MOAR TAXES but tax every fucker but me!

Let’s be clear, earning £80,000 makes you well off. It’s a privilege. It affords things many can’t enjoy. So I am having no truck with the argument that those earning that much aren’t well off. But, those who do so and who are employed (and quite a lot will be) are already paying their taxes. And they are likely to be the ones paying most of any increase. This makes the move poorly targeted in election terms. The country is not seething about the pay of head teachers, hospital consultants, university professors (yes, that’s me) and higher, but still mid-tier, managers. So there is precisely no sympathy gained from targeting them, and some antipathy generated.

The country is instead angry about low corporation tax rates.

And low taxes on returns to wealth.

And tax abuse.

So the offer should be to raise corporation tax.

And to equalise the capital gains tax and income tax rates.

And to make sure that every small company pays its taxes, in full, by ending the abuse of limited liability.

It could be about an additional tax on rents so that they are taxed at the same rate as work when national insurance is included. And that rate could be applied to all investment income and the so-called dividend tax could then be scrapped.

Those taxes would work. And be fair. And popular.

Rare to see it quite so nakedly put, isn’t it? And seems that being on PAYE from Islington Technical College is hurting.

40 comments on “MOAR TAXES but tax every fucker but me!

  1. @”Let’s be clear, earning £80,000 makes you well off. It’s a privilege. It affords things many can’t enjoy. So I am having no truck with the argument that those earning that much aren’t well off.”
    My parents never earned that amount, but a person earning that amount would not be able to buy a home similar to theirs.
    Therefore it is not just what you earn, it is also the assets you have.

  2. He claims the ‘look how much he’s got’ isn’t populist, divisive shit stirring.

    His side have done populism since year dot. They just get annoyed when someone else does it better than them.

  3. R4 Today Programme, shortly before 07:00 this morning:

    Is it a corm?
    Is it a rhizome?
    No, it’s Supertuber.

    What an awful way to start one’s day.

  4. >It’s a privilege.

    Depends. If you have paid attention, perhaps bettered yourself, deferred gratification and, certainly, worked hard, then your £80K is not a privilege but your just reward. (I exclude from this all those public sector parasites such as — oh, third-rate academics brainwashing their students in third-rate institutions of lower learning.)

    Does this berk really have no clue as to the source of his wages? Or is he just consumed, like the rest of his brethren on the left, with envy and spite?

  5. “Or is he just consumed, like the rest of his brethren on the left, with envy and spite?”

    I think we all know the answer to that one……………………..

  6. +1, Thomas

    I too have a problem with the idea that something “earned” counts as a “privilege”.

    Might be grammatically correct; but certainly not in the spirit of what they mean by “privilege”, given it comes from the kind of idiots that go on about “white privilege”.

  7. Let’s be clear, earning £80,000 makes you well off. It’s a privilege.

    Someone want to ask Murphy just whom it is that actually bestows that “privilege”? Is there a department for that in The Courageous State?

    You can call him Snippa all you want, but in the final analysis he’s still nothing more than a cunt.

  8. Those on the left always support MOAR taxes for everyone who earns more than they do.

    If McDonnell had said higher taxes for incomes above say £120k Ritchie would have been cheering him.

  9. The whole point of limited liability is that you and your business are separate so long as you stay within the requirements.
    Commit fraud, run an overdrawn directors loan account and go under (its a company asset that can be used to pay creditors), make bad decisions etc – and the liability shield can be partly or fully withdrawn.

  10. I wonder how many people other than Snippa have any thoughts whatsoever about corporation tax

  11. @ Martin
    Actually the whole point of limited liability was that investors who had no control over the business were not liable for the conduct of directors whom they did not, individually, control. It was not intended to cover companies wholly-owned by the sole director.
    However (i) Murphy has on several occasions overdrawn his Partner’s loan account in his LLP; (ii) Making evil decisions may render Directors liable, making innocently ill-chosen ones does not; (iii) some of us *are* seething about the pay of hospital consultants ever since New Labour decided the solution to the problem of the excessive hours for junior hospital doctors was to increase the number and pay of Consultants instead of increasing the numbers and reducing the hours of junior hospital doctors; (iv) Limited Liability Partnerships which facilitate abuse and which Murphy exploits are a product of Blair/Brown’s Labour government – previously Partnerships had unlimited liability which provided a massive incentive to ensure that not only oneself but also one’s partners and employees behaved well.

  12. “Diogenes

    I wonder how many people other than Snippa have any thoughts whatsoever about corporation tax”

    I expect that the average person stopped in the street by a pollster and directly asked a loaded question such as….

    “would you like companies to pay more tax so you can pay less tax and so babies can stop being killed and eaten by fat-cat bosses who worship the devil?”

    …will answer “yes”, leading to survey results which the likes of Murphy can trumpet as ‘proving’ that people can’t sleep at night because corporate tax rates are low.

    The rest of the time, I doubt the average person could give a fuck.

  13. ‘Let’s be clear, earning £80,000 makes you well off.’

    This is false on its face. Everyone’s circumstances are different.

    Some years back, my brother had two kids in Yale at the same time. He would have starved and lived in a tent on £80,000.

  14. I think if I started laughing at this bit of Spud trying to justify why he shouldn’t be in the McDonnell ‘Evil Fat Cat Tax Avoider’ bracket i might never be able to stop and rupture myself fatally.

  15. The thing that bothers me about this is that the taxes are personal, not household. Therefore a family where two people are earning 35k are far better off than one where one parent earns 80k.

    Seems wrong to me.

  16. 80k is a professional salary, so presuming a 6% pension contribution, net wage is £4115 per month.

    2 people each earning 35k with 6% pension contribution is 4162 per month, not a massive difference.

    2 people on 40k, ditto, is 4680 which is about 13% more.

  17. He doesn’t even know what the word “privilege” means, unless he is asserting there is a raft of statutes benefiting the better-off that kicks in when you reach 80,000 sovs. “Fortunate” ≠ “privileged”.

  18. It’s certainly a privilege to be a know nothing gobby shite and still pose as a lecturer at a “university” and take money for doing it.

    Not so much a privilege to earn £80,000 by honest means.

  19. Therefore a family where two people are earning 35k are far better off than one where one parent earns 80k.

    No way..:) That’s two people’s time / labour, rather than one person’s…

  20. John77 – (ii) – hence me using the word can.
    Takes an investigation.

    If no investigation, such as using the spongebob plan or getting companies house to shut the company down themselves, then the risks to the owners are much reduced.
    Plenty of companies go under owing HMRC money. With no chance of recovering any for a chunk of them.

  21. “Let’s be clear, earning £80,000 makes you well off. It’s a privilege. ”

    No it fucking isn’t. It’s reward for skill, knowledge, experience and to some extent being prepared to make personal sacrifices. Salaries aren’t paid by lot you fat ignorant cunt.

    That’s better.

  22. It’s a truism that in the minds of “third sector” types like Murphy, journalists, Leftist think-tankers etc., “rich” means “10% more than the combined incomes of me and my wife”.

  23. “The country is not seething about the pay of head teachers, hospital consultants, university professors (yes, that’s me) and higher, but still mid-tier, managers.”

    Well, I’m seething about the the pay of one university professor in particular….

  24. Thomas Fuller said:
    “… public sector parasites such as — oh, third-rate academics brainwashing their students in third-rate institutions of lower learning”

    I thought they hadn’t left him in front of students after the first term?

    Isn’t he basically just using City to launder an EU grant that he isn’t allowed to get directly or via his “partnership”??

  25. — “…university professors (yes, that’s me) ”

    A word to the wise, mate. When your credentials are actually worth less than a certificate from McDonald’s Hamburger University, best not to draw attention to them.

  26. @Richard

    I don’t know his circumstances TBH, just assumed he was lecturing. Frankly I don’t follow the Tuberous One too closely as I find reading about idiocy interferes with my digestion 🙂

  27. @ Martin
    Yes, but it wasn’t immediately obvious whether you were a pendant deliberately saying “can” or whether you were using collquial non-pendantic English.

    Plenty of companies go under having made losses but unable to claim negative corporation tax from HMRC.

  28. Completely off topic, but what is it about strawberries that has people parked in lay-byes all day selling them?

    It’s not like they have vast quantities and will make a quick killing. I passed one guy early in the morning setting up and he was still there mid afternoon with what appeared to be roughly the same amount and I’ve never seen a resupply.

  29. john77 – I am nothing to do with jewellery at present. I hope I use the words I mean to use.

  30. “Gamecock
    May 8, 2017 at 2:31 pm

    ‘Let’s be clear, earning £80,000 makes you well off.’

    This is false on its face. Everyone’s circumstances are different.

    Some years back, my brother had two kids in Yale at the same time. He would have starved and lived in a tent on £80,000.”

    Not if he took his two kids out of Yale and moved to someplace with a better cost of living.

    Just because you’re buying something really expensive and that makes it hard to find enough money to eat doesn’t mean you’re not well off.

    He could afford that Yale education after all.

    I’ve had this argument with married members of the military – they like to tell me that I make more money than them at the same paygrade. I didn’t. I made significantly less. But I didn’t *choose* to have a wife and two kids to support either so I got a smaller paycheck for the same work.

  31. BiND – I reckon that’s a bit of a hangover from back when we didn’t import strawberries and the English crop was somewhat variable, so the things were bloody expensive in the shops when they were available. You could take a bit of the crop and take something close to the shop price for sod all cost, just a bit of sitting around, listening to the radio and reading the paper. Probably made a lot of sense for the marginal producers as well.

    I can remember my parents slamming the brakes on and buying fruit in lay-bys when there weren’t any in the shops. Also, making a note to stop there on the way back, only to discover the guy had sold out.

  32. I recall once, working in Belgium, a lass told me about May Day when some people – often children – sell Lily of the Valley in the street. “And they don’t pay tax on it” she said proudly.

    Poor bastards.

    Public holidays it was only the British contractors working. None of the locals much fancied doing it and handing over 80% to the state.

  33. john77 said:
    “Actually the whole point of limited liability was that investors who had no control over the business were not liable for the conduct of directors whom they did not, individually, control”

    Not really, or at least not for long. Mass limited liability was started by the Limited Liability Act 1855, which had a minimum of 25 shareholders, so you can argue that was based on a owner-manager split. (Before then, limited liability was rare and expensive, only available with a Royal Charter or a private Act of Parliament).

    But that 25-member minimum and many other restrictions were abolished the next year, by the Joint Stock Companies Act 1956.

    From then it was a 7-shareholder minimum, which didn’t at all imply a split between ownership and management. Seven members would be a typical arrangement that would have been a partnership before, with all the owners involved in management. Or, given the size of Victorian families, it could easily be one family (in the big case on this, Salomon v Salomon, the seven shareholders were his wife, sons & daughters).

    So you can only argue the owner-manager split was “the whole point”, or even the main point, for 1 year, from 1855 to 1856.

  34. @ Richard
    For pete’s sake! The reduction in the minimum number of shareholders did not have any relevance to the masses of shareholders who invested in P&O and railways and breweries and cotton mills and ironworks and flour mills and brickworks and shipping lines and ….

  35. No, but the fact it was thought necessary, and beneficial, to reduce the minimum number from 25 to 7, and so quickly, does show that your claim, that “the whole point of limited liability” was to protect small shareholders in massive companies, was bollocks.

    It was very clearly also designed and intended to allow owner-managers to protect themselves, as an alternative to an unprotected partnership.

  36. @ Richard
    Unprotected partnerships were, apart from sole traderships, the only way to be a stockbroker until “Big Bang” in 1986, and the only way to be an accountant, solicitor and several other professions much longer.

    Please look at reality

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.