That's a Laffer.

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

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

You expect him to READ?

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.

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.

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

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.

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?

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

oh what the f*ck, how'd this get greened? come on modmins.

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

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?

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.

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.

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.

RandomExcess: Changing taxes has never increased revenue.

Tax cuts certainly don't.

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?

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.

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.