Stay or go? EU poll - Oh the irony.

Graham_Devon

mayonnaise wrote: »

Yes, I think that's usually how it works, if you earn more money, you pay more tax.

Don't be so difficulut and try to blur what I stated all to score a point. I see wotsthat has followed your lead too. If that's all you have left it's pretty poor. The fact that such a poor attack pleases some who rush in to thank you shows a pretty sad state of affairs around here.

I stated an additional payment on TOP of the tax you would pay normally.

Graham_Devon wrote: »

To compare it to income tax we'd have to assume the taxman would turn around at the end of the year and ask for an additional one off payment on top of your normal tax payment simply because you have made more money than last year.

I just cannot understand the mentality of these mindless and pointless posts which only cause this sort of argument.

mayonnaise

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Don't be so difficulut and try to blur what I stated all to score a point.

I probably misunderstood your post.
Let's leave it.

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I stated an additional payment on TOP of the tax you would pay normally.

This isn't an additional payment on top of normal fees. It's part of the normal fees. My bet is that it's a legitimate demand and based on a formula agreed by the UK.

Serves Cameron right for not sticking to his principles. A fortnight ago he gave the EU one 'last chance', last week Barosso took the !!!! out of him and, today, a large invoice has arrived through the letterbox. A limp lettuce could've got tougher with Europe.

Farage's face must look so smug that even you'd want to slap it Graham.

Graham_Devon

wotsthat wrote: »

This isn't an additional payment on top of normal fees. It's part of the normal fees. My bet is that it's a legitimate demand and based on a formula agreed by the UK.

It's a surcharge. It's even described as a surcharge.

Telegraph

The surcharge - which would add almost a fifth to the UK's annual contribution of £8.6 billion - is intended to reflect Britain's better-than-expected economic performance relative to other EU states.

Financial times

Britain has been told to pay an extra €2.1bn to the EU budget within weeks because of its relative prosperity, a hefty surcharge that will further add to David Cameron’s domestic woes over Europe.

And I don't care what Farage's face looks like.

Farage's point is only hightened as a result of today.

It's been announced we are not going to pay it anyway.....straight from David Cameron, with backing from Labour I believe.

So we'll see what comes of it and where we go from here. We cannot continue on like this that's for sure.

Linton

Its all political posturing. The UK government were perfectly capable of working out the numbers themselves and no doubt did. The UK agreed to a formula which in 2008 apparently led to a decrease in payments. Now the formula leads to an increase and Cameron gets tough. Well not that tough, all he has said is that he is not going to pay it on the 1st December, not that he isnt going to pay it at all.

Graham_Devon

Linton wrote: »

Its all political posturing. The UK government were perfectly capable of working out the numbers themselves and no doubt did. The UK agreed to a formula which in 2008 apparently led to a decrease in payments. Now the formula leads to an increase and Cameron gets tough. Well not that tough, all he has said is that he is not going to pay it on the 1st December, not that he isnt going to pay it at all.

The issue is rather that because we added prostetution and illegal drugs to GDP this year, we owe more.

Which is fine.

But the calculations charge us based on this extra GDP going right back to 1995 and assuming it was always calculated.

Most ammusing of all of this though is Greece. What they gonna do? Take €30m off them and then hand them back €35m so they don't go instantaniously bankrupt? (again).

Thrugelmir

N1AK wrote: »

It's ridiculous language that just emphasises that a large demographic are literally incapable of seeing anything that Europe does rationally.

What's rational about imposing a surcharge based on the etimated contribution of black economy activity such as prostitution. GDP is at best a guess. There's no true way of calculating it. If it's a tax on something determinable then fine. I'm not going to work harder to pay more tax to Brussels on top of the high burden that I pay already.

Putting aside the UK view. How do you think that the Greeks are going to take this?

Linton

Thrugelmir wrote: »

What's rational about imposing a surcharge based on the etimated contribution of black economy activity such as prostitution. GDP is at best a guess. There's no true way of calculating it. If it's a tax on something determinable then fine. I'm not going to work harder to pay more tax to Brussels on top of the high burden that I pay already.

Putting aside the UK view. How do you think that the Greeks are going to take this?

I believe other countries, in particular Germany, already have the wider view of GDP, possibly because prostitution is legal there. One could reasonably argue that the UK has been unfairly paying less than it should for the past few years. I doesnt matter much that GDP is a somewhat fuzzy concept as long as the method of calculating it is standardised.

Now much difference the prostitution aspect makes I dont know, but I suspect it has been identified because it's the sort of thing the media likes to write shock horror headlines about.

Thrugelmir

Linton wrote: »

I believe other countries, in particular Germany, already have the wider view of GDP, possibly because prostitution is legal there. One could reasonably argue that the UK has been unfairly paying less than it should for the past few years. I doesnt matter much that GDP is a somewhat fuzzy concept as long as the method of calculating it is standardised.

Now much difference the prostitution aspect makes I dont know, but I suspect it has been identified because it's the sort of thing the media likes to write shock horror headlines about.

So you consider GDP to be a sensible way of contribution. Following that logic Companies should pay Corporation Tax on revenue not profit earnt.

In essence the levy represents the entire proceeds of the Royal Mail flotation.

Linton

Thrugelmir wrote: »

So you consider GDP to be a sensible way of contribution. Following that logic Companies should pay Corporation Tax on revenue not profit earnt.

It isnt obvious to me what alternative criterion one could have. However it doesnt matter much whether it is sensible or not, the key point is that the UK government agreed to it and is now whinging when its politically inconvenient.