Undisputedtruth

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > Hang on! Where did the bit about 'less tax > liable' go from Murphy's figures? It disappeared! > How convenient! You can bet it won't be the only > place this has happened in the document. > > So yes, he does reference his numbers, but that > just makes it a bit easier to work out what he's > left out. Loz, your 'less tax liable' argument is pretty much irrelevant to debate. Richard Murphy was quite right to exclude the tax liability because he was discussing how the taxpayer is funding pension schemes where ultimately only the well off private sector workers are benefitting. Bearing in mind that the least well off private sector workers are least likely to participate in a pension scheme.

Dear Loz, The only thing you have proven is how wrong you were on previous calculations and data used. It seems you're bumbling along with your simpleton's calculations and understanding of Sweden's tax policies. :)) Let me point a few errors in your thinking: 1) The Swedish government recognised in 1989 that they had to plan for their future pension crisis unlike the UK. So their 7% state pension scheme gives a far more generous pension payments than the UK's pension scheme based on NI contributions. To get the same level of pension payments, the UK worker would have to take out an occupational or private pension scheme then contribute a lot more money since the pension provider is likely to fleece money from the pension pot. Then run a casino style risk to see if there's a return on their money. Our financially institutions are shockingly bad. Today, HSBC, one of the world's biggest banks, have been lately making headlines for ripping off pension aged women in this country. Shame on them. 2) You have compared this year's UK personal tax allowance to Sweden's personal allowance from two years ago. :-$ 3) The Swedish tax laws are far more complex since they take into account tax relief for travelling costs, accommodations, pension payments, etc. 4) You've conveniently missed out the council tax so your comparison of Sweden taxes isn't really a fair comparison at all. :'( You are making yourself looking silly by trying to prove me wrong, Loz! ;-)

I'm happy to move on as long as you retract your claim that I've been bullshitting.

Interesting article, Quids. Not sure what camp I'm in. To make renewable energy a feasible option they do need economy of scale. On the other hand, fuel poverty and Russian gas cartels makes a clear case for shale gas.

Not an overkill at all. Athenlay FC have produced professional footballers during their time at Homestall Road. I believe Anton and Rio Ferdinand played for the club. Also the football playing surface was pretty bad at Peckham Rye park for a number of years. The pitches were often flooded during heavy rainfall and changing rooms were in need of refurbishments.

Thomas, the hissing sounds are likely to come from capacitors as they tend to depreciate with age. If you can replace the capacitors then the hissing sound should stop.

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'm sorry, but ANY document by Richard Murphy is > just not acceptable. The bloke just make numbers > up. > > Any credible source for these numbers? I don't think Richard Murphy made up the numbers as he gave reference to where the numbers come from. Unlike you, with your number for Sweden's personal allowance. ;-) @Hugo, Talking about the pot calling the kettle black. Pointing out your inability to read properly was not intended as an insult. Hugo, you've contributed very little to this debate in terms of facts, messed up the flow of discussions due to your literacy problem and engage in slinging mud at various people on this thread. What a ridiculous statement for suggesting I've added little to debate. Let me remind you it was me who first mentioned the Public Accounts Commission. It was me who first mentioned the National Audition Office's report on Public Sector pensions.

See Hugo, I'm not the only person on this forum who thinks you have a reading problem. I've got no idea why you think you're capable of reading government reports. Peter & Jane books are your level.

Hardly Hugo, you're speaking nonsense. How can you refute a report from the Public Accounts Committee? It's plain to see. Public Sector pensions are affordable even without Tory's changes.

Hugo, given that other forum members have complained about your inability to read properly then your previous comments is not surprisinging. Nor do I have the time to help you to read properly. But here's an abstract from your link: "Government projections of the future cost of public service pensions suggest that the changes made in 2007-2008 will stabilise costs at around 1% of GDP, thereby bringing substantial savings to the taxpayer. This would be a significant achievement."

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/228744

acm Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > My sympathies for your ordeal, Roulade. > > Of course, we cannot possibly tie your experiences > in with the public sector strike thread, in which > all public sector workers are so precious to > society that I should be forced continue to pay > for their completely unsustainable pensions, at > the same time as my wages are decreasing and my > pension is dropping through the floor. > > So I won't. Public Sector should start removing overpaid consultants from their payrolls.

Marmora Man Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Taper - wrong, wrong, wrong. > > Public sector pensions, as currently formulated, > are simply unaffordable for the country. That is > the core of the problem. Until you, and the many > public sector unions, begin to understand this > you'll never comprehend the frustrations of the > tax paying public which you expect to spend more > on you and your colleagues than they can afford to > spend on themselves. Sorry MM, but your arguments against Public Sector pension are only based on hearsay. Public Accounts Committee says public service pensions are sustainable.

Otta Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > RIP Socrates. Same here. He was part of the most skillful international team I've ever seen. A true legend.

More lunacy policies from the Tories. Don't they know there are already 200 pay bargaining units in the Civil Service. Why increase them by twelve folds. If the government was so concern about regional pay differences then they could have resolved the London Weightings a long time ago.

The problem is, have seen already, the super rich are taking big financial bets and are reaping the rewards. Leaving losses for the tax payers to pick up.

???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > The 'race to the bottom' slogan is a handy typical > emotive Left wing slogan meaning "We're alright > Jack, sod the poor and there's no debate" as far > as I can see Hardly, the message from the Public Sector is that the government should be spending more of their time sorting out the Private Sector pension. Otherwise, no doubt, they will be bailing out the Private Sector employees in their retirement.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-10719739 Not just getting the dates wrong but claiming Britain played a bit part in the war. Truly shocking. Not exactly a slip of the tongue but actual stupidity.

The Hutton report clearly ruled out other options for financing Public Sector pensions as they were 'gambling mechanisms'. Your idea is fundamentally flawed. Firstly, we have seen the poor stock market returns over the last 12 years and their impact on personal pensions. Secondly, the rippoff financial sector would make more money from your idea while the pensioner receives very little back.

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > Nice try, but no. You are, of course, missing the > important personal allowances. In the UK the > first ?7,475 is tax free (rising to 8105 in > 2012/3) whereas the Swede's allowance is about > ?350. > > So, tax paid in the UK for someone on ?25K = > (?25000-7475)*32% = ?5608. For Sweden, assuming > an average of municipal tax of 31.56% (the average > rate) then your ?25k earner will pay > (?25000-?350)*31.560% = ?7779.54. Or, if you like, > the Swede on ?25K pays a whopping 38.7% more in > actual income taxation that the Brit. > > And then there is the not-very-small matter of the > huge 25% Swedish VAT rate... I purposely left out the personal allowances due to the complexities of the tax system. Your figure for Sweden's allowance is sorry to say, incorrect. It also became more difficult to make a like for like comparison. For example Sweden takes into account commuting expenses while the UK doesn't. Moving on to pensions, it would appear the Swedes have a very generous pension scheme where everyone pays 7% of their income. The Swedes dealt with their pension crisis in 1989 while in the UK have come nowhere near solving theirs in 2011. I'd suggest to the government to end the race to the bottom and turn their attention to creating a more sustainable pension for all.

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Based on your own article, municipal tax rate is > 31.56%. I don't care how you skirt around it, it > an income tax. > > Sweden has one of the highest tax rates in the > world - your own article proves it! "Maximum municipal tax rate by 2010, including the funeral fee but NOT the contribution to the Swedish Church is: 34.75% (in RAGUNDA) National Income Tax: 25% MAXIMUM TAX RATE WITHOUT CHURCH TAX: 59.75% Minimum municipal tax rate by 2010, including contribution to the Swedish Church and funeral fee is: 29.73% (in K?VLINGE) National Income Tax: 25% MINIMUM TAX RATE: 54.73% Minimum municipal tax rate by 2010, including the funeral fee but NOT the contribution to the Swedish Church is: 29.00% (in VELLINGE) National Income Tax: 25%" Sweden's municipal rate is anything between 29% and 34.75% depending on where you live. However the 34.75% rate relates to Ragunda with a population of around 5,500. UK = 20% (basic rate of tax) + 12% (National Insurance) + council tax = 32% + council tax (worth 3%) As you well know Loz, the majority of tax payers are not in the high tax bracket. I have shown the vast majority of Swedes pays less tax than their UK counterparts if you disregard the tiny but ageing population of Ragunda. Even if I followed your reasoning then the typical British worker pays more tax than their Swedish counterpart.

"An individual's income is divided into 3 categories: business income, employment income and capital income. The average municipal tax rate is approximately 31.56% and is levied on total taxable employment income less a personal allowance. A basic national income tax of 20% is levied on taxable income exceeding SEK 372,100 (for 2010). A higher national tax of 25% is levied on taxable income in excess of SEK 532,700 (for 2010). In total, a maximum rate of approximately 57.77% is levied on average. Business income is taxed at the same rate as employment income. Dividend and interest income are taxed at a flat rate of 30%." [sweden's Tax Rates] There you go, Loz. The above article gives a lot more details about Sweden's taxation system. Also Municipal tax is just another form of Council Tax but based on the ability to pay and appears to take into account each person's personal allowance. I stand by my original statement Loz.

Huguenot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > We've already discussed how inappropriate > comparisons between countries with populations of > less than 10 million are with the UK and its post > industrial population of over 60m. > > You like to claim that these countries are > successful because they have high taxation and > left wing social programs. > > In fact they're successful in spite of these > policies. Hold on Hugo, didn't the government copied the Sweden's free schools model? Didn't Gordon Brown copied how the Swede's dealt with their own banking crisis by purchasing the toxic banks and later selling them for a profit? Amazingly, Marmora Man and yourself are quick enough to point out by using the Greece financial model as justification for attacks on the UK's public sector. Greece a population of 11m and is nowhere as developed as other European countries. It goes to show how much nonsense Hugo is talking. There is no evidence to suggest Sweden have high taxation policies. For a start their first ?35k of earnings are tax free. Now compare that to Britain where lowly paid workers are taxed more than their Swedish counterparts?

Bad result for Man U but I guess they can concentrate more on the league, hey BR.

Chippy Minton Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The government don't know which stick to try and > beat them with - Cameron describes it as a "damp > squib," Gove says it's had a "severe impact" :-S CM, ever wondered why Cameron often been called "Conman Cameron"?