Comments on: Boris Johnson: liar

By: N.I.B.

N.I.B. — Tue, 10 May 2005 07:02:00 +0000

Thanks for dropping by, Boris!

By: Raken

Raken — Tue, 10 May 2005 04:36:00 +0000

Your Wrong, YOUR ALL WRONG!!! Boris Johnson is the future of this country and subsequently the future of the world. The man's a legend in his own time and a jolly nice chap. I dont think he even knows HOW to lie. He may get muddled, confused or be easily mislead from time to time, but never outright lieing. He's a decent man and someone you'd all do well to be more like. Besides, your arguments are not valid as you are into stalinism!!! I dont expect anyone who morally backs such a vindictive and (in fact) utterly useless dictator of a regime pretending to hold to a philosophy, but actually not even touching upon comunism at all.

[i realise that some of my arguments may seem odd, wrong or misinformed. this is entirely because I didn't read the majority of the website before hand.]

BORIS JOHNSON IS NO LIAR

By: Matthew

Matthew — Sat, 23 Apr 2005 12:57:00 +0000

I'm pleased to say I've almost solved the problem. The actual total tax should be 70 IT, 40 NI, and 50 CT. This sums (with rounding) to 161 pounds, BJ's estimate for just income tax.

So to be generous he might have written down 161 as the total, then got it confused with just the income tax. However, it doesn't explain the 86. The only explanation for that is he asked a researched to look up what NI you would pay if you paid 161 income tax.

This just about works, though it relies on the researcher not realising that to pay 161 income tax you need a salary of over 25,000, which on most tax calculators would be hard to avoid.

By: Andrew

Andrew — Fri, 22 Apr 2005 06:02:00 +0000

Alright, marginal rate probably isn’t the best way to describe it, but Dave is right – there comes a point at which benefits are withdrawn which amounts to much the same thing as a whopping great tax increase.

By: dsquared

dsquared — Fri, 22 Apr 2005 04:08:00 +0000

This sounds like balls to me. I would be flat out amazed if the poorest decile of pensioners paid any tax at all. Except VAT, obviously, but there is no "marginal rate" of VAT.

By: dave heasman

dave heasman — Thu, 21 Apr 2005 18:03:00 +0000

"The marginal tax rates of the poorest 10% of pensioners and of single-parents in part-time employment with childcare costs are over 70%."

Until you expand that to detail the range of wage for which it obtains, it's spectacular but almost valueless.
If you're a single parent in part-time employment with childcare partly paid (thanks to the Govt - Tories contributed nothing) then there's a point of earning at which that allowance is withdrawn, sure. So there's a band at which the loss is 70% of the increase. But only up to the (previously zero thank you Mr Lamont) allowance; then the marginal rate is back to 33%. Then down to 22% for a bit.
But tapered benefits are bloody complicated and require either more employer admin of PAYE or more IR admin expense.

By: Andrew

Andrew — Thu, 21 Apr 2005 17:33:00 +0000

The marginal tax rates of the poorest 10% of pensioners and of single-parents in part-time employment with childcare costs are over 70%. That’s pretty sickening from a Labour government.

By: Matthew

Matthew — Thu, 21 Apr 2005 14:28:00 +0000

Look, simple things to remember. If government spending is 40% of GDP then — by and large — taxation has to take 40% of people’s incomes, as only people earn money. So there’s your benchmark.

By: esbonio

esbonio — Thu, 21 Apr 2005 12:43:00 +0000

Notwithstanding the above, people on low incomes are paying too much direct and indirect tax. It's almost obscene. Income tax, VAT, excise duty, insurance tax, the list goes on and on. How can the low paid be expected to save when a large chunk of their income is removed at source and then further dimished in real terms when they come to spend it. Instead as we all know it's taken from them so the nanny state can hand back what it feels should be returned.

And it is not just those on low incomes but also those on middle incomes who are relatively highly taxed. The really rich meanwhile are able to send their money off shore or invest in various tax free schemes such as VCTs EIS etc.

By: Scott Campbell at Blithering Bunny

Scott Campbell at Blithering Bunny — Thu, 21 Apr 2005 12:13:00 +0000

Matthew, I posted the above before I saw your second comment (you must have got in while I was cranking up the steam-powered abacus).