nurse would pay.
I bet most of them only pay 20%.
As the next tax rate up is 45% I suggested that not many nurses pay that rate.
The OP didn't suggest anything. He wrote:
With the news today that Sunak payed a lower rate of tax on the £2.2 million he gained in wealth last year than a nurse would pay,
I would have thought that it was fairly clear the OP is discussing the 'news today that Sunak payed a lower rate of tax on the £2.2 million he gained in wealth last year' and just 'the news today that Sunak payed a lower rate of tax on the £2.2 million he gained in wealth last year'. Not sure how it could be any clearer - but some people like to be disingenous and diversionary to get away from the story and attack the poster. But here it is anyway:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/feb/09/rishi-sunak-paid-effective-tax-rate-of-23-on-22m-income-last-year
https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/sunak-tax-return-earnings-us-2899859
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68253857
He didn't pay any income tax on this money - just capital gains tax. So it is surely a coinicidence that since he has been in government he has raised income tax and cut capital gains tax.
But you will just make something else up rather than quote me accurately and contribute to a discussion about the story.
-
Rishi Sunak paid 23% on £2.2m income last year, which amounted to £508,000.
Over a lifetime, an average household will pay £479,430 in income tax.
The 10% of income taxpayers with the largest incomes contribute over 60% of income tax.
Rishi Sunak paid more tax last year than an average earner pays in a lifetime.
-
On tv this morning:
#TrevorPhillips: Rishi Sunak paid a headline rate of 23% on his £2.2m earnings... less proportionately than a nurse pays... the optics are awful?
Michael Gove: "People will make a judgment... we reduced national insurance.."
https://twitter.com/Haggis_UK/status/1756602875625496577
-
Rishi Sunak paid 23% on £2.2m income last year, which amounted to £508,000.
Over a lifetime, an average household will pay £479,430 in income tax.
The 10% of income taxpayers with the largest incomes contribute over 60% of income tax.
Rishi Sunak paid more tax last year than an average earner pays in a lifetime.
Then this is good reason to increase the pay of those at the base so they contribute.
-
How many NHS nurses pay 45% rate on income tax?
I haven’t heard anyone, or read anything, saying whether his profit from the Investment Fund was subject to CGT or Income Tax.
Sunak paid 23%
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/feb/09/rishi-sunak-paid-effective-tax-rate-of-23-on-22m-income-last-year
Yes I know.
The OP suggests he paid less tax than a nurse would pay.
I bet most of them only pay 20%.
As the next tax rate up is 45% I suggested that not many nurses pay that rate.
The OP didn't suggest anything. He wrote:
With the news today that Sunak payed a lower rate of tax on the £2.2 million he gained in wealth last year than a nurse would pay,
I would have thought that it was fairly clear the OP is discussing the 'news today that Sunak payed a lower rate of tax on the £2.2 million he gained in wealth last year' and just 'the news today that Sunak payed a lower rate of tax on the £2.2 million he gained in wealth last year'. Not sure how it could be any clearer - but some people like to be disingenous and diversionary to get away from the story and attack the poster. But here it is anyway:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/feb/09/rishi-sunak-paid-effective-tax-rate-of-23-on-22m-income-last-year
https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/sunak-tax-return-earnings-us-2899859
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68253857
He didn't pay any income tax on this money - just capital gains tax. So it is surely a coinicidence that since he has been in government he has raised income tax and cut capital gains tax.
But you will just make something else up rather than quote me accurately and contribute to a discussion about the story.
Wilts, it is clear what you wrote.
Let’s cut down that sentence.
“Sunak payed ( should be paid by the way) a lower rate of tax on the £2.2m than a nurse would pay.”
Given that he (apparently) paid 23% tax I think it is fair to say that most nurses would only pay tax at the 20% basic rate so in fact he paid tax a a higher rate than (most) nurses would pay.
I have made a fair and valid contribution to the story and you are simply annoyed that i pointed out that your OP wasn’t accurate.
You are now bringing the words “less proportionately” into the equation which is a totally different mindset.
-
Rishi Sunak paid 23% on £2.2m income last year, which amounted to £508,000.
Over a lifetime, an average household will pay £479,430 in income tax.
The 10% of income taxpayers with the largest incomes contribute over 60% of income tax.
Rishi Sunak paid more tax last year than an average earner pays in a lifetime.
Then this is good reason to increase the pay of those at the base so they contribute.
And those at the base pay around three times as much of their income in indirect taxes.
''Measured relative to household income, those with lower incomes pay more in indirect taxes (VAT, duties and so forth). Measured relative to household spending, there is little variation in indirect taxes across the income distribution''
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-8513/
-
Rishi Sunak paid 23% on £2.2m income last year, which amounted to £508,000.
Over a lifetime, an average household will pay £479,430 in income tax.
The 10% of income taxpayers with the largest incomes contribute over 60% of income tax.
Rishi Sunak paid more tax last year than an average earner pays in a lifetime.
Then this is good reason to increase the pay of those at the base so they contribute.
And those at the base pay around three times as much of their income in indirect taxes.
''Measured relative to household income, those with lower incomes pay more in indirect taxes (VAT, duties and so forth). Measured relative to household spending, there is little variation in indirect taxes across the income distribution''
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-8513/
I would think that information would be commonly acknowledged by most people Sydney.
I’m not sure it is in any way surprising.
-
Rishi Sunak paid 23% on £2.2m income last year, which amounted to £508,000.
Over a lifetime, an average household will pay £479,430 in income tax.
The 10% of income taxpayers with the largest incomes contribute over 60% of income tax.
Rishi Sunak paid more tax last year than an average earner pays in a lifetime.
Then this is good reason to increase the pay of those at the base so they contribute.
And those at the base pay around three times as much of their income in indirect taxes.
''Measured relative to household income, those with lower incomes pay more in indirect taxes (VAT, duties and so forth). Measured relative to household spending, there is little variation in indirect taxes across the income distribution''
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-8513/
Indirect tax and its effect on the poor is just a fact of life in many countries, not just the UK. We are discussing income tax.
-
Ill pass your sentiments on to the hoi polloi
-
Rishi Sunak paid 23% on £2.2m income last year, which amounted to £508,000.
Over a lifetime, an average household will pay £479,430 in income tax.
The 10% of income taxpayers with the largest incomes contribute over 60% of income tax.
Rishi Sunak paid more tax last year than an average earner pays in a lifetime.
Then this is good reason to increase the pay of those at the base so they contribute.
And those at the base pay around three times as much of their income in indirect taxes.
''Measured relative to household income, those with lower incomes pay more in indirect taxes (VAT, duties and so forth). Measured relative to household spending, there is little variation in indirect taxes across the income distribution''
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-8513/
Indirect tax and its effect on the poor is just a fact of life in many countries, not just the UK. We are discussing income tax.
Look again bb, the op put all sorts up for discussion, namely the tory party but trains, energy and the diff between rich and poor.
Which is where my comment fits in, it shows why those earning the most should pay the most personal tax to make up for the fact that those at the base pay more indirect tax and a lot shell out all their earnings eking out a living, evidenced by the uptick in food banks and their patrons.
-
Rishi Sunak paid 23% on £2.2m income last year, which amounted to £508,000.
Over a lifetime, an average household will pay £479,430 in income tax.
The 10% of income taxpayers with the largest incomes contribute over 60% of income tax.
Rishi Sunak paid more tax last year than an average earner pays in a lifetime.
Then this is good reason to increase the pay of those at the base so they contribute.
And those at the base pay around three times as much of their income in indirect taxes.
''Measured relative to household income, those with lower incomes pay more in indirect taxes (VAT, duties and so forth). Measured relative to household spending, there is little variation in indirect taxes across the income distribution''
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-8513/
Indirect tax and its effect on the poor is just a fact of life in many countries, not just the UK. We are discussing income tax.
Look again bb, the op put all sorts up for discussion, namely the tory party but trains, energy and the diff between rich and poor.
Which is where my comment fits in, it shows why those earning the most should pay the most personal tax to make up for the fact that those at the base pay more indirect tax and a lot shell out all their earnings eking out a living, evidenced by the uptick in food banks and their patrons.
Jeez. Those earning the most do pay the most personal tax.
What you really mean is that those earning the most should pay even more tax.
Remember the so called brain drain.
-
https://ifs.org.uk/taxlab/taxlab-taxes-explained/income-tax-explained#:~:text=The%20top%2010%25%20of%20taxpayers,10%20years%20of%20that%20period.
That link gives you loads of stats and debunks a lot of the myths some are staying here.
Interesting where I am at the minute the government pushes development in this area by offering huge tax breaks to get investment and it is working from them.
-
https://ifs.org.uk/taxlab/taxlab-taxes-explained/income-tax-explained#:~:text=The%20top%2010%25%20of%20taxpayers,10%20years%20of%20that%20period.
That link gives you loads of stats and debunks a lot of the myths some are staying here.
Interesting where I am at the minute the government pushes development in this area by offering huge tax breaks to get investment and it is working from them.
But still promoting tax cuts instead of investing public money themselves?
Pud, which do you think would be best for the country, money invested for growth or tax cuts?
-
Rishi Sunak paid 23% on £2.2m income last year, which amounted to £508,000.
Over a lifetime, an average household will pay £479,430 in income tax.
The 10% of income taxpayers with the largest incomes contribute over 60% of income tax.
Rishi Sunak paid more tax last year than an average earner pays in a lifetime.
Then this is good reason to increase the pay of those at the base so they contribute.
And those at the base pay around three times as much of their income in indirect taxes.
''Measured relative to household income, those with lower incomes pay more in indirect taxes (VAT, duties and so forth). Measured relative to household spending, there is little variation in indirect taxes across the income distribution''
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-8513/
Indirect tax and its effect on the poor is just a fact of life in many countries, not just the UK. We are discussing income tax.
Look again bb, the op put all sorts up for discussion, namely the tory party but trains, energy and the diff between rich and poor.
Which is where my comment fits in, it shows why those earning the most should pay the most personal tax to make up for the fact that those at the base pay more indirect tax and a lot shell out all their earnings eking out a living, evidenced by the uptick in food banks and their patrons.
But I was talking about income tax. You replied to it with a comment about indirect tax, changing direction probably because you couldn't find anything to argue about in it.
-
https://goodlawproject.org/update/the-letter-the-tories-didnt-want-us-to-publish-here-it-is/?fbclid=IwAR2ri8r3CvYhAC40PAiRWk-JgkULG3ZSVTPp0oJmyPjbv9aWW1dZkadFQnM
-
https://ifs.org.uk/taxlab/taxlab-taxes-explained/income-tax-explained#:~:text=The%20top%2010%25%20of%20taxpayers,10%20years%20of%20that%20period.
That link gives you loads of stats and debunks a lot of the myths some are staying here.
Interesting where I am at the minute the government pushes development in this area by offering huge tax breaks to get investment and it is working from them.
But still promoting tax cuts instead of investing public money themselves?
Pud, which do you think would be best for the country, money invested for growth or tax cuts?
Easy, both.
-
https://ifs.org.uk/taxlab/taxlab-taxes-explained/income-tax-explained#:~:text=The%20top%2010%25%20of%20taxpayers,10%20years%20of%20that%20period.
That link gives you loads of stats and debunks a lot of the myths some are staying here.
Interesting where I am at the minute the government pushes development in this area by offering huge tax breaks to get investment and it is working from them.
But still promoting tax cuts instead of investing public money themselves?
Pud, which do you think would be best for the country, money invested for growth or tax cuts?
Easy, both.
By definition, that requires additional borrowing. In a phase where interest rates are likely to stay high.
-
Billy, interest rates are not historically high, the amount borrowed is not the interest rates.
-
Rishi Sunak paid 23% on £2.2m income last year, which amounted to £508,000.
Over a lifetime, an average household will pay £479,430 in income tax.
The 10% of income taxpayers with the largest incomes contribute over 60% of income tax.
Rishi Sunak paid more tax last year than an average earner pays in a lifetime.
What do you think the purpose of income tax is? Redistribution within a loaded system.... perhaps? Sunak is abusing the system. Legality has nothing to do with it. Loopholes are for the very wealthy. Sunak is a perfect example of an establishment thief, his wife more so.
Backing that is messed up BB.
-
Rishi Sunak paid 23% on £2.2m income last year, which amounted to £508,000.
Over a lifetime, an average household will pay £479,430 in income tax.
The 10% of income taxpayers with the largest incomes contribute over 60% of income tax.
Rishi Sunak paid more tax last year than an average earner pays in a lifetime.
What do you think the purpose of income tax is? Redistribution within a loaded system.... perhaps? Sunak is abusing the system. Legality has nothing to do with it. Loopholes are for the very wealthy. Sunak is a perfect example of an establishment thief, his wife more so.
Backing that is messed up BB.
Don't vote for the Tories then. Just sit back and watch Starmer put an end to all that "establishment thieving."
-
Rishi Sunak paid 23% on £2.2m income last year, which amounted to £508,000.
Over a lifetime, an average household will pay £479,430 in income tax.
The 10% of income taxpayers with the largest incomes contribute over 60% of income tax.
Rishi Sunak paid more tax last year than an average earner pays in a lifetime.
What do you think the purpose of income tax is? Redistribution within a loaded system.... perhaps? Sunak is abusing the system. Legality has nothing to do with it. Loopholes are for the very wealthy. Sunak is a perfect example of an establishment thief, his wife more so.
Backing that is messed up BB.
Not all loopholes are for the very wealthy though are they.
A business owner can choose to pay himself a lower salary to keep his income tax liability down then reward himself with a dividend payment which attracts tax of 8.75% for a 20% taxpayer and a rate of 33.75% for a higher rate tax payer.
You wouldn’t have to be VERY wealthy to do that.
-
https://ifs.org.uk/taxlab/taxlab-taxes-explained/income-tax-explained#:~:text=The%20top%2010%25%20of%20taxpayers,10%20years%20of%20that%20period.
That link gives you loads of stats and debunks a lot of the myths some are staying here.
Interesting where I am at the minute the government pushes development in this area by offering huge tax breaks to get investment and it is working from them.
But still promoting tax cuts instead of investing public money themselves?
Pud, which do you think would be best for the country, money invested for growth or tax cuts?
Easy, both.
why, pud?
-
Rishi Sunak paid 23% on £2.2m income last year, which amounted to £508,000.
Over a lifetime, an average household will pay £479,430 in income tax.
The 10% of income taxpayers with the largest incomes contribute over 60% of income tax.
Rishi Sunak paid more tax last year than an average earner pays in a lifetime.
What do you think the purpose of income tax is? Redistribution within a loaded system.... perhaps? Sunak is abusing the system. Legality has nothing to do with it. Loopholes are for the very wealthy. Sunak is a perfect example of an establishment thief, his wife more so.
Backing that is messed up BB.
Don't vote for the Tories then. Just sit back and watch Starmer put an end to all that "establishment thieving."
BB - my point was about our PM plus wife scamming out of paying tax, huge amounts. You weirdly deflect away from this, most weirdly above. I guess you're in his, and hos likes, pocket for some weird reason - ambition from the gutter. Something Tom Waites might write about, but not in a positive light.
Hound - yes that's true. Still a scam if it's simply a way of avoiding paying tax - I might not underdstand the ins and outs. But same point, Sunak is a thieving twonk, just like those multinationals who do the same and deprive poorer nations out of tax revenue. Scum, but maybe you approve?
-
You say Sunak's a thieving twonk while hiding in an off-topic 4th division football forum. Show some courage in your conviction and take him to court. Why not get your local Labour MP to do it for you?
I avoid paying taxes, I imagine most people do. That's what Financial advisors and accountants are for.
-
You say Sunak's a thieving twonk while hiding in an off-topic 4th division football forum. Show some courage in your conviction and take him to court. Why not get your local Labour MP to do it for you?
I avoid paying taxes, I imagine most people do. That's what Financial advisors and accountants are for.
What about the buy british, invest at home, british homes for britishers, little britain position, doesn't that count so soon after brexit?
-
What about it?
-
where does sunak have his investments?
-
Rishi Sunak paid 23% on £2.2m income last year, which amounted to £508,000.
Over a lifetime, an average household will pay £479,430 in income tax.
The 10% of income taxpayers with the largest incomes contribute over 60% of income tax.
Rishi Sunak paid more tax last year than an average earner pays in a lifetime.
He also earned around 4x more in that single year than the average earner makes in a lifetime.
-
where does sunak have his investments?
Where does Starmer have his investments?
-
https://ifs.org.uk/taxlab/taxlab-taxes-explained/income-tax-explained#:~:text=The%20top%2010%25%20of%20taxpayers,10%20years%20of%20that%20period.
That link gives you loads of stats and debunks a lot of the myths some are staying here.
Interesting where I am at the minute the government pushes development in this area by offering huge tax breaks to get investment and it is working from them.
But still promoting tax cuts instead of investing public money themselves?
Pud, which do you think would be best for the country, money invested for growth or tax cuts?
Easy, both.
why, pud?
[/quote
hmm, maybe tax cuts are political rather than being good for the country?
-
Rishi Sunak paid 23% on £2.2m income last year, which amounted to £508,000.
Over a lifetime, an average household will pay £479,430 in income tax.
The 10% of income taxpayers with the largest incomes contribute over 60% of income tax.
Rishi Sunak paid more tax last year than an average earner pays in a lifetime.
He also earned around 4x more in that single year than the average earner makes in a lifetime.
So vote for Starmer then. When he was standing for Labour leader in February 2020, and in order to win votes from those who had supported Jeremy Corbyn, he solemnly pledged that a government of his would ‘increase income tax for the top 5% of earners‘.
In 2022 he was adamantly vowing to reinstate the top tax band for earners over £150,000 and mocking ‘super-rich Rishi Sunak‘.
But, only seven months later in 2023, his tone changed and he made another of his notorious U-turns and thus broke another promise to the Labour members who elected him when he said he didn't want to raise income tax for top earners!
Vote Labour!
https://www.snp.org/starmer-and-sunak-dont-believe-in-taxing-the-ultra-wealthy-is-there-really-any-difference-between-the-westminster-twosome/
-
Rishi Sunak paid 23% on £2.2m income last year, which amounted to £508,000.
Over a lifetime, an average household will pay £479,430 in income tax.
The 10% of income taxpayers with the largest incomes contribute over 60% of income tax.
Rishi Sunak paid more tax last year than an average earner pays in a lifetime.
He also earned around 4x more in that single year than the average earner makes in a lifetime.
Just the sort of Bloke You would want as chancellor or PM then!
-
Rishi Sunak paid 23% on £2.2m income last year, which amounted to £508,000.
Over a lifetime, an average household will pay £479,430 in income tax.
The 10% of income taxpayers with the largest incomes contribute over 60% of income tax.
Rishi Sunak paid more tax last year than an average earner pays in a lifetime.
He also earned around 4x more in that single year than the average earner makes in a lifetime.
So vote for Starmer then. When he was standing for Labour leader in February 2020, and in order to win votes from those who had supported Jeremy Corbyn, he solemnly pledged that a government of his would ‘increase income tax for the top 5% of earners‘.
In 2022 he was adamantly vowing to reinstate the top tax band for earners over £150,000 and mocking ‘super-rich Rishi Sunak‘.
But, only seven months later in 2023, his tone changed and he made another of his notorious U-turns and thus broke another promise to the Labour members who elected him when he said he didn't want to raise income tax for top earners!
Vote Labour!
https://www.snp.org/starmer-and-sunak-dont-believe-in-taxing-the-ultra-wealthy-is-there-really-any-difference-between-the-westminster-twosome/
Don't blow your top fella. I'm just reading my post again and struggling to find where I criticised the Prime Minister, or compared him to Starmer or Labour in any way? Maybe you could point that out for me?
Even so, what has your response got to do with the point I made, which was purely factual and, as far as I can see, non-partisan?
Isn't it fair to point out that yes, whilst Sunak may have paid more tax in a year than the average person in a lifetime, he also pocketed more than the average person does in a lifetime? I'd say that's a pretty uncontroversial thing to posit, that the numbers should perhaps be looked at in relative terms rather than simply absolute.
Obviously not. Timely reminder for me why I barely ever bother to post in the snipe-fest Off Topic section though. Cheers. Maybe I'll check back in another 3 years.
-
Rishi Sunak paid 23% on £2.2m income last year, which amounted to £508,000.
Over a lifetime, an average household will pay £479,430 in income tax.
The 10% of income taxpayers with the largest incomes contribute over 60% of income tax.
Rishi Sunak paid more tax last year than an average earner pays in a lifetime.
He also earned around 4x more in that single year than the average earner makes in a lifetime.
So vote for Starmer then. When he was standing for Labour leader in February 2020, and in order to win votes from those who had supported Jeremy Corbyn, he solemnly pledged that a government of his would ‘increase income tax for the top 5% of earners‘.
In 2022 he was adamantly vowing to reinstate the top tax band for earners over £150,000 and mocking ‘super-rich Rishi Sunak‘.
But, only seven months later in 2023, his tone changed and he made another of his notorious U-turns and thus broke another promise to the Labour members who elected him when he said he didn't want to raise income tax for top earners!
Vote Labour!
https://www.snp.org/starmer-and-sunak-dont-believe-in-taxing-the-ultra-wealthy-is-there-really-any-difference-between-the-westminster-twosome/
Don't blow your top fella. I'm just reading my post again and struggling to find where I criticised the Prime Minister, or compared him to Starmer or Labour in any way? Maybe you could point that out for me?
Even so, what has your response got to do with the point I made, which was purely factual and, as far as I can see, non-partisan?
Isn't it fair to point out that yes, whilst Sunak may have paid more tax in a year than the average person in a lifetime, he also pocketed more than the average person does in a lifetime? I'd say that's a pretty uncontroversial thing to posit, that the numbers should perhaps be looked at in relative terms rather than simply absolute.
Obviously not. Timely reminder for me why I barely ever bother to post in the snipe-fest Off Topic section though. Cheers. Maybe I'll check back in another 3 years.
If I may clarify, it appeared to me that your previous response included criticism towards the Prime Minister's annual earnings, which are about four times more than what an average earner makes in a lifetime. As a result, it seemed like you were the one who was getting upset. However, if my assumption was incorrect, I apologize for any misunderstanding.
-
Rishi Sunak paid 23% on £2.2m income last year, which amounted to £508,000.
Over a lifetime, an average household will pay £479,430 in income tax.
The 10% of income taxpayers with the largest incomes contribute over 60% of income tax.
Rishi Sunak paid more tax last year than an average earner pays in a lifetime.
He also earned around 4x more in that single year than the average earner makes in a lifetime.
So vote for Starmer then. When he was standing for Labour leader in February 2020, and in order to win votes from those who had supported Jeremy Corbyn, he solemnly pledged that a government of his would ‘increase income tax for the top 5% of earners‘.
In 2022 he was adamantly vowing to reinstate the top tax band for earners over £150,000 and mocking ‘super-rich Rishi Sunak‘.
But, only seven months later in 2023, his tone changed and he made another of his notorious U-turns and thus broke another promise to the Labour members who elected him when he said he didn't want to raise income tax for top earners!
Vote Labour!
https://www.snp.org/starmer-and-sunak-dont-believe-in-taxing-the-ultra-wealthy-is-there-really-any-difference-between-the-westminster-twosome/
Don't blow your top fella. I'm just reading my post again and struggling to find where I criticised the Prime Minister, or compared him to Starmer or Labour in any way? Maybe you could point that out for me?
Even so, what has your response got to do with the point I made, which was purely factual and, as far as I can see, non-partisan?
Isn't it fair to point out that yes, whilst Sunak may have paid more tax in a year than the average person in a lifetime, he also pocketed more than the average person does in a lifetime? I'd say that's a pretty uncontroversial thing to posit, that the numbers should perhaps be looked at in relative terms rather than simply absolute.
Obviously not. Timely reminder for me why I barely ever bother to post in the snipe-fest Off Topic section though. Cheers. Maybe I'll check back in another 3 years.
If I may clarify, it appeared to me that your previous response included criticism towards the Prime Minister's annual earnings, which are about four times more than what an average earner makes in a lifetime. As a result, it seemed like you were the one who was getting upset. However, if my assumption was incorrect, I apologize for any misunderstanding.
No problem BB. I think you did misunderstand, or imply something from my post that wasn't there. I simply thought that it was reasonable to point out that whilst the PM did pay more tax in one year than the average person might do in a lifetime, it is also fair to point out that he earns much more in a year than the average person does in a lifetime. I didn't intend to attach any value judgement to that, but felt it was relevant context to add.
Whether 23% is a fair proportion to pay on such a figure, when, for example, someone earning 1/10 of that as a salary would pay around 38% income tax on their earnings (43% including NI), is another matter.
-
where does sunak have his investments?
Where does Starmer have his investments?
This is about Sunak. Are you approving of his tax avoidance?
-
Rishi Sunak paid 23% on £2.2m income last year, which amounted to £508,000.
Over a lifetime, an average household will pay £479,430 in income tax.
The 10% of income taxpayers with the largest incomes contribute over 60% of income tax.
Rishi Sunak paid more tax last year than an average earner pays in a lifetime.
He also earned around 4x more in that single year than the average earner makes in a lifetime.
Just the sort of Bloke You would want as chancellor or PM then!
Except he is a tax avoided.
Wealth - Putin is rich, Trump too. I could count many other wealthy people as candidates for your boss. Tell me, what are the main qualities you respect as a PM, chancellor? Just big bank account?
-
Would you prefer someone poor like Starmer?
-
You say Sunak's a thieving twonk while hiding in an off-topic 4th division football forum. Show some courage in your conviction and take him to court. Why not get your local Labour MP to do it for you?
I avoid paying taxes, I imagine most people do. That's what Financial advisors and accountants are for.
So you approve of a couple avoiding taxes and paying £500k on £13.5 million. And the man in that couple being your leader. And at the same time approve of policies that put the poorest in society in extreme vulnerable situations, wrecking their health, families, even killing them. Fine morals sir.
-
Would you prefer someone poor like Starmer?
A leader having money is the last quality I'd look for. You have different principles. Messed up.
-
You say Sunak's a thieving twonk while hiding in an off-topic 4th division football forum. Show some courage in your conviction and take him to court. Why not get your local Labour MP to do it for you?
I avoid paying taxes, I imagine most people do. That's what Financial advisors and accountants are for.
So you approve of a couple avoiding taxes and paying £500k on £13.5 million. And the man in that couple being your leader. And at the same time approve of policies that put the poorest in society in extreme vulnerable situations, wrecking their health, families, even killing them. Fine morals sir.
It doesn't matter whether I approve or not, you should be asking our new leader, Keir Starmer.
Now then, as I see it, you must report Sunak for his thieving to the proper authorities. It is your duty to the country. Spurting the accusation out on a fourth division off-topic football forum is not going to get you anywhere.
Meanwhile, you can apologise for calling Sunak my leader.
-
where does sunak have his investments?
Where does Starmer have his investments?
This is about Sunak. Are you approving of his tax avoidance?
Tax avoidance is perfectly legal.
Tax evasion is illegal.
Tax avoidance is something that plenty of people on this forum will have done at some time in their lives, especially people with businesses and the self employed.
Of course there will also be people who just go by the PAYE scheme and pay their 20% rate.
-
where does sunak have his investments?
Where does Starmer have his investments?
How is that an answer to where Sunak has his investments?
-
where does sunak have his investments?
Where does Starmer have his investments?
This is about Sunak. Are you approving of his tax avoidance?
Tax avoidance is perfectly legal.
Tax evasion is illegal.
Tax avoidance is something that plenty of people on this forum will have done at some time in their lives, especially people with businesses and the self employed.
Of course there will also be people who just go by the PAYE scheme and pay their 20% rate.
Which tax haven do you use for your 'investments' hound? Same as Sunak?
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/rishi-sunak-akshata-murty-tax-haven-b2054179.html
It's alright for some. Proper 'up the workers'.
Do you refuse to collect your pension & use your own private helicopeter to get to your private health clinic/hospital for treatment & take the kids/grandkids to their private school when you avoid paying the tax the rest of us have to pay to keep these running?
-
Nah, I definitely am fourth division compared to Rishi mate.
As for how us that an answer, I was responding to Syd in the way he responds to people, which is with a question back.
-
Whereas everyone has seen the proof of what you are hound, enjoy
https://www.drfc-vsc.co.uk/index.php?topic=290052.msg1289153#msg1289153
and of course jean alexander was paid for her role, aye?
-
I still think that link is funny. The South Stand chat box have so much fun talking about your posts Syd.
-
I still think that link is funny. The South Stand chat box have so much fun talking about your posts Syd.
This is the problem hound, you run around the main board shouting toxic, toxic, off topic is toxic, the problem of course is you are the source of much of the poison.
edited
-
No Syd, the problem we really have is someone who comes on here stirring up shit and very rarely posts anything about football.
You are a blight on the vsc forum Syd.
Without the off topic section no one would know you are here.
A truly horrible man, as you are known as.
-
Sorry if that hit a nerve hound
-
No Syd, the problem we really have is someone who comes on here stirring up shit and very rarely posts anything about football.
You are a blight on the vsc forum Syd.
Without the off topic section no one would know you are here.
A truly horrible man, as you are known as.
Not worth engaging with Hound, I don’t anymore
-
No Syd, the problem we really have is someone who comes on here stirring up shit and very rarely posts anything about football.
You are a blight on the vsc forum Syd.
Without the off topic section no one would know you are here.
A truly horrible man, as you are known as.
promise?
Not worth engaging with Hound, I don’t anymore
-
No Syd, the problem we really have is someone who comes on here stirring up shit and very rarely posts anything about football.
You are a blight on the vsc forum Syd.
Without the off topic section no one would know you are here.
A truly horrible man, as you are known as.
promise?
Not worth engaging with Hound, I don’t anymore
promise?
-
I wonder how many people on this site who contemplated voting Labour, decided not to because they didn't want to be on the same side as Syd? Come to think of it, I wonder how many people have defected from Labour for the same reason?
-
getting the gang back together bb?
-
No need to, Sydnaye, it's never been away.
-
No need to, Sydnaye, it's never been away.
too right
-
where does sunak have his investments?
Where does Starmer have his investments?
This is about Sunak. Are you approving of his tax avoidance?
Tax avoidance is perfectly legal.
Tax evasion is illegal.
Tax avoidance is something that plenty of people on this forum will have done at some time in their lives, especially people with businesses and the self employed.
Of course there will also be people who just go by the PAYE scheme and pay their 20% rate.
Absolutely, so you are approving of that avoidance? Approving of someone with 13.5 million barely paying tax? It's obscene, incomparable to what anyone on this forum has done. Less than a nurse, a carer, someone unemployed, even less than someone sleeping on the stre? Many things are "legal" without being right.
BB, I apologise for the insult, tho not the salient point you dodged. It does matter what you think. You and your views are important.
Who is your preferred leader?
-
where does sunak have his investments?
Where does Starmer have his investments?
This is about Sunak. Are you approving of his tax avoidance?
Tax avoidance is perfectly legal.
Tax evasion is illegal.
Tax avoidance is something that plenty of people on this forum will have done at some time in their lives, especially people with businesses and the self employed.
Of course there will also be people who just go by the PAYE scheme and pay their 20% rate.
Absolutely, so you are approving of that avoidance? Approving of someone with 13.5 million barely paying tax? It's obscene, incomparable to what anyone on this forum has done. Less than a nurse, a carer, someone unemployed, even less than someone sleeping on the stre? Many things are "legal" without being right.
BB, I apologise for the insult, tho not the salient point you dodged. It does matter what you think. You and your views are important.
Who is your preferred leader?
I’m neither approving or disapproving it.
Just saying that he hasn’t broken any laws.
The relevant tax authorities will have told him how much tax to pay and there is nothing more to it.
Do you think our own Terry Brammal will be doing any different with his investments?
TB is a great philanthropist but do we know whether Sunak donates money to good causes?
In all honesty, unless he breaks the law then it is none of our business.
-
where does sunak have his investments?
Where does Starmer have his investments?
This is about Sunak. Are you approving of his tax avoidance?
Tax avoidance is perfectly legal.
Tax evasion is illegal.
Tax avoidance is something that plenty of people on this forum will have done at some time in their lives, especially people with businesses and the self employed.
Of course there will also be people who just go by the PAYE scheme and pay their 20% rate.
Absolutely, so you are approving of that avoidance? Approving of someone with 13.5 million barely paying tax? It's obscene, incomparable to what anyone on this forum has done. Less than a nurse, a carer, someone unemployed, even less than someone sleeping on the stre? Many things are "legal" without being right.
BB, I apologise for the insult, tho not the salient point you dodged. It does matter what you think. You and your views are important.
Who is your preferred leader?
Suggesting I vote Tory, isn't an insult, but the sheer inaccuracy of it is what you should apologise for. If my opinion was so important you'd already know it, I've said it often enough. I'll say it one more time for you - The only time I would vote Tory is if Labour was the only alternative. Between their current leaders, give me Sunak every time.
But, like I say, it doesn't matter what I think, you're not voting for me.
-
BB, you're a person. What you think, why you think it, what led you there, what effect that has on everyone around you etc is all important.
-
Hound, it does matter what he has done. Laws are made by and for the rich, you know that. Sadly some accept their place and doff away.
We're speaking about Sunak as he is PM, TB isn't. For many reasons, again, as you know, Philanthropy is not a way of dodging what you should pay. Sunak is a thief whether the law agrees or not. Doing the simple maths, I have done it for you, tells the story. But then some really admire the Kings new clothes.
-
Hound, it does matter what he has done. Laws are made by and for the rich, you know that. Sadly some accept their place and doff away.
We're speaking about Sunak as he is PM, TB isn't. For many reasons, again, as you know, Philanthropy is not a way of dodging what you should pay. Sunak is a thief whether the law agrees or not. Doing the simple maths, I have done it for you, tells the story. But then some really admire the Kings new clothes.
BR, that is your opinion and I’m not interested in trying to change it.
-
BB, you're a person. What you think, why you think it, what led you there, what effect that has on everyone around you etc is all important.
I think that politics was better when it was a personal matter between oneself and the ballot box. It is taboo at the workplace and in the pub and should be on this forum.
Perhaps a separate forum should be established just for those supercilious enough to want to call others racist, stupid, petulant, selfish, thick, inconsiderate, mean, greedy, twisted and fascist among other things, instead of ruining this one.
-
BB, you're a person. What you think, why you think it, what led you there, what effect that has on everyone around you etc is all important.
I think that politics was better when it was a personal matter between oneself and the ballot box. It is taboo at the workplace and in the pub and should be on this forum.
Perhaps a separate forum should be established just for those supercilious enough to want to call others racist, stupid, petulant, selfish, thick, inconsiderate, mean, greedy, twisted and fascist among other things, instead of ruining this one.
I'm so happy you've got that little rant of your chest.
I hope you feel better for it.
We all know how you only try to give a political equilibrium on here.
So for that reason,we should consign those that have nothing between their ears apart from blubber to the same off topic.
You know,those silly f**kers that throw around, woke,snowflake, loony,lefty,troll,Skippy,Wiggerly, Wilkes,Britain Surrendering etc.
I think you've got my drift.
No Kitson of course could be that stupid and hypocritical could they?
Ignore that question,it was hypothetical and so many of us already know the answer.
-
You missed out Spanish Troll, the Bellends Bellend.
-
You missed out Spanish Troll, the Bellends Bellend.
As always,such a well construed counter arguement and reply from you.
-
BB, you're a person. What you think, why you think it, what led you there, what effect that has on everyone around you etc is all important.
I think that politics was better when it was a personal matter between oneself and the ballot box. It is taboo at the workplace and in the pub and should be on this forum.
Perhaps a separate forum should be established just for those supercilious enough to want to call others racist, stupid, petulant, selfish, thick, inconsiderate, mean, greedy, twisted and fascist among other things, instead of ruining this one.
Not forgetting supporters of those that want to take the forum right down to the base and make it open season on rels of forum members aye bb?
-
The option is there bb, if you don't want to discuss politics, don't.
-
You missed out Spanish Troll, the Bellends Bellend.
As always,such a well construed counter arguement and reply from you.
BB does have a point! mr Pearl necklace!
-
BB, you're a person. What you think, why you think it, what led you there, what effect that has on everyone around you etc is all important.
I think that politics was better when it was a personal matter between oneself and the ballot box. It is taboo at the workplace and in the pub and should be on this forum.
Perhaps a separate forum should be established just for those supercilious enough to want to call others racist, stupid, petulant, selfish, thick, inconsiderate, mean, greedy, twisted and fascist among other things, instead of ruining this one.
Not forgetting supporters of those that want to take the forum right down to the base and make it open season on rels of forum members aye bb?
I didn't want to single you out personally, but yes, absolutely.
-
BB, you're a person. What you think, why you think it, what led you there, what effect that has on everyone around you etc is all important.
I think that politics was better when it was a personal matter between oneself and the ballot box. It is taboo at the workplace and in the pub and should be on this forum.
Perhaps a separate forum should be established just for those supercilious enough to want to call others racist, stupid, petulant, selfish, thick, inconsiderate, mean, greedy, twisted and fascist among other things, instead of ruining this one.
Not forgetting supporters of those that want to take the forum right down to the base and make it open season on rels of forum members aye bb?
I didn't want to single you out personally, but yes, absolutely.
You're not singling me out bb, I'm not aware of anyone else other than hound that has stooped low enough to do that, do you?
-
BB, you're a person. What you think, why you think it, what led you there, what effect that has on everyone around you etc is all important.
I think that politics was better when it was a personal matter between oneself and the ballot box. It is taboo at the workplace and in the pub and should be on this forum.
Perhaps a separate forum should be established just for those supercilious enough to want to call others racist, stupid, petulant, selfish, thick, inconsiderate, mean, greedy, twisted and fascist among other things, instead of ruining this one.
Not forgetting supporters of those that want to take the forum right down to the base and make it open season on rels of forum members aye bb?
I didn't want to single you out personally, but yes, absolutely.
You're not singling me out bb, I'm not aware of anyone else other than hound that has stooped low enough to do that, do you?
Syd, you prove every day that you have no sense of humour.
-
BB, you're a person. What you think, why you think it, what led you there, what effect that has on everyone around you etc is all important.
I think that politics was better when it was a personal matter between oneself and the ballot box. It is taboo at the workplace and in the pub and should be on this forum.
Perhaps a separate forum should be established just for those supercilious enough to want to call others racist, stupid, petulant, selfish, thick, inconsiderate, mean, greedy, twisted and fascist among other things, instead of ruining this one.
Not forgetting supporters of those that want to take the forum right down to the base and make it open season on rels of forum members aye bb?
I didn't want to single you out personally, but yes, absolutely.
You're not singling me out bb, I'm not aware of anyone else other than hound that has stooped low enough to do that, do you?
looks like you have fleas bb
-
I'm still stuck on what "rels" are!
-
James Cleverly:
“Today in Parliament we have laid an order to ban overseas care workers from bringing dependants.”
Why on earth would you brag about such a thing?
On top of the plan being impractical, it just feels plain nasty to me.
-
James Cleverly:
“Today in Parliament we have laid an order to ban overseas care workers from bringing dependants.”
Why on earth would you brag about such a thing?
On top of the plan being impractical, it just feels plain nasty to me.
Apparently (according to the radio today, LBC) someone was saying that a good number, have been applying on certain types of visas that are usually reserved for skilled/technical/professional workers, after being signed to bogus care institutions to get into the country and then disappear into the ether or at the same time work in other professions, these visa's have allowed them to bring in their families when the current care worker visa won't allow it because of the wage stipulations.
Don't know how true this is, just relaying what i heard.
-
James Cleverly:
“Today in Parliament we have laid an order to ban overseas care workers from bringing dependants.”
Why on earth would you brag about such a thing?
On top of the plan being impractical, it just feels plain nasty to me.
Apparently (according to the radio today, LBC) someone was saying that a good number, have been applying on certain types of visas that are usually reserved for skilled/technical/professional workers, after being signed to bogus care institutions to get into the country and then disappear into the ether or at the same time work in other professions, these visa's have allowed them to bring in their families when the current care worker visa won't allow it because of the wage stipulations.
Don't know how true this is, just relaying what i heard.
If only we had a government department whose job it was to do due diligence on organisations that applied for visas, eh?
-
James Cleverly:
“Today in Parliament we have laid an order to ban overseas care workers from bringing dependants.”
Why on earth would you brag about such a thing?
On top of the plan being impractical, it just feels plain nasty to me.
Apparently (according to the radio today, LBC) someone was saying that a good number, have been applying on certain types of visas that are usually reserved for skilled/technical/professional workers, after being signed to bogus care institutions to get into the country and then disappear into the ether or at the same time work in other professions, these visa's have allowed them to bring in their families when the current care worker visa won't allow it because of the wage stipulations.
Don't know how true this is, just relaying what i heard.
If only we had a government department whose job it was to do due diligence on organisations that applied for visas, eh?
What do you mean like Tony Blairs Goverment, they had a real tight grip on things dont you think?