Dally wrote:No - because a much larger part will be 'wasted' by going through the tax sysyem - costs of collection, inefficient allocation, larger salaries in administering the things it gets spent on, the fact that most spending goes on employees not beneficiaries, etc.
you cant treat yourself in a hospital. You are a beneficiary of Doctors and Nurses wages,
//www.pngnrlbid.com
bUsTiNyAbALLs wrote:Do not converse with me you filthy minded deviant.
vastman wrote:My rage isn't impotent luv, I'm frothing at the mouth actually.
Joined: Mar 08 2002 Posts: 26578 Location: On the set of NEDS...
Dally wrote:How naive of you. Most of these people have mitigated their tax by way of charitable relief. Whilst there has been some abuse of charitable relief it would seem in the higher profile cases the relief has probably been obtained by virtue of genuiune charitable giving. In other words, these 'greedy' people have given 90+% of their income to charity and not just 50% to the Treasury to be squandered. Osborne now seems to want to steal from the sick, disabled, poor to give it to the employees in the public sector. Now that is sick.
There is nothing stopping them giving money to charities all that changes is the amount they can set against tax.
Joined: May 25 2002 Posts: 37704 Location: Zummerzet, where the zoider apples grow
Chris28 wrote:God forbid that teachers doctors and soldiers should get any more pay
When the proposal for regionalised pay is considered, I suppose that London teachers will be offered rates similar to those in the private sector, like the teachers at Eton, Harrow & Charterhouse?
Similarly, surely London nurses pay will be compared to those nurses in Princess Grace or London Bridge?
Or am I being a little naive here?
The older I get, the better I was
Advice is what we seek when we already know the answer - but wish we didn't
I'd rather have a full bottle in front of me than a full-frontal lobotomy ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ kirkstaller wrote: "All DNA shows is that we have a common creator."
cod'ead wrote: "I have just snotted weissbier all over my keyboard & screen"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "No amount of cajolery, and no attempts at ethical or social seduction, can eradicate from my heart a deep burning hatred for the Tory Party. So far as I am concerned they are lower than vermin." - Aneurin Bevan
London weighting for members of the armed forces has been scrapped. You will no longer get extra money to compensate you for this cost of living, should you be posted in or around London.
Big Graeme wrote:There is nothing stopping them giving money to charities all that changes is the amount they can set against tax.
Not true. If someone currently gives 100% of their income to charity (and believe it or not there are people who do) then they pay no tax. If they can only get tax relief on 25% of their income they will pay the best part of 45% tax on the remaining 75%, meaning only. ca. 55% of 75% plus 25% to give to charity.
The other daft thing is to suggest limiting loss relief. Who will ever invest in new businesses / industries?
Joined: Mar 08 2002 Posts: 26578 Location: On the set of NEDS...
Dally wrote:Not true. If someone currently gives 100% of their income to charity (and believe it or not there are people who do) then they pay no tax. If they can only get tax relief on 25% of their income they will pay the best part of 45% tax on the remaining 75%, meaning only. ca. 55% of 75% plus 25% to give to charity.
But some of that money is the taxmans, they are free to do what they want after tax just like everyone else can.
Dally wrote:The other daft thing is to suggest limiting loss relief. Who will ever invest in new businesses / industries?
We both know there are those that abide by the spirit of legislation and those that push it to the limit.
Joined: Apr 03 2003 Posts: 28186 Location: A world of my own ...
Dally - the only way to do that is by making a gift of qualifying investments (broadly, quoted shares or land and buildings) equal to the full extent of your taxable income above the personal allowance. These investments will have been presumably been bought out of income which was taxed in the first place.
Simply handing over all your income to charity does not make that income tax exempt in your hands. If you gave every penny you had in income next year to charity, you would still be liable for any tax due on that income to the extent it exceeds your personal allowance.
"As you travel through life don't sweat the petty things and don't pet the sweaty things" - George Carlin
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 112 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
