Printable View
Ive found it hilarious simce they came after us for what they claim as “cheating” but Fulham have been able to keep players on 50 grand a week, been given a 20 million pound player for peanuts in Wilson, also been able to spend decent money on other players
Bournemouth were able to spend a sh!t ton in January without a eye lid being batted... Derby werent even allowed to keep a 38 year old on 5k a week
Tbe game is utterly pantomime ffs hahaha. Not dirty its gone beyond that at this point
And Derby fans getting depressed at Forest will need to find a way of dealing with them going up because we aint olaying each other again for a few years at least, hence why I said we need to find enjoyment out of being in league 1 anyway, theres some big clubs down there and you only need to mame Ipswich as one who have had some proper pointless seasons. Ive said for a while a drop down wouldnt be such a bad thing, the club needs to just go out and find a way of getting a promotion and dealing with the pressure of it.
Forest will fund the prem boring once the novelty wears off, its full of familys, its expensive and you get tw@tted most weeks. Its not a fun league for the fans at all and youll find that out.
Ive been talking to some Sunderland fans and they say theyve had more fun in league 1 than they ever thought possible
The media sell the prem as the be all and end all, they go off as if falling down a league or two is the end of the world its ridiculous
Sunderland have enjoyed their league 1 seasons more than they did in the last few seasons of their prem era.
1. It’s not an argument, it’s a fact, that IS the way the world is, so actually it’s not ‘some sort of answer’, unless there is a sea change in the way the world works it is THE answer. I’m neither supporting it or not, just pointing out a fact, I suggest GP is too.Quote:
Originally Posted by ramAnag
2. The money wasn’t ‘found’, that’s a partisan spin on things, it was borrowed for non-recurring events at commercial rates and will be paid back by our descendants. Using the same device for ‘ongoing business’ (such as permanent pay rises) is exactly the type of behaviour that’s got The Rams in the ****
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy_Faber
Strange that you should be so selective in your response, but...
1) Things can and do change, AF...so it’s not really ‘THE Answer’.
2) There’s nothing ‘partisan’ about it at all. It wasn’t a critical comment and I fully accept that the money was borrowed, however I think equating matters to the mess that DCFC find themselves in is tenuous to say the least. The Rams are in the hole they’re in because, imo, of financial malpractice and something very close to misappropriation by people who should have known better.
It is, indeed, a fact, AF. It IS the way of the world.
That I, and others, think there's something morally wrong with that way isn't fact, it's opinion. Opinion that, just maybe, ought to become fact and there be something done about it. By "something done", I mean changing the current Tax Laws and making them fairer. By fairer, I mean making tax payable on earnings (through work, ownership of a company etc) all payable at the same rate.
Currently, in the UK, individuals earning less than £12570 pay zero income tax. £12751 to £50270 they pay 20%, £50,271 to £150,000 it's 40% and above £150K it's 45%.
The rich among us pay accountants £300+ an hour to find all the loopholes and thereby reduce their tax liability. The likes of those of us on here don't bother as there's no way in hell an accountant would find sufficient ways round paying to make it financially viable.
Ergo, the rich can benefit where the less rich can't. Hardly fair, IMO.
Companies pay Corporation Tax on their profits at a rate of 19%. At least those that actually pay any tax do. Large companies make "arrangements" with HMRC to limit their Tax liability. Multinationals and very large companies have yet more "arrangements" get away with paying between little and nowt.
I'd like to see a similar sliding scale applied to companies trading in the UK as applies to individuals. I don't know about Dividend payments in the UK but in NL they are taxed at a lower rate than income through work. Hardly fair IMO.
Another anomaly in NL is income generated through renting out living accommodation. Someone owning, for instance, 8 houses, living in 1 and renting the other 7 out. The Dutch Tax Laws are currently set so that it is impossible for that income to be taxed. Different forms of taxation, depending on how income is derived, cover 3 different categories of income. Renting a house/flat to someone doesn't fall in any of the tax categories. Let's say each house brings in a grand a month. That's 84 grand a year that the landlord can't pay Tax on. Maybe I'm in the wrong business. Conversely, if the landlord is stupid enough to make his venture a Ltd Company, he will pay the NL variant of Corporation Tax which is, I believe, 20%, about 17K Tax. Someone in work earning 84K would pay 37% on the first 69K and 49.5% on the last 15K which is 30K in Tax. Hardly fair, IMO.
Taxation systems aren't fair, IMO. The more you have, it seems, the more you can get away with. Taxing the rich and the multis at rates akin to those paid by individuals and making it impossible for accountants to seek and find loopholes and by refusing to make special agreements with a few individual companies and rich individuals would see more tax income for the Treasury. They could then reduce the tax burdens on individuals. The "working man" would go out and spend his extra money on goods and services. Thereby creating more demand and, as a knock on effect, more jobs. All of which increases HMRC's revenue....... Trickle up rather than down. The only "downside" of this would be that Tax Havens would see far less money pushed their way. Not a bad thing IMO.
Taxation looks a bit like a handicap horse race in reverse. Instead of the faster "horses" being given heavier weights to carry, they get lighter ones.
Simplistic? Maybe. However, the current complicated system that favours the rich and the multinationals is probably too complicated and doesn't work in favour of the vast majority. Vive la (tax) revolution, I say.
The Dutch government has very recently come to the conclusion that the current system needs an overhaul in order to a) make it fairer and b) increase taxation income dur to the unforeseen outgoings caused by Covid, the Russian invasion of Ukraine etc. It's a huge shock to the VVD (NL version of the Tories) who have managed to stop calls for tax reform for 2 decades now and even they realise that it's time to build a system similar to the one I have portrayed. As long as the Tories are in power, I don't see the UK getting a fairer tax system and I'm not so sure the "Red Tories" would do any more than maybe a spot of tinkering with a, IMO, broken system.
Of course the 1% and the multinationals will do all in their power to stop a fairer tax system being brought in.
I'm not daft enough to think that all on here would agree with my view on the current tax unfairness or with my possible solutions but that would be, again IMO, borne out of self preservation rather than the good of the population as a whole and the good of the economy which would only improve if the vast majority of people had more to spend.
I’d take slight issue with your second paragraph, MA, in so much as ‘That I, and others, think there’s something morally wrong with that way’ IS fact.
Of course the rights and wrongs of the current taxation system along with all its ‘loopholes’ is down to opinion, but the notion that there are many of us who question the morality of the current situation and don’t accept that ‘that’s just the way of the world’ is fact.
Other than that small clarification...an excellent and articulate post imo, and one which deserves an intelligent and reasoned response from those who defend the current situation or argue that it can’t be changed because ‘that’s the way it is’.
‘Vive la (tax) revolution’ indeed.
Interesting stuff and glad you ‘agree’ ie you recognise ‘where the world is at’. Only from that point can change be levered (bit by bit!)Quote:
Originally Posted by MadAmster
I’m especially interested in the property rental taxation - thats my ‘pension’ and believe me from a financial POV I’d rather be Dutch than English, that’s VERY generous/unfair. RA’s comment about being ‘happy’ to pay more tax is relevant here because the tax take on U.K. domestic landlords has increased massively over the past decade and although it adversely impacted me I not only accept it (I have no choice) but see it as ‘fair’. Regrettably IMO the changes were only made because domestic landlords were seen as a soft touch
All very good points from MA (when doesn't this guy make such excellent input?!) and there is certainly room for reform that will help those at the lower ends of the earning scales... though it will only drive demand and rates for your accountants even more, so quids in for that profession.
Andy's point regarding DCFC's predicament, "The money wasn’t ‘found’, that’s a partisan spin on things, it was borrowed for non-recurring events at commercial rates and will be paid back by our descendants. Using the same device for ‘ongoing business’ (such as permanent pay rises) is exactly the type of behaviour that’s got The Rams in the ****", is right on the money, pun intended! Decisions like that would have been lead, or at the very least, sanctioned by the man at the top. So either Mel drove these decisions, or wasn't as clever a businessman as so many claimed, and simply said "yes".
Thanks..... you'll have me blushing next. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramshank72