Whitey Grandad

I said I thought it was ridiculous, and in the case of Starbucks a downright fiddle. I think you'd have trouble structuring your business to match their model.

Yes, universally acknowledged as a ridiculous situation but not enough on their own to make a lot of difference. These examples do, of course, employ people and pay all the associated personal and infrastructure taxes.

The whole point of the flat tax rate is that it is the only rate, nothing else, no tax-free thresholds or anything, somewhere around 20% is often mooted. A lot of other restructuring would need to take place too and I cannot see it ever being implemented in the UK but a surprising (to me at least) number of countries use it : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_tax Yes, wastage, oh dear, far too much is frittered. The problem is that government-funded institutions think they can just go back to the bottomless well every time that they have a problem to solve.

This is one where I agree with you - scary You're right about the overall burden, 50% is not far off but it depends on how you lump in all the various revenues. Don't forget the NI on earnings and alo the employer's contribution - that's part of your salary too and should be counted as such.

I wasn't trying to be snobbish, just stating a fact. We seldom eat out unless we are on holiday or travelling and never go to pubs or suchlike. I'm legally diabetic but at the moment am controlling it by eating sensibly and exercising whenever possible but after my heart problems of a couple of years ago I feel I ought to moderate my alcohol intake which is difficult when you've built up a wine cellar of over 200 bottles. I enjoy a celebratory bottle of beer at home whenever Saints win so that's a lot more often than it used to be but I don't overdo it and savour every sip. In recent times we have been taking holidays such as cruises or caravanning with the odd road trip to Scotland and Scandinavia which I'm trying to fit in before they take my licence away. Which is all a long-winded way of saying that the only time we eat out is in hotels or holiday places when we're abroad. We find that the problem with Britain is the time you spend waiting for them to bring your order, even when the restaurant is almost empty. *No, I've never had swan but when I was up at Cambridge they used to serve it over at May Balls at St. John's College. My mate tried it and said it was nothing special but I think it was the presentation, they'd run out of menials to use as seving dishes. Or should that be 'servant dishes'?. At Christ's we had stuff like 'Croûte à l'italienne' and 'Jugged Hare', they put me off posh nosh for life. Yet no matter who we are we should patronise these eating establishments and hostelries as much as possible. 'It is the business of the wealthy man to give employment to the artisan.' Hilaire Belloc

Very true. He's a much better player than when he joined us.

It's the same with me. Ever since their first public appeal when I thought their was something not right about Kate's demeanour, a slightly pained wistful look as though she knew that the poor girl was not coming back. It's just a feeling, nothing more than that.

Nor I. That's because I never go near the places.

The media control the agenda which is why some people want to control the media. It's difficult to get up in arms when there's such a sh1t poor turn out at general elections. Local elections are even worse.

Great news, a good reward for him.

That's what I thought. The original colours are acceptable (to me at least) but what we've ended up with looks like a 15- year old has been let loose with a set of paints that came free on the front of a comic and I doubt that they will last as long.

I don't think anybody is saying they shouldn't pay any tax, apart from all those who choose living off benefits as a lifestyle, it's a question of the rate of tax and the amount wasted. As for rich foreigners, I suspect they come here because they can have all the benifts without paying any tax. In 'rich foreigners' I include those British who have chosen to be domiciled abroad yet still spend a lot of their time here. Philip Green for a start. http://liberalconspiracy.org/2010/08/20/sir-philip-green-tax-avoider-gets-job-on-the-side/

The tax relief is only worth more because the marginal rate is twice as high. If there were a flat rate of 20% then the relief would be the same for both. As for Starbucks and all the others I agree totally.

Indeed it does. Thursday nights are not made for football, they bugger up Saturdays.

They rather prove my point, really. That last one, the Tianjin Art Museum, is natural stone facade but still too rectangular and plain for my liking. I'll see your photos and raise you a:

Probably best seen from the inside.

Yeah, Thursday seems to be the problem with it.

I find the whole programme very puerile. Perhaps I'm getting old.

I'm surprised that so few people knew this thing about the optimal tax rate. There's a whole department at the Treasury studying different mathematical models, just have a look for the 'Laffer Curve'. Of course economies are a lot more complicated than a simple curve and the optimal rate changes constantly with all sorts of factors. There is another debate as to whether extorting the maximum amount of tax from the economy is a good thing. Here's a couple of links: http://www.cityam.com/article/maximising-tax-revenue-good-politicians-not-rest-us http://learneconomicsonline.com/laffercurve.php As to whether you're happy to pay a lot of tax depends upon whether you believe that the government is better qualified to spend the money that its earners. For companies a high tax rate will bleed them of funds that could otherwise be invested in new staff and products.

Not me, I ought to be retired. Speak to my cleaning company if you don't believe what I say. There's nothing mythological about it.

That will only put people out of work.

You will never fundamentally understand this if you continue to maintain this line of thinking. The government does not earn any money, it can only take it from those who do, companies or individuals. Your first line is so far off the mark as to be laughable. The wealthy pay a lot of tax, far more than their 'fair share', but the vast bulk of it comes from the ordinary people.

I think it's to do with whether you have enough to live on and whether putting in longer hours is worth the stress and aggro. In the case of the person on benefits they are getting what they need without having to do any work and would need to get a well-paid job just to maintain their current standard of living. In their case the difference is between no work and a lot of work for no difference in income. Basically the difference is that for the working person you are taking moneoff them if they work and for the other you are paying them not to work. You're right about the votes.

This article probably makes it clearer: http://www.cityam.com/article/1393442674/real-reason-squeezing-rich-makes-us-all-poorer

Raising the marginal rate above about 40% reduces the total tax-take, please see below. It's certainly not a giveaway if you're giving people their own money. Please see above under 'Gordon Brown'. You're talking as though this money that these people earn belongs to the government. As the marginal rate increases (including NI) then the total tax take rises and then falls as more and more earners don't see the point in earning more money for less return. There have been many studies into the optimal rate from the government's view of maximising the tax-take but somewhere around 35% to 45% is a common figure. http://www.director.co.uk/magazine/2012/05_May/Graeme_Leach_65_09.html http://www.adamsmith.org/blog/tax-spending/calculating-the-optimal-progessive-income-tax/