blonde poker forum

I have read quite a lot recently on various websites and publications about the abolision of the 10pence tax band and most of it is just plain wrong and misinformed.

To clarify, the 10p rate was on the first £2230 of yearly earnings above your tax allowance. Any earnings after that were taxed at 22% upto the higher earnings limit.
This has now changed to paying a flat 20% on any earnings above the tax allowance, which means that you would now pay £446 tax on the first £2230 earnt above your allowance.
However, as the tax allowance has increased this year and benefits such as child allowance have also increased there are very few people who are left worse off after this tax change.

Yearly earnings   Income Tax 2007-2008   % of income paid   Income Tax 2008-2009   % of income paid   Difference per month
5000                                         £0.00                  0.00%                           £0.00                  0.00%                        £0.00
6000                                         £0.00                  0.00%                        £113.00                  1.88%                       -£9.41
7000                                      £177.50                  2.54%                        £313.00                   4.47%                    -£11.29
8000                                     £342.90                    4.29%                       £513.00                   6.41%                    -£14.18
9000                                     £562.90                   6.25%                       £713.00                   7.92%                     -£12.51
10000                                   £782.90                    7.83%                      £913.00                    9.13%                    -£10.84
11000                                 £1,002.90                   9.12%                   £1,113.00                  10.12%                      -£9.18
12000                                 £1,222.90                  10.19%                   £1,313.00                  10.94%                     -£7.51
13000                                 £1,442.90                  11.10%                   £1,513.00                  11.64%                     -£5.84
14000                                 £1,662.90                   11.88%                  £1,713.00                  12.24%                     -£4.18
15000                                 £1,882.90                   12.55%                  £1,913.00                  12.75%                     -£2.51
16000                                 £2,102.90                   13.14%                  £2,113.00                   13.21%                    -£0.84
17000                                 £2,322.90                   13.66%                  £2,313.00                   13.61%                     £0.83
18000                                 £2,542.90                   14.13%                  £2,513.00                   13.96%                     £2.49
19000                                 £2,762.90                   14.54%                  £2,713.00                   14.28%                     £4.16
20000                                 £2982.90                    14.91%                  £2,913.00                   14.57%                     £5.83

From the table above you can see that the most anyone is going to be worse of by is £14.18 a month for an income of £8000 per year.

..

...

rip

Sorry posted to early and couldnt delete it so had to edit it to nothing whilst I finished.

When I did tax exams the 10% rate applied to the first 10,000, not 1000.

It works out that if you earn around 18k a year or more then you are better off (in terms of income tax payments!) under the new system.

Excuse me...but erm...What's your point?

Me?

Just that I think the OP calculation is wrong.

I think he was aiming that towards the OP.  But with boldie it's hard to know what he's on about at the best of times.  Did you know his name is actually a typo!

my vote goes for op .I was trying to figure out the point too.

I agree with the 18k as well

I feel that I must warn you that the commitee for the defence of the follically challenged is monitoring your communications and assembling a dossier on your activities.

Thats capital gains tax threshold which is 0% for the first £10,000. But I had cocked my figures up (and incidentaly the last tax return I filed) I have corrected them above.

(http://www.myclassiclyrics.com/artist_biographies/Goldie_Hawn_Biography.jpg)

I meant the first 10,000 after the personal allowance. I stand to be corrected though, it was 12 months ago since I passed it, and in all seriousness, enough time for me to have erased it from my memory!!

Something like:

Old:
Personal allowance   X @ 0%
Next 10,000 @ 10%
Up to 38k ish @22%
Over 38k ish @40%

New:
Personal Allowance  X @ 0%
up to 38k ish @20%
Over 38k @ 40%

Yeah it was with regards to the OP. I just don't get what the point of the thread is...I know quite a few threads on blonde have no point to them but the post implies that there is a point to the thread and I just don't see it...apparently on other forums people have gotten this wrong...maybe the post belongs on other forums?..Or is this a wisdom sharing excersise...just wondering.

thank you..I don't think Kin knows just how badly outnumbered he is :)

Hey, my advance application is already in the post.  It won't be long now until I'm a fully-fledged member!

I didn't want to be soo rude as to point it out :)

 ;applause; ;applause; ;applause;

It's hardly a secret!

slightly balding..(well let's say slightly) and driving a boy racer car...Wow, Kin..just how close to a mid life crisis are you?

Interestingly (well not really but anyway), I was losing my hair at 18.  When I was in my early 20s I went out to live in Japan, and my hair actually grew back.  This was to the annoyance of my shiny-headed younger brother.

Your hair grew back in Japan?..Or was it just that loads of short people didn't point and laugh.

Seriously...I'm moving to Japan :)

It might have been the food?  Don't know really, but it definitely grew back whilst I was over there. 

Maybe you outgrew yours?

:dontask:

no idea...i just wished it stopped growing all together now..would save me a ton of money in shaving stuff.

have you thought of trying a comb over?  I think it would suit you :)

Probably made it 10K in your exams to make it easier to pass them?

Definitely £2230 @ 10% rest at 22% until 40% rate kicks in

unfortunately I only inherited Bobby Charlton's footballing skill..not his comb over skills :(

the whole point of the 10p tax band for the first  £2000 was to help people on a low income, i thought it was a great idea, brown keeps talking about benifits and people being better off than they where, to me it goes against 1 of  labours basic policies on helping the low paid, he is making a big mistake i think.

im fully aware this will offend some but......

people who benefit most from this 10p band are less likely to vote. those earning more vote more often.

as for going against labour basic policy...where have you been for the last 15 years.

have to agree.  Most of us will be better off, yes, but it's the very people that the 10% band was introduced to help that are being penalised by the change.  So the majority of people will pay less tax, so I can't see that there's any benefit to the government from the change, unless they really think the majority of the British public are so shallow that they will cast their vote for a party that gives them, personally, a little bit more cash in their pocket every month.

I think that's a part of it too.  Doesn't make it right though, and it's not necessarily a vote winner for those earning more.

sorry to dissapoint you claw but that is exactly how most people decide who to vote for...

that is apart from the 'i vote labour cos my dad did' brigade.

I don't know, I would have thought more people would vote for policies aimed at improving education and the health service, or around dealing with crime or immigration issues rather than having an extra few quid a month  :dontask:

sure some do..and if you ask most will say that is how they decide.

i hope im too cynical and you are right. however im afraid my cynicism is just realism

£14 a month for someone earning £8k a year is a huge amount

this tax change hurts the less well off while helping those earning more

meaning its harder for people on benifits to get into work without

being worse off


i am no socialist infact i come from a capitilist background but this new tax change is completly wrong taxing the poor for the benifit of the rich is bad government

i think most people have made there mind up for so many different reasons before an election who they they will vote for,there are always a lot of undecided votes to be won ,dont think its the majority though, they dont have to be bought , i remember thatcher was way behind in the polls, she told all houseowners if  labour get in the interest rate will rise and rise, she scared a few people into voting tory who thought they might loose there homes by voting labour,

The vast majority of people in the country earn less than £18k per year so - most of us - will be worse off.

It will be a fairly irrelevant amount to the majority of those affected, but they'll still be worse off.

When asked about what their priorities are the majority of the electorate say things like education and health - but in nearly every modern election they've ended up voting for the party that will leave them with the most money in their pockets.

no People claim that that's why they vote for some parties. Most people can't be bothered reading through a parties manifesto, they only vote on "who looks like a PM" and "who does the sun tell me is good for this country"..as well as "My dad voted for these guys so I will too" and "this makes me the most money"

People are greedy idiots..which is why a democracy is a bad idea.

I'd sooner chew my own leg off than read a party manifesto. I'd also love to have the time to read what I expect to be a long and dry piece of marketing spiel that gives me no real confidence of what will get done anyway.

The beauty of a democracy is surely that they argue so much, and kick up enough of a fuss when something material kicks up, that they just keep themselves in check. Just give in a jump in with the rest of us rather than having the misconception that you can make a difference, and if there is a difference to be made.

As to people being greedy, hmm tricky. Is it wrong for someone to want the best for those close to them, rather than other? There are 6 billion people in this world. I have enough trouble worrying about keeping myself right (and I just mean generally not in a selfish way) to worry about people I dont know! Having said this I dont have a problem with tax and NI to improve equality.


They will have used the proper figures, just as suggested, I seem to have manged to erase any tax knowledge from my mind - which is a bonus.

Lot's of people seem to missing the point here.

All Government expenditure is paid from private industry.

The entire civil service bloat is paid from tax income from 'Key Industry' workers - e.g. People that make things / produce income.

CIVIL SERVANTS TAX PAID COMES FROM MY WAGE PACKET

Labour have used Tax Credits to make people reliant on the Government to provide 'working people' with a non-poverty wage, it's all votes at the ballot box.

Flat Tax ?

What is the poverty line in the UK ?

How is it defined ?

Is a non-poverty wage not a good thing ?

Depends how many kids you have.  They keep adjusting the calculation depending on the government performance.

Think it's around 13.5K (with 2.4 children) at the moment.

With the credit crunch, record levels of inflation, soaring fuel bills from home gas heating to petrol, It's never been more RIP off Britain than before.

If you can afford to, I would get back on your hammock for a year or two.

I wish i could, only when I say "broke" I mean having NO money whatsoever

How did Labour get in???? :dontask: :dontask:

cause people hated maggie

You have a better one?

“It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.”

Very true.  The problem with any form of government is the people in power, and the people they govern.






(...and boldie)

A benevolent dictatorship is much preferred over a democracy for me. I also wouldn't mind seeing a government of knowledge (Technocracy) in action.

...and what about a practical suggestion?

Now that would be a government worth voting for ! Is this system in place anywhere you know of ?

strangely enough..it almost happened.

Pim Fortuyn had this idea in Holland. He was going to implement a Technocracy (but he got shot before he could win the elections).

An ex- CEO of Philips (Jan Timmer) had already agreed to become minister of Economic affairs.
A prof of Biology and Environmental studies (or something like that) had agreed to become minister for Environmental affairs and there were several more respected experts in their fields (neutrals and pragmatists so without any allegiance to any of the parties) who had agreed to serve on his cabinet as ministers IF he won the elections outright (and it was looking possible at the time)

Somehow the myth was created by the traditional parties that Pim Fortuyn was right-wing and therefore some hippy killed him under the misguided notion that Pim Fortuyn was against immigration. Actually what Fortuyn had said was "Every illegal immigrant that is in Holland at the moment can get a A listing (which means they can stay) and stay" (est between 100 and 150k people) and "after that we shall for the period of 4 years only allow 25k people per year to join if they are economic refugees, political refugees will still be welcome".

It would have been interesting to see a technocracy in action and you can be sure Holland would not have been the racist mess it is now.

Wow. Most interesting. Thanks.

I sincerely believe that IF someone like that stood up in the UK. A credible (so no Killroy-Tosspot), no-bullshit, alternative to the current parties who could motivate a group of credible and impartial and willing experts to join forces and say "Listen Brittain isn't doing well at the moment and we need 10 years to sort it out but we CAN do it IF you voters give us a chance. We CAN sort out your schools and we CAN sort out the NHS and we CAN sort out the incredibly complicated welfare system and we CAN make you feel safer on the street" that the people in Brittain would vote for that.
The problem is that NONE of the parties that currently exist can claim this and be credible as they are all filled with career politicians who care about getting re-elected and opinion polls over doing what's good for the country.

The political (first past the post) system in the UK would of course never allow for a 4th party to come in and win an election but I am sure most people in the UK (and probably in most countries) are fed up with their leaders taking the piss and would welcome change. The problem is of course finding such a leader in the first place.

vote BNP imo..  srry just had to put a laugh into the thread..

funnily enough just reading the leaflet they've stuck through my door to persuade me to vote for their mayoral candidate.  Biggest load of scaremongering tosh I've read in a while.  The strapline "because it's not racist to oppose mass immigration and politial correctness - it's commonsense!".  Gotta give credit to their PR people though - they're picking up on all the scare stories in the media (kids stabbing each other, children not being safe from peadophiles etc) and really playing up to it.  Quite scary to see how this kind of literature could pursuade a lot of the tabloid reading voting public to stick their x in the BNP box.

It is scary, but whats more scary is all they have to say in my local area is "Only LD & Labour can win here, any vote for anyone else means labour will get in"...  Makes me want to vote for them so much..  ;surrender;

i would never vote for the BNP...but the whole "vote for anyone else or else you're actualy voting Labour" just reminds me of just how badly you need proportional representation.

Agree 100% with this.

BNP go further on the leaflet I've got from them re Labour.  They say don't post your postal vote, take it to the ballot box - labour supporters are stealing postal votes.

The London Assembly election is partly by proportional representation (14 constituency members and 11 PR party  members I think).

And I'm sure the BNP would love it if all elections were completely proportional representation, PR is and always has been the most likely and easiest way for far right groups to win seats - and if their is a close result (which their usually is with proportional representation) - to gain power as a minority group in a coalition.

There is an article partly to do with the problem that proportional representation offers the opportunity to the far right groups to gain ground in the London elections - here (http://www.africanecho.co.uk/africanechonews21-apr05.shtml)

It is also the best way for parties that are not the far right and not the main three to get into parliament. ..give and take and all that.  Before Holland turned violently right-wing in the past few years we found that without proportional representation we would probably have had a biggerright wing faction in Holland..but because we had 2 of those right-wing donkeys in parliament everybody could see just how stupid they were..and people stopped voting for them.

but if we want a true democracy then this is the only way to go imo.  Yes the far right groups would gain, but that is what it's all about - if 5% of the people voting want the BNP to speak for them, then they should have 5% of the representation, no matter how abhorrent the majority of the public finds their views.  The introduction of PR is also the only way I could ever see a general election becoming more than a two horse race.

The part I would disagree with would be, "...of the people voting...".

If 5% of the population supported the BNP then democratic fairness would give them 5% of the vote.

But minority and single issue groups (which however much they pretend - they are both) tend to be much better than the mainstream parties at getting their supporters out to vote.

So if only 50% of people voted, but all the BNP supporters voted, they would control 5% of parliament whilst only representing 2.5% of the country (these figures may be made up - but they are feasible).

Therefore their power under proportional representation would be twice their support - how is this fair?

People who don't vote don't actually support anyone. What would you prefer, have the majority of parliament empty because no one cares?

I would also not be against the idea of compulsory voting

Er no, I'd prefer them to care.

That's undemocratic.

i should have said i would not be against the idea IF PR were introduced.  I don't think it makes a shred of difference under the current system.

It's still undemocratic to force anyone to vote, under any system.  Everyone has the right to abstain from voting.  Many should...

they can spoil their paper

They could be given the option on the ballot paper to mark "No Suitable Candidate" (or "Abstain" if that would be simpler)

Britain doesn't have a "none of the above option", perhaps it's an idea to do so.

or the usual reason people give - "they're all as bad as each other"

In practice it would just mean more people voting for who the sun told them to.

It would make me vote.

is voting compulsory in the Netherlands baldie?

I believe it is in Australia.

No, but typos are.

nope..but we have a "none of the above" option. A spoilt ballot essentially means you vote for the biggest party, a none of the above option prevents that :)

From wikipedia:

Compulsory voting

Australia enforces compulsory voting, including compulsory enrolment (registration) to vote. Compulsory voting was introduced in 1924 . The immediate impetus for compulsory voting at federal level was the low voter turnout (59.38%) in the federal elections of 1922. Voting is compulsory both at federal elections and at elections for the state and territory legislatures. In some states voting at municipal elections is also compulsory. About 5% of enrolled voters fail to vote at most elections. People in this situation are asked to explain their failure to vote. If no satisfactory reason is provided (for example, illness or religious prohibition), a relatively small fine is imposed ($20-$70) , and failure to pay the fine may result in a court hearing.

It is commonly but wrongly claimed that it is compulsory to only attend a polling place and have one's name checked against the electoral roll. In fact, Section 245 of the Electoral Act says that "It shall be the duty of every elector to vote at each election... The Electoral Commissioner must, after polling day at each election, prepare for each Division a list of the names and addresses of the electors who appear to have failed to vote at the election." A voter who has their name crossed off but then refuses a ballot paper or is seen not to put the ballot in the ballot box will be recorded as having not voted.

Those who do not wish to vote for any of the available candidates sometimes resort to informal voting — placing a blank or incompletely filled out ballot in the ballot box. Even though informal voting is illegal and technically subject to the same penalties as failure to vote, it is impossible to identify or penalise those who do so without violating the secrecy of the ballot. The number of informal votes is recorded, but they are not counted as part of the total number of votes cast. Over 95% of eligible Australians attend polling, and in both 2001 and 2004, around 5% of Representatives votes were informal

Some political scientists believe that compulsory voting benefits the Australian Labor Party, while others dispute this. It is argued that most of the social groups who would tend not to vote if voting were voluntary are more inclined to vote Labor (people from the ethnic and immigrant communities, indigenous Australians, and people with lower levels of education). Occasionally conservative politicians or libertarian intellectuals argue for the abolition of compulsory voting on philosophical grounds, but no government has ever attempted to abolish it.

The fact that compulsory voting has lasted through many changes of government indicates to many observers[citation needed] that the party that benefits most from it is the party in power, who are the ones that would have to change it. The reason for this belief is that despite its best efforts no government can avoid occasionally annoying its own supporters. These voters would never vote for the opposition, but if voting were voluntary and they were sufficiently annoyed they could just stay at home.

Following the 2004 federal elections, at which the Liberal-National coalition government won a majority in both Houses, a senior minister, Senator Nick Minchin, said that he favoured the abolition of compulsory voting. The then government gave no indication, however, that it would legislate to this effect, and indeed did not do so before being defeated in the 2007 federal election. Some prominent Liberals, such as Petro Georgiou, former chair of the Parliament's Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, have spoken in favour of compulsory voting.

Because it maximises voter turnout, compulsory voting also maximises the quantum of campaign cost reimbursement--public moneys paid to candidates and parties polling a minimum of 4 per cent at an election.

yep - they have PR too

To be fair, they also have baby-eating-dingos and they've only completed building the edges of the country...so it's not all good with those lazy arsed convicts.

And the argument against PR is surely that we will forever have a hung Parliament and the numerous problems this creates. Do not coalitions result in diluted comprised policies???. Is this really the most effective and desirable of political models.

Also, is it fair that you potentially have one party that wins with a substantially greater % of the vote and than finds itself at the mercy of a coalition of two lesser parties???

the trouble is there is no ideal, and what is one person's ideal is the antithesis for the next man.

When voting, should you vote for the party you wish to run the country or the candidate who you feel will do the most good in the constituency in which you reside ?

the latter.  But that's one of the problems with the current system - that they are tied so closely together.

In fact I was having a conversation about this with someone the other day.  They said they didn't think it was fair that Gordon Brown had become Prime Minister without a public vote, as the public had voted for Tony Blair to be Prime Minister.  Not so.

Is it fair to have a party that got 35% of the votes to have all the power?

That's the dilemma. Do you give parties with less support more power than the votes they garnered, or do you give the party with the most support all the power.

Given that it is hard to change anything substantial in a PR created hung parliament and that we would have no choice about what coalitions get formed (a party with 1% of the vote could end up as part of the Government for example) then the current system (with some tweaks) seems like the best option.

Obviously if you're more of the mindset that the Government does the most damage when it meddles with things then PR would be a better option (although you're still likely to have minority parties with disproportionate amounts of influence).

They could end up in a coalition, but with 1% of the vote they won't be able to influence much!

What the largest vote wins. It's a fairer system when compared to the above scenario. FACT

I use to advocate PR but really think it has many flaws and isn't the obvious alternative that so many seem to suggest.

If any party has a defining % in a decision they hold a considerable amount of influence. Not sure how you can state the absolute "they won't".

Even though it leads to 78% of the country being ruled by a party they didn't vote for?

They could hold that influence outside a coalition and under the current system  :dontask:

They would have considerably more than 1% of the say in the running of the country.

And as diceman suggested, if a party needed them to form a majority they could insist on a policy or a few policies that 99% of the country haven't voted for - and they couldn't really do that under the current system unless there was a formal coalition, which is so much less likely under the current system.

That's an interesting arguement but other than Israel I can not think of any country where it is actually the case that a small party has a big influence in a coalition. The only thing that happens more when you have PR and a coalition govt is that the govt can fall apart and you have to hold another election.

Presently we have a situation where 78% of the population didn't vote for government and it's policies.

I fail to see how this is preferable.

For gods sake don't make all the council estate trash vote.

Ohh and back to the original point, I am sad to see Labour go down this path. It's the final nail in the coffin for me in terms of them keeping my support, very hard to argue for this change.

They could. Hence my point about to lesser supported parties working together against the elected party thus creating an ineffective Government. Surely this is not a very desireable situation. Scenario, a Government purposes new legalisation for it's full term in office and it's always gets voted out by the smaller parties.

Another answer to your point is not if the elected party, even with just a 35% held a majority of seats.

I think it's better than policy being decided by a party that over 90% of the country didn't vote for.

:o  I could be described thus, and I certainly intend to vote.

council estate trash ?

Yes anyone in this country who's basically a fukwit / thick, not able to think for themselves (believing paper headlines as gospel), making them all vote would be badddddddddddd. Whatever side the papers took that month would get them elected.

It's really worrying how little the normal person on the street comprehends the issues beyond the headlines.

I believe you may find that some of these people don't live on council estates.

Yep I know, but I made a sweeping statement that is pretty correct.

Referendums (referendi?) are just as bad as well.  People voting on stuff they really don't understand.

So what you are saying is everyone living in council accommodation is "trash, a fukwit and thick"

I find that so offensive. I have never lived in council accommodation but that certainly doesn't make me a better person than those that do.

Yeah but that's because you're broke..if you had money you'd be better ;)

Clearly not everyone in council estates. just alot compared to other cohorts in society. No one mentioned about being a better person.

If that offends you then so be it.

For gods sake don't make all the council estate trash vote.

yes, nowt wrong with that statement. It's the same as saying don't make all stupid people who live on council estates vote, or don't make all the rich upper class twits votes.

Both of which are not saying ALL upper class people are twits OR all council estate people are stupid.

Political parties will never change the first past the post system, they have spend the last 50 years fixing the constituancy boundaries so that the vast majority of seats are safe for the respective party and then they really only need to campaign in the 40 seats that are marginals, and then you only need to target 3% of swing voters, who will actually decide the result of the election. This means that UK general election are actually decided by about 85,000 people and the rest may as well stay at home.

There is another potential voting system - Range Voting (http://www.rangevoting.org/)

You rate the candidates from 0-9, as many or as few as you have an opinion on. Highest mean average score wins.

A victory for Proportional Representation

BNP wins seat in London Assembly (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7381633.stm)

Although this one seat out of 25 on the London Assembly, so it is unlikely to influence much, transfer that to several hundred seats being contested in a General Election and a far right coalition could be an influential group in a hung parliament.

Apart from the statistical arguments which mean that any proportional representation system doesn't deliver a proportionally represented government - the more basic truism is that there are far too many stupid people voting - and using the First past the Post system is the best way of ensuring that their stupidity gets negated.

Is this what you teach the kids?  Have you ever spoke to someone who lives on a council estate or have you always been a bit nervous about it? Just take a deep breath and go out one day and actually talk to some real live council estate people. You never know, it might just surprise you................................I don't even think you need to pay into some council estates these days and I think some companies are doing open top bus runs. Just hop on and see where it takes you and while you are there see what some of the people think about your sweeping statements..............

the only way a party like bnp gains support is when a country is in chaos,i dont think its stupidity what makes some people vote for the bnp, a lot is about desperation,i would never support a party like bnp but if people feel abandoned with no help or sympathy they will start supporting extremist partys,

I was born and bread in Little London Leeds, most probs the shitest council estate crap hole in Leeds, we got out. Lucky my parents had something about them and worked their asses off to make something for themselves. What dont you like about my post? the fact that most people in this country are pretty stupid and cant think for themselves? wow shocking. I said the people on a council estates who are thick and stupid, not all people from them.......huge diff.

I taught my students to take everyone at face value and to do their best in life whatever anyone said to them. But I would always tell them the truth and not hide stuff that wasnt politically correct to state.

No most people are not pretty stupid.......and teaching students to value everyone at is a good way to go, starting with the fact that most people are valuable and not thick or pretty stupid:)

Just back tracking a bit apparently the removing of the 10% tax band affects pensioners as now their pensions are taxed @ 20% is this right???

A proportion of their income yes. However it mainly affects pensioners younger than 65 as over that age the tax allowance increase a lot.

Admittedly i have no clue how all the finances are controlled/regulated

but in laymans terms the government taxes money they give out?

(nice gig)

to be fair to them they do it very effectively by reducing the personal allowance of people on state retirement pension  so it takes very little cost. Whether pensioners should be taxed at all is obv another questionl.