If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Telegraph)   British Treasury discovers new tax rate of 50% actually results in less revenue   (telegraph.co.uk) divider line 293
    More: Fail, British Treasury, official statistics, tax rates, income taxes, industrial action  
•       •       •

14160 clicks; posted to Main » on 21 Feb 2012 at 8:55 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



293 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-02-21 07:21:38 PM
That's a Laffer.
 
2012-02-21 07:31:01 PM
subby, you didn't read past the headline of the article you linked, did you
 
2012-02-21 07:35:32 PM

thomps: subby, you didn't read past the headline of the article you linked, did you


You expect him to READ?
 
2012-02-21 07:42:06 PM
The Treasury received £10.35 billion in income tax payments from those paying by self-assessment last month, a drop of £509 million compared with January 2011. Most other taxes produced higher revenues over the same period.

Senior sources said that the first official figures indicated that there had been "manoeuvring" by well-off Britons to avoid the new higher rate.


So ... nothing's changed.
 
2012-02-21 07:44:24 PM

Nadie_AZ: The Treasury received £10.35 billion in income tax payments from those paying by self-assessment last month, a drop of £509 million compared with January 2011. Most other taxes produced higher revenues over the same period.

Senior sources said that the first official figures indicated that there had been "manoeuvring" by well-off Britons to avoid the new higher rate.

So ... nothing's changed.


Well... yes, it has. About £509 million worth of change, actually.
 
2012-02-21 07:53:44 PM

Benevolent Misanthrope: Nadie_AZ: The Treasury received £10.35 billion in income tax payments from those paying by self-assessment last month, a drop of £509 million compared with January 2011. Most other taxes produced higher revenues over the same period.

Senior sources said that the first official figures indicated that there had been "manoeuvring" by well-off Britons to avoid the new higher rate.

So ... nothing's changed.

Well... yes, it has. About £509 million worth of change, actually.


Well it says the receipts are only about 80% in, and 20% still to come too, that would be an increase of about 1.5 billion net, if true
 
2012-02-21 08:08:54 PM

martissimo: Benevolent Misanthrope: Nadie_AZ: The Treasury received £10.35 billion in income tax payments from those paying by self-assessment last month, a drop of £509 million compared with January 2011. Most other taxes produced higher revenues over the same period.

Senior sources said that the first official figures indicated that there had been "manoeuvring" by well-off Britons to avoid the new higher rate.

So ... nothing's changed.

Well... yes, it has. About £509 million worth of change, actually.

Well it says the receipts are only about 80% in, and 20% still to come too, that would be an increase of about 1.5 billion net, if true


But for January, it's down. Which is what the article was about.
 
2012-02-21 08:18:29 PM

Benevolent Misanthrope: martissimo: Benevolent Misanthrope: Nadie_AZ: The Treasury received £10.35 billion in income tax payments from those paying by self-assessment last month, a drop of £509 million compared with January 2011. Most other taxes produced higher revenues over the same period.

Senior sources said that the first official figures indicated that there had been "manoeuvring" by well-off Britons to avoid the new higher rate.

So ... nothing's changed.

Well... yes, it has. About £509 million worth of change, actually.

Well it says the receipts are only about 80% in, and 20% still to come too, that would be an increase of about 1.5 billion net, if true

But for January, it's down. Which is what the article was about.


So that means...what, exactly? Does the whole budget hinge on 80% of January receipts?
 
2012-02-21 08:39:09 PM
Well I'm sure this will be used out of context by every Laffer curve cocksucker.
 
2012-02-21 08:40:09 PM
oh what the f*ck, how'd this get greened? come on modmins.
 
2012-02-21 08:48:42 PM
So "P"= % ?
Oh those wacky limeys and their crazy language.
 
2012-02-21 08:57:04 PM
Problem: Smokers are costing us a lot of money in uninsured costs, and its stinky. Let's raise taxes on the cigarettes and force them to quit or go broke.

Result: Smoking goes down. Tax income from cigarettes goes down.

Problem: Not enough income for the treasury. Let's raise taxes on the wealthiest.

Result: ????

Why is the theory that raising taxes on one thing and it lowers participation in that one thing a solid one, but raise taxes on income, and somehow it isn't going to affect the people forced to pay that higher rate?
 
2012-02-21 08:59:33 PM
Hold the fresses, Parkers: Income goes up when taxes go down, and vice versa.

\\\ Passed Econ 101.
 
2012-02-21 09:03:08 PM
For those who haven't read the article...

The self-assessment returns from January, when most income tax is paid by the better-off, have been eagerly awaited by the Treasury and government ministers as they provide the first evidence of the success, or failure, of the 50p rate. It is the first year following the introduction of the 50p rate which had been expected to boost tax revenues from self-assessment by more than £1billion.

Although the official statistics do not disclose how much money was paid at the 50p rate of tax, the figures indicate that it is falling short of the money the levy was expected to raise.
 
2012-02-21 09:05:30 PM

I_C_Weener: Result: Smoking goes down. Tax income from cigarettes goes down.

Problem: Not enough income for the treasury. Let's raise taxes on the wealthiest.


Yes, all deficits are the fault of smokers not smoking enough. Glad we've solved that.
 
2012-02-21 09:06:08 PM
donesies in onesies
 
2012-02-21 09:07:11 PM
Oh, come ON. Part of earning a cushy government job is participating in a process that involves out-of-the-box thinking around problems like these, most of which have plagued mankind to a greater or lesser degree since FIRE was discovered.

Taxes go down? Less money for stuff.
Taxes go up? The rich refuse to pay, the rest of us can't afford to, so less money for stuff.

Oil prices go up? Gas goes up.
Oil prices go down? Gas goes up.
Oil prices stay static? Gas goes up. 10 cents per gallon. Twice. Daily.

Part of holding office is finding a way out of these traps. GET ON IT, FOOLS!
 
2012-02-21 09:07:12 PM

I_C_Weener: Problem: Smokers are costing us a lot of money in uninsured costs, and its stinky. Let's raise taxes on the cigarettes and force them to quit or go broke.

Result: Smoking goes down. Tax income from cigarettes goes down.

Problem: Not enough income for the treasury. Let's raise taxes on the wealthiest.

Result: ????

Why is the theory that raising taxes on one thing and it lowers participation in that one thing a solid one, but raise taxes on income, and somehow it isn't going to affect the people forced to pay that higher rate?


Probably because people won't stop wanting more money. Show me one wealthy person that argues about taxes that willingly stops trying to earn more other than a tax shell game.
 
2012-02-21 09:08:11 PM
Devote more time to enforcement(exchanging lists of tax scofflaws with the US and EU and hammering down on all) and closing loopholes already. Pay the tax, or garner no sympathy when you get caught.

If you can't hide it, you'll have to pay with it.
 
2012-02-21 09:09:13 PM

GAT_00: Yes, all deficits are the fault of smokers not smoking enough. Glad we've solved that.


You couldn't have missed that point by a wider margin if you tried.
 
2012-02-21 09:09:51 PM

olddinosaur: Hold the fresses, Parkers: Income goes up when taxes go down, and vice versa.

\\\ Passed Econ 101.


That is blasphemy citizen. Now we have to come over and correct your thinking.
 
2012-02-21 09:10:25 PM
I smell a Tea and Crumpets Party on the horizon...
 
2012-02-21 09:10:38 PM

I_C_Weener:
Why is the theory that raising taxes on one thing and it lowers participation in that one thing a solid one, but raise taxes on income, and somehow it isn't going to affect the people forced to pay that higher rate?


The fact that they can manouver around the taxes means that we need more government and regulations to keep them from manouvering. and more government. and hence, more taxes.

The new taxes cause more manouvering, which allows us to justify more government, - which means we need to raise more taxes.... etc. etc.
 
2012-02-21 09:11:55 PM
A Treasury source said the relatively poor revenues from self-assessment returns was partly down to highly-paid individuals arranging their affairs to avoid paying the 50p rate

Boy, nothing gets past you guys. Except the notion that telling billionaires to pay up or f*ck off has merits. What happens if they have to pay, too? Do they stop siphoning money off to you for making sure they don't?
 
2012-02-21 09:12:06 PM

GAT_00: I_C_Weener: Result: Smoking goes down. Tax income from cigarettes goes down.

Problem: Not enough income for the treasury. Let's raise taxes on the wealthiest.

Yes, all deficits are the fault of smokers not smoking enough. Glad we've solved that.


Seems to be the government view of reality.
 
2012-02-21 09:12:21 PM
Subby = img1.fark.net
 
2012-02-21 09:13:07 PM
British Treasury discovers new tax rate of 50% actually results in less revenue

An increased tax rate causing a drop in tax revenues is considered news? How cute, Britain!

/Obviously, you need to make it a 90p rate or so to make it effective!
 
2012-02-21 09:13:33 PM

Pro Zack: I_C_Weener:
Why is the theory that raising taxes on one thing and it lowers participation in that one thing a solid one, but raise taxes on income, and somehow it isn't going to affect the people forced to pay that higher rate?

The fact that they can manouver around the taxes means that we need more government and regulations to keep them from manouvering. and more government. and hence, more taxes.

The new taxes cause more manouvering, which allows us to justify more government, - which means we need to raise more taxes.... etc. etc.


What I got out of this is that you have no idea how to spell maneuver.
 
2012-02-21 09:13:37 PM
sounds like the treasury is laffing all the way to the bank...
 
2012-02-21 09:13:52 PM
olddinosaur: Hold the fresses, Parkers: Income goes up when taxes go down, and vice versa.

Sort of depends on for whom.
 
2012-02-21 09:14:06 PM

bunner: A Treasury source said the relatively poor revenues from self-assessment returns was partly down to highly-paid individuals arranging their affairs to avoid paying the 50p rate

Boy, nothing gets past you guys. Except the notion that telling billionaires to pay up or f*ck off has merits. What happens if they have to pay, too? Do they stop siphoning money off to you for making sure they don't?


They pay government bribes for that.
 
2012-02-21 09:14:53 PM

mcjam: Subby = [img1.fark.net image 54x11]


Subby = TROLL
 
2012-02-21 09:16:02 PM

RedVentrue: Do they stop siphoning money off to you for making sure they don't?

They pay government bribes for that.



That was the bribe I meant, yeah.
 
2012-02-21 09:16:11 PM

cameroncrazy1984: What I got out of this is that you have no idea how to spell maneuver.


My British/English dictionary is out of date.
 
2012-02-21 09:16:40 PM

Pro Zack: I_C_Weener:
Why is the theory that raising taxes on one thing and it lowers participation in that one thing a solid one, but raise taxes on income, and somehow it isn't going to affect the people forced to pay that higher rate?

The fact that they can manouver around the taxes means that we need more government and regulations to keep them from manouvering. and more government. and hence, more taxes.

The new taxes cause more manouvering, which allows us to justify more government, - which means we need to raise more taxes.... etc. etc.


from the article it sounds like the maneuvering is a one-time issue related to shifting transactions forward prior to the new rate coming into effect.
 
2012-02-21 09:17:42 PM
What's a fress?
 
2012-02-21 09:18:43 PM

Godamnlimey: So "P"= % ?
Oh those wacky limeys and their crazy language.


Well, I suppose it could be if it meant 50p of each pound.


ropegun: sounds like the treasury is laffing all the way to the bank...


GAT_00: Well I'm sure this will be used out of context by every Laffer curve cocksucker.


phlegmmo: That's a Laffer.


Came here to make this reference. It gladdens me to see it's already been invoked thrice.
 
2012-02-21 09:19:08 PM
You know what they call bribes and fines for bribes when they save more than they cost? A business expense. This just in, the law is a fungible commodity and it's sold to the highest bidder.
 
2012-02-21 09:21:08 PM
Changing taxes has never increased revenue.
 
2012-02-21 09:22:36 PM

RandomExcess: Changing taxes has never increased revenue.


Tax cuts certainly don't.
 
2012-02-21 09:23:04 PM

olddinosaur: Hold the fresses, Parkers: Income goes up when taxes go down, and vice versa.

\\\ Passed Econ 101.


They see me trollin', they hatin'...

Of course being as old as you are, I'm sure everything feels so comfortable in BLACK AND WHITE.
 
2012-02-21 09:23:06 PM
What's funny is, if the government had to actually provide products and services and be accountable for how they spend it and for what in order to take in revenue legally, like any other business, it would be boarded up. Yeah, that government, too. "Harrumph!" is not a useful commodity.
 
2012-02-21 09:26:07 PM

bunner: What's funny is, if the government had to actually provide products and services and be accountable for how they spend it and for what in order to take in revenue legally, like any other business, it would be boarded up. Yeah, that government, too. "Harrumph!" is not a useful commodity.


what does this even mean?
 
2012-02-21 09:26:45 PM

tankjr: olddinosaur: Hold the fresses, Parkers: Income goes up when taxes go down, and vice versa.

\\\ Passed Econ 101.

They see me trollin', they hatin'...

Of course being as old as you are, I'm sure everything feels so comfortable in BLACK AND WHITES ONLY.

 
2012-02-21 09:27:17 PM
Well, it's obvious that we need a %110 tax rate. Solves all our problems
 
2012-02-21 09:27:28 PM

thomps: bunner: What's funny is, if the government had to actually provide products and services and be accountable for how they spend it and for what in order to take in revenue legally, like any other business, it would be boarded up. Yeah, that government, too. "Harrumph!" is not a useful commodity.

what does this even mean?


LIBSLIBSLIBSDERPDERPDERPLIBSLIBSTHEPRESIDENTISNEAR
 
2012-02-21 09:27:46 PM

thomps: bunner: What's funny is, if the government had to actually provide products and services and be accountable for how they spend it and for what in order to take in revenue legally, like any other business, it would be boarded up. Yeah, that government, too. "Harrumph!" is not a useful commodity.

what does this even mean?


It means don't argue with Bruce Dickinson.
 
2012-02-21 09:29:14 PM
www.artclon.com


Good day colonials.

My name is George, and I have nothing but distain for all of you commoners. You are but feeble-minded jacobins, mere guttersnipes, and the spawn of thieves and rabble, swept from the gutters of our darkest streets and alleyways.

In truth, have any of you been chosen by the Creator to be invested with the divine right to rule over a quarter of the earth's surface in glorious majesty? I thought not. Your pettifogging obsession with rules and straight-jacketing religion amuses me greatly, as I spend my time supporting agrarian research and funding Mr. Herschel's investigations into the heavens.

We are well rid of you indeed; your yammering and ignorant unwashed were a sad distraction, duped as they are by the perfidious influence of the French tyrant into believing that anything a grubby mechanic or filthy hayseed may have to say has any relevance to the running of a modern state.

I give you not more than five or six decades before you are at one another's throats, like the bloody-minded zealots you are. In the meantime, enjoy your preacher-ridden "republic," wherein your grubby naughty engravings must be hidden in the corn crib lest you be pilloried in the square.

Faugh. I can write no more, the bile rises in my throat.
 
2012-02-21 09:30:38 PM
Francesca Lagerberg, head of tax at Grant Thornton, an accountancy firm, said: "My guess is that because the 50 per cent rate was flagged up in advance many taxpayers, particularly those with their own businesses, decided to extract dividends ahead of the change.

the implication here is that january's tax receipts are artificially high and february's are artificially low. before anyone else dusts off the only economic term they still remember from college, maybe we should wait for a couple of collection periods, or at the very least, the close of this collection period.
 
2012-02-21 09:32:06 PM
If it is income from investments wouldn't they have taken their income last year when the rate was lower, and thus for the first 6 months to a year the tax income on the new rate will be lower?

In other words, you want to live on 1,000,000/year. You have the money handy in investments. The tax rate this year is 25%, next year it is 50%. Do you take out the money now and pay the taxes at 25% or take out half now at 25% and the other half at 50%?

In other words, do you cash in 2.67 million the first year, or 1.33 the first year and 2 million the next year for a total of 3.33 million?
 
Displayed 50 of 293 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report