MONEY MORAL DILEMMA: Should Janet pay for John?

sluggy1967

I don't really understand why some are being so quick to criticise Janet for wanting to be kind and generous. There is NOTHING to suggest that just because she earns a six-figure salary she is automatically a horrible individual, and likewise there is nothing to suggest that just because he works with the homeless he is an absolute saint. Good luck to her for where she has got herself in life (too few women manage to achieve that) and if she chooses to spend her hard-earned cash on her partner, why not? Is it less ok to spend it on a meal than on say, a pair of shoes or a car? Should hard working individuals automatically feel guilty for having nice things? Where should it end? A nurse shouldn't have a cake because people in the third world are starving and she should give the 50p to charity instead? It's not like Janet is spending beyond her means & then moaning that she has got into debt & it's all the credit card companies at fault for lending her the money. John should take his head out of his backside and either accept graciously or end the relationship. The real issue here is whether he is man enough to accept a woman's generosity.

Mind you, in my opinion, if people earning six-figure salaries paid a little more tax in the first place, perhaps there would be more money to spend on helping the homeless.

westernpromise

sluggy1967 wrote:

Mind you, in my opinion, if people earning six-figure salaries paid a little more tax in the first place, perhaps there would be more money to spend on helping the homeless.

The economic evidence from around the world is that the more heavily you tax economic activity, the less of it you get.

People on 6-figure salaries pay well over half their income in tax as it is. How much more would you like them to pay?

Nuclear1975

If I was John I'd just shutup and eat,

Originally Posted by sluggy1967
Mind you, in my opinion, if people earning six-figure salaries paid a little more tax in the first place, perhaps there would be more money to spend on helping the homeless.

sluggy, where have you been living, more tax to help the homless, llf, more likely more tax to buy another submarine with, or perhaps one of those nice £20000 screwdrivers that the government like.

FABFI_2

I think they should take it in turns. She chooses the restaurant one time and he the next. She might discover that paying a hundred pounds for a meal doesn't necessarily mean the food is good. There are good restaurants where one can get a fantastic meal for very little. She needs to be more adventurous!

Somerled

If fine dining is her hobby then all well and good - but it sounds like an excuse. Dont see much in the way of a future for them. One could say "Enjoy it while it lasts" better to come clean and reach an immediate understanding than to let the relationship disintegrate over champagne and caviar.

As for paying a lot of tax, a good proportion of high income earners make money by employing accountants to help them avoid paying tax. Meaning they are better off after paying the accountancy fees.

christiancheape

Yes she should pay!!!

sluggy1967

westernpromise wrote:

The economic evidence from around the world is that the more heavily you tax economic activity, the less of it you get.

People on 6-figure salaries pay well over half their income in tax as it is. How much more would you like them to pay?

I thanked your comment in error!!!

The highest rate of income tax is 40%, and even then, you only pay 40% on income above £33,000, so I'm not quite sure where you get the idea of anyone paying 50% tax from. (see http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/rates/it.htm)

In addition to this, an upper limit for National Insurance contributions means that a footballer earning £100,000 per week is paying the same amount of national insurance contributions as somebody earning £30,000 per year.

campbeji

There is a big problem with this dilema, one that makes it near to impossible to give a meaningful answer, basically we do not know why John is uncomfortable with Janet paying for the meals. Is he just being silly accepting that a woman is paying for dinner all the time, or does he have a moral dilema himself that it is wrong to spend lots of money on meals.

Actually now that I think of it, they both basically come down to the same answer, get over it and enjoy Janets company and gifts. Of course it all depends on Janets attitude to the situation, does she treat it as a gift that she enjoys giving or as a duty to help the poor charity case. Same situation, different attitude, different result. Another point is if Janet refuses to accompany John to a cheaper place, or is overly critical of it, then perhaps it isn't so muchh of a hobby as a case of snobbery.

westernpromise

sluggy1967 wrote:

The highest rate of income tax is 40%, and even then, you only pay 40% on income above £33,000, so I'm not quite sure where you get the idea of anyone paying 50% tax from.

You're forgetting consumption taxes. Of every £100 a TRT earns, £41 is taken in tax and NI. The remaining £59 is then spent, but on things that either include tax (VAT) or actually are a tax (such as council tax).

In brief, £100 earned = £59 to spend, and of that £59, more than £9 is actually spent on more taxes.

campbeji

Hi sluggy,

Just read your reply about the tax rate

sluggy1967 wrote:

The highest rate of income tax is 40%, and even then, you only pay 40% on income above £33,000, so I'm not quite sure where you get the idea of anyone paying 50% tax from.

Perhaps the original message refered to the total tax that would be paid by someone on a 6 figure income not just Income Tax, I wonder what percentage of the £100, 000 your footballer earns will go to the government, Income tax, VAT, duty on his Champagne, Road tax for his Ferarri, Duty for buying his new house etc. I bet it works out at a lot more than 50%, probably more than 65 - 70%.