Targetting the Over-Forties

Zero_Gravitas

LHW99 wrote: »

Pedantically, I think you would expect roughly 50% to be "below average" and 50% above.

Even more pedantically, depends on the type of average you are using...

mollycat

LHW99 wrote: »

Pedantically, I think you would expect roughly 50% to be "below average" and 50% above.

Even more pedantically, wouldn't that be the mean, rather than the average?

lisyloo

It's surprising how often outrage indicates a misapprehension rather than an actual injustice.

Thanks for the correction.


I can assure you though I'm not outraged at having a more tax efficient way of taking income.

lisyloo

antrobus wrote: »

NIC are payable on earnings, not income.

I'm not sure whether anyone has proposed levying NICs on interest, dividends, or indeed pensions.

Thanks.
Great to have some education on the forum.

LHW99

Even more pedantically, wouldn't that be the mean, rather than the average

The term average is generally understood to be the arithmetic mean.
This is different from the geometric mean, so "mean" on its own as a term can also be confusing.

kinger101

LHW99 wrote: »

Pedantically, I think you would expect roughly 50% to be "below average" and 50% above.

Err.....nice try, but you've misread. I never implied we sent only the top 50% (i.e., above average). I merely said around 50%. As many above average students choose not to go to university, it will leave some below average ones in the 50-ish% that do.

There are courses which will take someone with CCC at A-level.

mollycat

LHW99 wrote: »

The term average is generally understood to be the arithmetic mean.
This is different from the geometric mean, so "mean" on its own as a term can also be confusing.

Agreed.

As Captain Wainwaring might say, "I wondered who would be the first to notice that."

Pennywise

lisyloo wrote: »

I'd rather the dividend loophole was shut.
Why should I pay 7.5% IT rather than 20%.

The 7.5% IS shutting the loophole and is a new tax. Thanks to Gordon Brown, he made them tax free for basic rate taxpayers which was one of his crazier ideas which led to the stampede of people operating via limited companies to pay less tax. Don't forget the company has already paid corporation tax on the profits out of which the dividend is paid. The overall tax is broadly similar - it was nic that was lost which is the equivalent of the new 7.5% dividend tax.

Pennywise

triathlon wrote: »

We want a better NHS, we want better roads, we want better public services, the only way we are going to pay for this is tax,

Not the ONLY way at all - how about improving efficiency and reducing waste?

Pennywise

kinger101 wrote: »

The administration of NI would also be a mess, as many people have pensions from multiple sources.

The PAYE system manages perfectly well to cope with people with more than one job or a job alongside a pension. Making occupational pensions subject to NIC would be relatively simple as the pensions are already paid/taxed via the PAYE system.