to be glad that Hollande has finally introduced his 75% income tax rate?(132 Posts)
Now even more of the best and brightest French people will be driven away, and London is a natural destination for them. Also we are able to see what a disaster Red Ed style socialism is, without having to experience it ourselves.
An arithmetical note for our French friends: 75% of 0 is 0.
A couple of days ago, the French CGT union decided to hold managers of Goodyear hostage. I'm sure other foreign companies are going to queue up to invest in France after that sort of behaviour...
No doubt Hollande is the union bullies' puppet just as much as Miliband is McCluskey's.
I don't know why the union thugs haven't been arrested yet! Surely kidnapping is illegal in France?
It doesn't matter if it cuts in at 100,000 or a 1000,000 there is something fundamentally wrong about taking more than half people's money off them.
To my mind it over steps a mark in the sand. It says we the government own your talent (be it sport, acting or business).
Someone may be a millionaire, but they still have the right to work for themselves and their family first and the tax man second.
DH pays higher rate tax and with NI etc he only gets just over 1/2 his salary. Any more and you'd look at your pay slip and think greedy bastards every month.
It's very sad. When we were in Hong Kong, there was a large contingent of people from France who had come over in recent years anticipating this. Hong Kong has a flat 15% tax rate and has some of the best living conditions I've seen despite their low taxes. Many were quite busy registering new businesses in China so they could liquidate their companies in France. I don't think there's ever any justification for taxing above 25% personally.... ever...
Sorry Wallinson I did not make it clear just how old I am.
Uk did have 97.5% income tax
Because the gap between rich and poor started getting wider under Thatcher and has continued to get wider since.
I believe that, everything else being equal, the size of the gap between rich and poor is correlated with the size of the economy, it is an inevitable statistical artefact. That means the more the economy grows, the bigger the gap will be. It always pisses me off when I hear someone on the news talking about increasing inequality, as if it’s a problem, as I regard that statement as simply a different way of saying the economy is bigger than it used to be, which is a good thing.
Sure, one politician can be more (or less) redistributive than another, and therefore make a temporary difference to the figures, but there’s an overall limit to how much redistribution you can have. The only way you can truly stop inequality growing in the long term is to feck up the economy. To be fair, one can usually rely on the Labour party to do just that, though unfortunately the effect is only temporary, as they then get booted out.
There are over 5600 members of the judiciary and those at the coalface are doing most of the work....the high court and court of appeal together accounts for about 150 max - the last research into the education of High Court Judges NOTE NOT the whole judiciary was in 2007
Have a look at the Judicial Appointments Commission
No, it is far from perfect but you really need to research the issue and stop making assumptions about judges' political views
income tax was 83% but if you include NI then the effective rate was 97.5%
If you're old enough to remember it, then you're old enough to know that it was 83%, not 97.5%, surely?
I am old enough to remember the 97.5% tax that Labour introduced. I am also old enough to know several family businesses that closed up and the family moved abroad.
Labour spent the money then thought the rich would pick up the tab. The rich bought an airline ticket and left the average to lower paid to pick up the tab hence the 35% basic income tax.
They have quite a lot of clout though, no? If you're looking for influential people, you look at the top, not the bottom. And if you look at the top and find, in a country where 6% of pupils go to independent schools, that 75% and 90% respectively are from that background, that to me is evidence of pretty much a closed shop.
And how many judges are in the Supreme Court and high court? Very few .....!
75% of High Court judges attended an independent school. For the Supreme Court and Heads of Division, that figure rises to 90%.
freudian how do you fund fair pay for all - i have looked at rentokill's annual accounts here, chosen as it has a lot of low paid people ie cleaners etc. The average salary cost of all, including the directors is £17,512. The 11 directors get around £3m pounds.
If we pay them nothing and share the rest across the rest of employees, we get £17,515 per employee.
The company made a loss in 2011, so no return to shareholders - in 2010, the profit before interest (after tax) was £26.7m, shared between all workers is an extra £200 pounds each.
So even if the fat cat directors, the lenders and the owners get nothing, the additional pay is around £203 per head
The question therefore is, where does the money come from?
My DC's primary school is full of little French children, whose parents moved over here some years ago. It's great having them. Also reflects worsening climate for French Jews, of course, and I doubt if the quennelle controversy will do much to improve the situation.
do we need more overly paid people coming here, pushing up mortgage and rent prices
we need fair pay for all the gap is getting wider and it is not just those at the very bottom that are struggling now
What a load of tosh re background of the judiciary. Do you actually know any judges Wallison?! Do you reAlly think they are Dave's mates?! I doubt that many of them would support Cameron either - but hey,let's not let the truth interfere with gross generalisations based on the profile of the judiciary 30 years ago. .. ..
Imagine for simplicity someone was previously earning 5 million euros a year.
Yes but who is paying that 5M ?
If you want to pay loads to footballers and
very clever gamblers derivative traders, do go ahead.
Just not my cup of tea.
It's weird how I, and others on this thread, can write about what is positive for a country economically and what you read is something so completely different. As I thought there was no point trying to explain..
Ah, so there is a stigma attached to being rich because of what I write on Mumsnet. Woohoo - didn't realise I was so powerful. Honestly, will you just listen to yourself while looking at all of the advantages that being rich gives to people? Not even seeing a teensy little bit of that? Last I heard, the PM wasn't a binman, or a cleaner, or even the son of a binman or cleaner. Nor are any of his mates in the cabinet. Or his mates in the judiciary. Or his mates with their fingers in the public sector purse aka outsourcing. Or his mates in banking. Obv all of that is negated by what some screaming leftie on a talkboard says, because after all I run the world.
Actually LOL at Not everyone with money is a megalomaniac hiding in a Volcano lair and wiping their arse on fresh kittens
Sorry nothing sensible to contribute apart from that seems to be an insane amount of tax and as a business I would look elsewhere to, for example, open a major new production facility if my top people wouldn't want to work there.
I said there is a stigma attached to being rich, that is, the concept of, which IS in fact proved by statements such as 'Wallison on mumsnet thinks they are cunts' (and the hundreds of other similar ones you come across on here day after day).
If someone said 'the poor are cunts' there would be an uproar. But from a purely economic perspective, and we are talking economics here, the rich contribute more to society. So, again, why are they so maligned?
NB PLEASE don't read that as me thinking that the rich contribute more full stop.
If they don't suffer, then how are they stigmatised?
For the third time, I'm not saying that the rich suffer. I'm saying that the country suffers as a whole if it is not viewed as 'a good thing' to earn a lot of money.
The percentage of tax payers who are net contributors is very small - I'm sorry I can't recall the figure, but niceguy2 quoted a different one near the beginning of the thread re the contribution of income tax paid by the top 1% of earners - why is it necessary to be constantly berating those who are providing much of the funding for our public services?!
Go on then, give me an example of the terrible stigma attached to being rich and how the rich suffer because of it. Nb saying 'Wallison on mumsnet thinks they are cunts' doesn't count.
Please. Read. What. I. Wrote.
Or don't. We are never going to agree.
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now
Already registered with Mumsnet? Log in to leave your comment or alternatively, sign in with Facebook or Google.
Please login first.