www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2581860...-middle-earners.html

32k and they think they're toffs, lmfao!

there are of course advantages when it comes to the 40% tax rate, just not for the majority of people actually paying it:-)

As far as I can tell, the tax rate only changes the rate at which money flows back to the government anyway, not the actual amount. Whatever the tax rate, as the money circulates in the economy it will be going through multiple taxable events as it changes hands until pretty much all of it ends up back in government coffers anyway, even if you are using offshore tax havens or stashing the cash under the mattress, as soon as you use it to buy something it starts getting eaten up by taxes again, so that only delays the inevitable.

Of course I'm not an economist so I might have that wrong!

diforumreject wrote:
Well actually most of it ends back up at the central bank, lol
Eg the bailout money went to high st banks who borrowed off the central bank originally. Same goes for the gov who also borrowed the bailout money again from the central bank.

If you use an incorporated entity (company name) then you're not liable for VAT on business 'expenses' , also expenses come off profits and you only pay tax on 'profits'.

It takes a few times for people to get their heads around it tbh. The whole economy is based upon money creation out of thin air via loans which ofc devalues the currency as more of it is in circulation which causes inflation, the ironic thing is that the system cannot work without inflation so its a fucked if you do and fucked if you don't scenario, quite hilarious and obviously flawed and lets face it, its deliberate.
No-one in their right mind would suggest such a setup if they actually wanted a stable system.

The trouble is its been left in such a way for far too long now and there is a huge disparity in wealth between rich and poor. This is as a result of the above monetary system design, its inevitable. Gov works in collusion with the richest corporations who in turn get the best out of the regulations which gov enforces, Monsanto and Google are prime examples, more and more small businesses and their innovation gets bought up by these big corporates who then simply put their own brand on it.
As a result of regulation by design we see monopolies emerge controlling ever increasing percentages of the entire monetary system stifling competition, reducing innovation, reducing jobs and simply increasing the efficiency and market presence of their own brands which is ofc inevitable as businesses are in it for profit.

Meanwhile he average joe who has a job pays tax immediately by law, has it pulled out of his paypacket before he even sees it, he has no expenses, he cannot avoid VAT, he cannot earn enough to ever hope to lobby anyone or to move offshore etc etc.
He sees his job threatened by ever increasing competition for his job, eventually to be replaced by automation or business process that no longer needs his job.

Of course, those in poor countries have been subjected to this shit way before we ever were, they have grown up with it and are used to it, westerners are only recently seeing it hit home and they are afraid.

There is little you can do, ALL the political parties are corrupt. All we can hope for is that the business setup fucks things up so badly that they end up screwing themselves, after all, if they keep driving wages down low enough they won't be able to sell any goods to us anymore and that will be the end of that.
Any so called solution if it still uses a monetary system would HAVE to embrace debt wipe out and deliberate re-scaling of wealth.
Unfortunately I see the upcoming solution being 100% digital money with the idea that debt can be hidden so that inflation stops but it still allows for huge wealth accumulation. They'll probably roll it out on visa cards and mobile phones in western countries first and just simply decree paper money as illegal after 30 days and that everyone has to deposit it in their accounts for legal account credits...

True capitalism has no regulation, in fact it has no regulation of money itself either! We have NEVER had capitalism just as we have never had communism, anyone who thinks otherwise needs smacking in the face with a baseball bat tbpfh..

andyh wrote:
yes I suppose you are right about the central banks, but the point I was trying to make was that no matter what the tax rate, it seems to me that it will (almost) all be collected by the government (perhaps on behalf of the central banks) regardless, the rate does not seem to make much difference. As that money circulates it will be getting tax shaved off on almost every transaction, until there is nothing left of it in circulation ( I realise that mathematically you cannot reduce it to zero by percentages, but realistically it will be reduced to almost nothing).

So to me, the tax rate simply affects the speed at which all the money is sucked back out of circulation, regardless of the tax rate set, it will all be sucked out of circulation a bit at a time until its gone - if you see what I mean:-)

andyh wrote: Totally agree with everything else...regarding this...this is why I predict, apart from the existing trends, that you'll see a leveling out of living standards between the 'West' and the 'emerging economies' and 'Third World'. We're already seeing this with China, and when you consider that the population of China is about 30% more than Europe and the United States put together then this is going to count for a lot of consumer capital. Just China and India together is 2.5 billion people, so who needs poxy Europe with a mere 700 million?

And I see it on TV during the Indian Premier League cricket; India in particular is a goldmine of an environment for capitalist exploitation because it's all pretty new to them, but the advertisers and marketers have had decades to refine their techniques on us. To some extent, even though advertising and branding is incredibly successful in the 'West', we have a bit of immunity to it because we've seen advertising and all the Madison Avenue techniques steadily develop over decades, whereas this is not the case in the 'emerging economies'. I can see on TV even just during the coverage of a cricket match how vulnerable the population is to it. And of course when they've been in a situation of extreme poverty anything seems like an improvement.

At the moment you're seeing corporations viewing Asia and Africa as supplementary markets, but I think in time Asia will be the central market and Europe and the United States will be seen as supplementary. They could fuck it up, but they've got 2.5 times the number of people in China and India alone to play with!

diforumreject wrote:
What you describe is actually what 'should' be the situation.
In the sense that the gov should be the sole issuer of money with a treasury at 0% interest and that they should tax people to reduce inflation

Thats not what happens today because banks create money via debt, the gov has no money of its own and must BOTH borrow at INTEREST from the central bank AND take from the people via tax.
Tax will never remove all money from circulation because the government is not sitting at the on/off tap
Nor is it taxing at a rate which is above the debt creation, you have to understand that the banking debt via hedge funds etc is far far FAARRR bigger than any amount ever collected by any govt, indeed the tax take of every govt on the entire planet is miniscule in comparison to the money banks have been dicking with and creating out of thin air.
The point is that by and large this money has never seen its way into our hands, it belongs with banks and stays with banks. It floats around on stock exchanges and transaction systems and its sole purpose is to dominate large scale business.

Its us paupers who pay tax

wake_up_bomb wrote:
Yep, they'll goto Africa next. We'll see Africans getting healthcare and 'educated' and doing phone support for the bloody Chinese and Indians next and making goods cheap enough for Indians and Chinese to afford.

Fark me its depressing tbh

andyh wrote:
yes I see that the tap cannot be turned off as money/debt is continuing to be produced by magic accounting, but what I am saying is, that if we could track a particular £100 that had been created out of thin air as it circulated through the economy and changed hands, we would see that £100 gradually being reduced to almost nothing over time through taxation - regardless of the actual tax rate.

No, doesn't work that way DIFreject because gov spends all the money it takes in back into the economy, not only that but it borrows yet more on top of that and spends that too.

Now if they had the tory boy wet dream of just david cameron in parliament with no-one else in govt whatsoever, no NHS, no DWP, no armed forces, no police and in fact nothing doing whatsoever but still bloody taxing us, then you might be on to something

Its actually the central bank that is the ultimate black hole of money, like a big circuit diagram, money flows out of the lending terminal (positive terminal) and back into the negative terminal (repayments+interest) at the other side lol

Everything else is just a piece of circuitry :p

andyh wrote:
yes I realize the government spends the money and it goes back into circulation, along with the money the banks create and the government borrows.

What I am saying is that if we were to somehow "tag" a specific £100 in circulation, over time that £100 would disappear through taxation, it will essentially over time all go back to the government regardless of prevailing tax rates, until or unless they reintroduce it again by way of grants, benefits, capital projects etc. Which they of course do all the time, in effect recirculating the money. So virtually every penny of our" tagged £100" would end up in the government coffers, if only temporarily, whatever the tax rate.

In other words, every penny they spend, gets returned to them sooner or later, so if they created their own money, they couldn't really have a deficit could they?

diforumreject wrote:
Well this is what I was getting at earlier.
Once upon a time we had a fiat system with govt treasury that printed its own money with 0% interest and simply spent it into the economy as and when needed.
Taxation was required simply to control inflation..NOT to provide services, you see the difference yep?
With this model it is possible to go ahead and spend money on needed projects and employ everyone if you wanted, sure you would create inflation but the job of controlling it would belong to the chancellor of the exchequer, as it should be, but he outsourced the responsibility a long time ago. Now it can be blamed on 'mysterious' things that govt supposedly cannot control, you have to laugh at it or you'd go bloody insane.

Wibble :p