Well that's the rub isn't it, the ones that go to work pay for those receiving benefits, so not only are you taxed to go to work, but your contribution pays your neighbour, who sometimes doesn't work through choice.
not a complete explanation,but he has a good stab at it.... http://understandingcommerce.weebly.com/money-explained.html
At school I was taught that it's not possible to have a revolution in this country,because the Police and Armed Forces swear allegiance to the Monarch,NOT the Country.. therefore they'll protect the Monarchy,( and presumably her Government), from us.....
I'm pretty sure she was referring to the future,as I don't recall the existence of the Police during the English Civil war. "There were, we may oversimplify, two revolutions in mid-seventeenth century England. The one which succeeded established the sacred rights of property (abolition of feudal tenures, no arbitrary taxation), gave political power to the propertied (sovereignty of Parliament and common law, abolition of prerogative courts), and removed all impediments to the triumph of the ideology of the men of property - the protestant ethic. There was, however, another revolution which never happened, though from time to time it threatened. This might have established communal property, a far wider democracy in political and legal institutions, might have disestablished the state church and rejected the Protestant ethic" (shamelessly cut-and-pasted from another website!)
ok so we all agree that we are being ripped off through tax but lets take a step back and ask ourselves why we should be taxed at all. income tax is and always has been a means to pay back the massive loans made to hm treasury by the usurpers at the bank of england. they have been gently emptying our pockets for a thousand years but now they can sense we are up to our limits they are stamping their feet and calling it all in properly. there is no reason why camaron, if he had any balls about him, cant start printing the treasuries own money and just pay these users off. lincoln tried this in america and got assassinated for his trouble.
theres a high court case in which the barrister was able to prove successfully that to pay tax to the UK government is illegal under the constitution, common law and the magna carta. the basis for the law suit was that it is against the law for an citizen on the land to knowingly supply goods, services and funds to the government or its agencies when the same are involved in illegal activity, or you have to reason to believe that those funds will go towards funding illegal activity. the case was found in the defendants favour..im sure theres something on t'internet about it... the barrister cited dozens and dozens of illegal activities with documentary evidence that our government is involved in..these included releasing certain prisoners, torture, the illegal wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, illegal payments to companies and individuals, selling arms, training terrorists, failure to pursue corporate tax evasion as per constitutional rules..it just went on and on...case closed... i looked into it and there have been several actions of this sort, all of them successful..it takes some serious balls to exercise your rights however.. Most tax is a scam..ie 'vehicle excise duty'...road tax was abolished in 1937 (this was to fund the roads), excise duty has nothing to do with infrastructure...another scam is the DVLA registration of vehicles...once registered the vehicles become the property of the DVLA (with whom you have just entered a contract)..it is possible to 'de-register' a vehicle under the law of 'rights to travel'..you WILL get stopped by plod because they dont know the law..once de-registered a car does not require a DVLA number or excise disc..ipso facto..no speeding tickets.. its amazing how much the government gets away with it because we dont know our rights, or because they have been so slowly eroded that no one seems to have noticed over the last century. the payment of income tax is entirely voluntary in law. In the states this is actually written down in their constitution document.
I think you should write to the Daily Mail with the above info.........I'm all for stirring the sh*t.....you might as well add that everyone who thinks they own their house don't actually realise the land on which the houses sit on isn't theirs. An interesting point of English law (Scotland has a separate legal system so that is the correct term). Technically the Queen, in her legal capacity as "the Crown", owns the whole of the United Kingdom, and legally a "freehold estate" (which is the basis on which most houses are bought and sold in England), or an "estate in fee simple" which is the correct legal term, is not absolute ownership of the land but only a right to act as if you DO absolutely own it. "Simple" in this respect means "without restriction". True absolute ownership is extremely rare in any legal system, as it would imply that the government has no right to require the owner to pay property taxes. AL
ah good, a man whos intelligent enough to do his research. in my opinion too many of us are content to act like dumb animals and take for granted all the bs the system feeds us. more people are waking up every day. we just have to relearn how to say no
You mentioned THE DAILY MAIL!!!!!The Head Prefect will be along in a minute,and you'll be for it! :biggrin:
I mentioned the MAIL because the subject hasn't got anything to do with tits (apart from the people at the top)..... AL
Working harder for more money is incentivising, in the same way as keeping more of what you earn is incentivising. Therefore keeping less of what you earn, through increased taxation, is disincentivising. I see an 'incentive spectrum' with low pay and high tax at one end and high pay and low tax at the other end. People are incentivised by having more money in their pockets, whether that comes from higher pay or lower tax, does it really matter ? There are of course other factors to take in to account as defined by Maslow, Herzberg et al but I don't think that alters the basic truth.
Economic facts, figures and history are open to interpretation. The interpretation we place upon those 'facts' depends very much upon our personal circumstances. There are no absolutes in politics or economics and one persons truth is another persons lie.
Oddly, you haven't said anything I disagree with, nor have you said anything that particularly answers my question. Yes, more money is good and an incentive, less money is bad and a disincentive - but those aren't the choices. If you were offered overtime at £100 per hour, taxed at 50%, would that be less attractive to you than, say, overtime at £75 per hour taxed at 33% or £50 per hour, tax-free? How would you be able to differentiate the relative incentive in each case? Within a fairly broad tax rate range, suggesting the idea of taxation being disincentivising is like try to balance an equation with only one side of the equals sign. People tend to want more money, or they don't. Below a certain tax rate - say 50% - I can't see that taxation is the deciding factor as to how hard you work.
So how do we stimulate the economy ? Too low taxation and the government doesn't have the funds to pay for 'good works' that leads to a virtuous circle of economic growth and social harmony. Too high taxation and the government 'wastes' more money leading to a downward spiral and economic ruin, particulary if an ever increasing proportion of that tax spend goes on the 'non productive' within society. Where the crossover points are is open to debate. Is an entrepreneur more likely or less likely to risk capital in a high tax or low tax environment ?
To the worker it wouldn't matter. But what would either say about the health of the economy ? An employer who can pay a lower rate for labour and an employee who pays a lower rate of tax has to indicate a stronger economy surely ?
Indeed, here we are debating it! I dislike blanket statements about how awful "high" taxation is (or for that matter, "any" taxation whatsoever, in other forums I frequent). People talk about "higher taxation" which, whilst not a completely meaningless term, doesn't nearly begin to describe the situation. For instance, I challenge anyone to convince me that adding 1% to the Basic Rate Band means anything to them in terms of reduced living circumstances - no holiday this year, can't afford a car, can't afford to eat, etc. 1% extra on the rate band is "higher taxation", but is nearly meaningless to the average person. The effect on the Exchequer, though, is appreciable and quite possibly beneficial to the country as a whole. Instead of 1%, you can substitute 2% or even 5% - the effect on the average household will increase gradually but not to the extent that people will not do the overtime that they would have done but for the tax increase. Depends. Does the entrepreneur intend to eat that month? "High tax" and "low tax", these days, means fiddling around with the margins - is there a 10% lower rate, is the basic rate at 25% or 23%, are the upper rates 40%, 45% or 50%? Do the higher rates cut in at £40K, £50K or £100K? None of the answers to these questions affect people's desire to work for more money, in my mind. Tax rates of 75% or more, well, perhaps, but no political party is going to commit electoral suicide introducing that kind of nonsense.
