No thanks, we're not here to study the merits or otherwise of every individual, it's just a general bit of banter. Who mentioned the unemployed..? They don't figure at all in this conversation, mostly cos they ain't got a job to work overtime on...
Yeh you just generalise with those that didnt do well in class. Including those with learning disabilities. I suppose thats fine as there wont be 'many of those sort' riding ducatis to challenge your attitude. Must just be sensitive me lol
Well, camelfarmer actually said that £40 was a more than decent rate, so it is not a scandal. What he not unreasonably objects to is paying such a high marginal rate of tax. Now I don't know what rate he is on, but ever since the "financial crisis" we've had insane anomolies added to the tax system such as the withdrawal of child benefit for some (effective rate of close to 60% for two-child parent earning between £50 and £60K) and the withdrawal of the personal allowance for those on £100K+ (effective rate of 60%+ for those on between £100 and £120K). All this makes a nonsense of the spurious argument about the "50p" or "45p" rate for those on more than £150K. If you were to increase the A&E hourly rates the NHS would have to save it somewhere else, or you'd have to put the tax rates up even higher for people like doctors! Current government policy is to reduce income tax take from the bottom of the income scale after all.
There is a basic level of income that guarantees a comfortable standard of living, by which I mean a house large enough to accommodate you and your family, enough food so that everyone can live without hunger and enough money to buy life's essentials and not have to worry about making ends meet. Anything over that amount is used to subscribe to consumerist ideals whereby one must have a posh car or a nice watch. So my point is that the value at which the lower rate of taxation ends and becomes the 40% tax rate (44k?) leaves enough money in the pocket of a high earner to live a comfortable life. It's not the state's fault if you want to spend more of your money on buying things that you don't need to live. Your house doesn't need to be any warmer than that of someone who earns less, you don't need to eat more calories than someone who earns less. You are just driven by consumerist ideals to be a more effective consumer. I have been homeless, hungry, poor, wealthy and greedy at various stages of my life and so I feel like I can speak from a position of experience. F*** the high-earning people that don't want to pay tax. It's selfish, unsocial and pays no consideration to those who cannot, for what ever reason, earn enough money to survive. 44k a year is plenty to live on and you don't need more money, you just want more money. Those families who work 60 hours a week and just about manage to pay the bills don't need to hear your whiney 'too much tax' complaints. They just want their children to grow up healthily and to not go to bed hungry. It's the rich that are f****** this country and making it hard for everyone else. For example, I could no longer afford to live in the village we live in when I return because back in the UK I can't earn enough to pay the rent and have enough left to feed my family. The rental prices are high because the market demands from richer people commuting to london push the prices higher than the local people can afford. In a single income household, which is single income because my partner cannot afford to work and pay childcare (she'd essentially be paying money to go to work) mean that we would have to struggle. What kind of country do we live in when a man can't even afford to put a roof over his families head? It's a basic standard of life and yet there are plenty of people struggling to do this in the UK. It makes me really angry. Pay your tax, quit moaning about it and if you feel like you haven't got enough money stop buying Omega watches. 44k is plenty. Edit: Just to confirm, I understand I'm taking this away from the OP's initial point but I think it fits the discussion in general. In regards to Doctors in A&E a better solution would be to employ more doctors rather than give tax benefits. Higher Education could be made cheaper and easier to access for a start and more children could be encouraged to aim higher at school. My opinion in regards to the initial point is that there is no quick fix and that the seeds of this problem were sown years ago.
no offense camelflower, but what is it about surgeons. me surgeon mate (you might now him he gives a lot of lectures down in london) he is as tight as a nats chuff. he has been restoring his landrover and aprillia scooter in my workshop i have watched him on his tablet scowering the internet to save a 5bob on a packet of washers rather than walk next door and buy some. i will add he is a really cool dude even tho he is welsh. we where chatting about careers and he let slip what he earns per shift. he was more embarrassed than cocky. but i know Richard is at the top of his field and is probably worth every penny.
what he needs is a scheme that supplies him with an inexhaustable shed load of work, pay it at a extremely inflated rate leave it susceptible to him applying his own interpretation on how long he needs to apply to that job……a bit like legal aid..
I have a lot of sympathy for this viewpoint, but it misses a couple of things: 1. The whole economy (even world economy) is founded on consumerism. If people stopped buying things they wanted rather than things they needed, the whole edifice would crumble with massive unemployment and attendant low tax returns, which would be insufficient to pay for the health, welfare, education etc. So whilst I personally have little time for a highly consumerist lifestyle, I can't currently see what the alternative is unless it's: Tax everyone to death and invest all the money in huge infrastructure projects that benefit everyone and employ everyone (or far more people). You'd end up with a huge state, and little personal freedom and people would be unhappy. This is surely what planned economies are all about, and they don't seem to work very well. 2. The consumerism is driven by a search for status which is closely linked to mating prospects. Desmond Morris' books make this quite clear - we are just sophisticated monkeys. You're not likely to be able to change this; it is human nature. People strive to be top of the tree if they can, and that means owning a Desmo rather than a 600SS (or even a Yam...) I do get amusement when these concerns are raised in this forum which is consumerist in nature (expensive highly branded motorbikes, which are by and large leisure items). We are all falling over ourselves to buy baubles we don't need, or trade in perfectly good bikes for newer, higher status ones.
You're right, there is no other option but that doesn't mean I shouldn't see the situation as it is, nor do I need to be happy with it. I agree that motorcycle ownership can be consumerist, but it doesn't have to be. I will keep the Yam for a couple of years and then get a larger capacity bike. Not because I feel compelled to have the newest thing but because I will have a different experience by buying a bigger one. I have fun on the rubbish dirt bikes I have access to out here, although they don't offer the same experience as an R6. Motorcycling for me is about the experience of riding and I can get different experiences on all bikes.
They do that already. If no one takes on the shift, they send out urgent emails and even call people individually asking them to do it. The thing is with the tax, only half of what they offer goes to the person working. To be clear, I was making the point specifically for services considering critical such as A&E, fire service, police. I'd have no issue with police being paid tax free to make sure that someone came when I called in the middle of the night.
If those services are so critical then they need to recruit more doctors. I guess the fact that there is a shortage shows that they can't afford it? A soldier is a critical job which no nation can be without but they're not paid tax free (there are some circumstances when an amount equivalent to an amount of tax is repaid.) Dustbin men are also critical but aren't tax free. So are farmers, miners, teachers, lollypop ladies, corner-shop workers. Everyone has a part to play and is a wheel in the machine. Should everyone in a critical job pay no tax?
We should all pay tax, regardless of our role in society. The OP's implication that because he's a doctor he is somehow more deserving and worthy than the rest of us is arrogant and condescending in the same post (which is quite an achievement in itself)
I understand that he is asking if tax breaks could be offered to employees to encourage them to work unsociable hours but you're bang on the money; he is suggesting that a doctor is more important than a baker. But in the same way that I need a doctor to heal an injury, I need a baker to make sandwiches. And I eat a lot more sandwiches than I get healed by doctors, so if anything a 'lowly' baker on 12k a year should probably get a tax break for getting up early to make my tiger bread before I get to the shop.
£50 - £60/hour.......?? I f*****g wish...........I'm lucky if I make £10/hour (sometimes working through the night and regularly 17 hours a day, 7 days a week) and Mrs AL makes about £7.50/hour...... ...and we are surviving with a mortgage still; so f*** knows why solicitors need over £200/hour and doctors need £100/hour.
With respect Tom, 44k isn't that much income. I know you live in Wiltshire, and fully understand the cost of housing, so you can understand what it costs to put a roof over your families head. I work hard to do not only that, but to be able to afford the nice things in life and make sure my family don't go without. Why should I feel guilty about earning a reasonable wage when I work hard for it? I'm sure I'm not the only one here with a four figure monthly mortgage payment, add onto that utility bills, cars, food, etc and you need to earn a set amount to cover that. Anything left over is for luxuries such as my bikes, holidays, and treats. Why should I have to put myself on the same level as someone earning less than me? As Fig has said, and this definitely applies to some I've met, maybe they should've worked a bit fucking harder at school, or in their life in general rather than blaming society for their shit life. They need to take some responsibility for their situation. Do I feel guilty for what I earn, fuck no! In my younger days, after leaving home, I've lived in bedsits, searching behind the sofa for 50p for the electric meter. But I've worked hard to get where I am and never claimed a penny. I'm all for the welfare state, for those in genuine need.
Some people here are getting themselves in a tizzy over the money, they've got pound signs rolling in front of their eyes and they can't see owt else. But that totally misses the point. The OP isn't after making a shitload of bunce, he's trying to enjoy the time off he's earned,rather than be forced to go into work when he shouldn't need to - but if he really has to go in, it needs to be worth his while. With all due respect, when did you last see a baker on an emergency callout..?
