"we're all in this together"

[eFestivals]

This makes absolutely no sense.

You're unwilling me to provide me the evidence, because I'm not already in possession of it? I'm sorry to say, this sounds like the ravings of a mad man.

If absolutely everyone and everybody worthwhile knows about it, then why is the only evidence you could provide an article in the Daily Mail, written over a year ago by an MP who was desperately trying to get in to government?

I've shown you some evidence. You've dismissed it as worthless, despite it being a reputable person who has backed up what i've said.

So why the f**k do you think I think you';re worth the bother of providing you with more? You might like to think of yourself as that important, but you've shown yourself to me as worthless.

Why was that the only evidence? Because it was the first I found after googling and still having to wade thru countless pages to find just one reference - not because there's just one reference, but because it's a far harder thing to search for (or at least, for me to search for) than you're obviously imagining.

Do you dismiss anything else on the reason you've given above? f**k do you. You're merely trying to find an excuse for your gross ignorance.

[eFestivals]

You misunderstood my post... I do receive salary and dividends...

then I misunderstood nothing. You tried bullshitting, but you've realised that you have admitted to doing it previously.

As a "business owner" my income can be devastated by these changes... an employee is far more protected you silly sardine...

you're not.

Why do I have to earn the average ?

why do you think you're worth more than average?

Deary me... So its wrong but you happy to exploit it... You really are Mr Morals

I don't do it to exploit it, I do it to not be disadvantaged.

Unlike you, I'm able to recognise that it's simply WRONG.

Edited October 13, 2010 by eFestivals

[dakyras]

I've shown you some evidence. You've dismissed it as worthless, despite it being a reputable person who has backed up what i've said.

So why the f**k do you think I think you';re worth the bother of providing you with more? You might like to think of yourself as that important, but you've shown yourself to me as worthless.

Why was that the only evidence? Because it was the first I found after googling and still having to wade thru countless pages to find just one reference - not because there's just one reference, but because it's a far harder thing to search for (or at least, for me to search for) than you're obviously imagining.

Do you dismiss anything else on the reason you've given above? f**k do you. You're merely trying to find an excuse for your gross ignorance.

[eFestivals]

I've never said I'm not ignorant, in fact the reason I want to see these figures is because I want to increase my knowledge about the subject. But you haven't shown any figures. You've shown one sentence written by a politician, who are notoriously duplicate and dishonest.

And I think any intelligent person would doubt something for which there is a lack of evidence.

I do find it consoling that you seem to resort to argumentum ad hominem whenever you are doubted. Makes me feel better about myself as a human being, that I wouldn't sink that low.

Are you incapable of googling yourself? Does your mum still wipe your arse?

[eFestivals]

I do find it consoling that you seem to resort to argumentum ad hominem whenever you are doubted. Makes me feel better about myself as a human being, that I wouldn't sink that low.

says the man who defaults to calling others liars if they tell him something he doesn't know already.

A rather high opinion of yourself too, to go along with your belief in your own self importance. And your mum still wiping your arse.

[dakyras]

says the man who defaults to calling others liars if they tell him something he doesn't know already.

A rather high opinion of yourself too, to go along with your belief in your own self importance. And your mum still wiping your arse.

[eFestivals]

I don't think you quite understand the concept of argumentum ad hominem.

I never had an argument to make. I merely asked you to provide evidence. Your failure to do so logically implies bullshit.

The bullshitter is you.

I provided it, from the most respected financial politician in the country.

Everything else is your delusion.

[eFestivals]

More hours

which you're paid hourly for, like everyone else.

More skills

That's something deserving of extra reward - and has extra reward for any worker, employed or self-employed.

More risk

Yet you can't show where there's more risk.

So you aren't exploiting anyone... Just avoiding taxes

Avoiding taxes that couldn't be afforded to be paid anyway.

The actual result is that the govt and so tax payers are better off than if I tried to pay 'full' taxes and failed, losing two jobs for the country.

All the same, the loophole should be closed. If that means efests closes too then so be it.

Edited October 13, 2010 by eFestivals

[dakyras]

The bullshitter is you.

I provided it, from the most respected financial politician in the country.

Everything else is your delusion.

[eFestivals]

You provided an opinion piece. Not any figures or other empirical evidence.

I provided the first thing I found that backed up what I said.

Does it back up what I said? Yes.

Is the source reputable for his opinions in the area of govt taxation? Yes - many would say there's none better.

It might not be the perfect source, but it's more than enough of a source for its purpose.

If you care so f**king much search yourself. Don't call someone a liar.

I honestly don't know what's caused this vitriol.

You calling me a liar only because I told you something you didn't already know.

[eFestivals]

Erm no... I also do fixed price worked... Keep up...

It makes no f**king difference overall.

You price for work on the basis of how long you think it'll take. Sometimes it takes longer, and sometimes it takes less. It evens out.

Yup, but I was answering a different question. You asked why do I pay myself more than the average wage. Like I said, you like to move the goal posts around. You are quite good at it and some people are bad at noticing your tricks. I like to point it out when you do it.

No goalposts have been moved, apart from within your deluded mind.

You put extra skills forwards as a reason why you should earn more. I agreed that it's worth more.

But I pointed out as well - relevant or not in your mind - that it doesn't make the (essentially) self-employed any different to any other worker in regard to extra skills.

But I did, you simply just don't agree...

because as I pointed out all of those things are no different for all workers.

Now tell me WHY the rules are bad when they allow you to do this

Silly Neil

Every company works this way

Really? Do the bosses of every company in the world really have an income far less than the median average wage, including all dividends?

I have a business that on any 'normal' basis should be shut down. I have CHOSEN to continue with it, because I'm willing and able to personally take the consequences of that choice (while employees earn far more than me, and don't suffer the consequences of my choice for myself).

and it is another reason why companies and their owners get tax breaks. It allows them to be more flexible.

no it doesn't. It only gives them that if a new tax break appears.

And if they do a good job (which I am convinced you don't)

for you to have the first idea, you'd have to know and get the basis I work by. You don't, as you continually show.

then yes, you do get rewarded for it. And I see nothing wrong with that.

so no extra risks, tax breaks AND extra rewards. You don't expect much, do you?

....oh, and child benefit for those earning £44k and more.

And then you wonder why the country is more than a little bit f**ked.

The thing is Neil, you just think anyone who earns more than you is a c**t. The fact is, you are just a deeply jealous man.

You don't have the first idea.

If I think that, why do I CHOSE to pay those who work for me more than I've ever earnt from efests?

I have no jealously of high pay, I gave up more than you'll ever earn. It is the case those that most I worked with were c**ts no different to you. Isn't it funny how the two things so often go hand in hand?

I do however have a strong sense of proportionality, something you've demonstrated you lack completely over the last week or so.

[eFestivals]

Just wondering Neil... Does your attendance at Festivals and Gigs go down as business expenses

Nope.

That's surprised you, hasn't it?

[paddydog]

But as I keep saying to you, it's 100% wrong. You're definitely not an accountant, things don't get more basic than this.

Only the income a person receives for (best description I could think of) "work done" is what is taxable under the income tax and NI regime.

Income from other sources - such as (the two most common) company dividends, and capital gains - operate to a completely different set of rules.

It's exceedingly easy for certain people to manipulate things so that what would otherwise come to them as normal income for "work done" to channel that money in other directions so that it's treated as income from something other than "work done", and so taxed differently.

[dakyras]

I provided the first thing I found that backed up what I said.

Does it back up what I said? Yes.

Is the source reputable for his opinions in the area of govt taxation? Yes - many would say there's none better.

It might not be the perfect source, but it's more than enough of a source for its purpose.

If you care so f**king much search yourself. Don't call someone a liar.

You calling me a liar only because I told you something you didn't already know.

Edited October 13, 2010 by dakyras

[MrZigster]

You said, and I quote (again), "1. the average % tax paid by those in the higher tax brackets (earning £44k+ a year) actually pay a lower proportion of their wages in tax than those on the standard tax bracket. Cos there's so many fiddles open to them that aren't open to 'normal' people."

You also said that the government admit this, and tried to back this up by referencing the Daily Mail (oh dear). The Institute for Fiscal Studies looked at the Inland Revenue's (i.e., the government's) data and concluded that in 2008/9, 23% of all tax was paid by 1% of top taxpayers, 53% was paid by 10% of top taxpayers and 89% of all tax was paid by the top 50% of taxpayers. This is in black and white for you here.

If you cannot comprehend that, you are deluded. Mind you, you read the Daily Mail and referenced it as fact, so that is evidently a possibility.

[paddydog]

Read again and understand when you aren't drunk. You don't add them together. It is a sliding scale.

[eFestivals]

Oh look, Neil spouted hot air

Oh look, neil didn't spout hot air, but what he's spouted has stumped oaf completely.

[eFestivals]

i think any respect for him, and his lot, is rapidly going elsewhere

yep. But that's something different, which doesn't undermine the statement vince and others have made countless times on the basis of absolute facts.

[eFestivals]

You said, and I quote (again), "1. the average % tax paid by those in the higher tax brackets (earning £44k+ a year) actually pay a lower proportion of their wages in tax than those on the standard tax bracket. Cos there's so many fiddles open to them that aren't open to 'normal' people."

You also said that the government admit this, and tried to back this up by referencing the Daily Mail (oh dear). The Institute for Fiscal Studies looked at the Inland Revenue's (i.e., the government's) data and concluded that in 2008/9, 23% of all tax was paid by 1% of top taxpayers, 53% was paid by 10% of top taxpayers and 89% of all tax was paid by the top 50% of taxpayers. This is in black and white for you here.

If you cannot comprehend that, you are deluded. Mind you, you read the Daily Mail and referenced it as fact, so that is evidently a possibility.

The reason that your numbers don't add up to what I said is because you're not working things to match what I said.

Does your analysis match 100% what I said? No it doesn't. It's that bleeding simple. You're the world's worst accountant (if you're really an accountant, which I doubt).

The reference I gave backs up what I said.

There's plenty more out there which back it up further. Go find them rather than do extremely bad analysis that an A level student could work the flaws out for.

[paddydog]

The reason that your numbers don't add up to what I said is because you're not working things to match what I said.

Does your analysis match 100% what I said? No it doesn't. It's that bleeding simple. You're the world's worst accountant (if you're really an accountant, which I doubt).

The reference I gave backs up what I said.

There's plenty more out there which back it up further. Go find them rather than do extremely bad analysis that an A level student could work the flaws out for.

Edited October 14, 2010 by paddydog

[eFestivals]

Hardly, like always, it was just a load of waffle about how hard life is for you and how much you sacrifice to get this forum running...

Boo f**king hoo

There was nothing worth responding too...

I don't think my life is hard. I don't expect the slightest sympathy for the choices I've chosen to make for myself.

And - unlike you - I also don't expect preferential treatment by the tax system for the choices I've chosen to make for myself.

Why do you find these very simple statements so very hard to grasp?

[eFestivals]

I've provided facts, not hearsay and propaganda.

you've provided irrelevant facts, no better than hearsay or propaganda. They simply don't address what I ACTUALLY said.

You've repeated someting you've found in one right-wing newspaper.

I've shown you something that backs up what I said, said by a reputable person. It just so happens that it's in a right-wing newspaper - which means a newspaper that would rather the public at large were not aware of these things.

There's hundreds if not thousands of other references to the exact same thing that you can find if you care more about accuracy than you care about posting idiot bollocks.

For clarity, you said "the average % tax paid by those in the higher tax brackets (earning £44k+ a year) actually pay a lower proportion of their wages in tax" did you not. This is not true.

It is true.

And you've presented nothing which shows otherwise.

Whether you believe I am an accountant is irrelevant. Given your refusal to check your facts (I thought this was a principle efestivals prided itself on - clearly it isn't), I'm not surprised at your lack of understanding, it makes you just another of the sheep.

Says the man who is himself refusing to ch4eck the facts but who instead presents irrelevances that he believes address th3ew facts but do not.

I'll say it again: what you have presented does NOT address what I've said. It addresses just a small part of what I've said, and without being complete is useless.

[paddydog]

Like I said, I give up. You read the Daily Mail, that tells me all I need to know.

[eFestivals]

You might not expect them but you are happy to exploit them

No, I am not "happy" to exploit them.

I exploit them due to the financial necessity of doing so, so that my business is not financially disadvantaged in competition with all others who do the same.

But alongside that I say they're wrong, and should be stopped.

Unlike you, who is just happy to exploit them.

I don't make any moral claims or judgements regarding taxation.

really? Then what were your posts saying that it's wrong to cut child benefit for those earning £44k and more?

Surely someone who is SO out spoken on the issue should be setting an example ? or is it ok to piss and moan and call the rest of the world c**ts for something YOU DO

I am not doing the same as others tho, am I?

I'm not trying to justify as right those things which are morally wrong.

Come on Neil, you don't always have to ride that white horse. Come and get dirty with the rest of us shit bags

If I was trying to present myself as perfection - which you moronically choose to try and do for me - why would I have freely admitted to something which I feel is far from perfect?

I am simply stating that the scenario that exists is wrong.

[eFestivals]

Like I said, I give up. You read the Daily Mail, that tells me all I need to know.

Is that the best argument You have?

It's a f**king google result you moron, the first I came to. It just so happened to be in the mail, a paper I detest.

But despite being the mail, it's a piece in Vince Cable's own words.

Have you done anything to prove what he says is false? Nope, not a jot. All you have is your worthless words here.