Ah, ok. But in that event, wouldn't this scenario wherein an individual nets somewhat less while grossing more only really apply for a very narrow band of income range--that is, for however many 10s of ks beyond 100k, but beyond that, it would be irrelevant or moot?
Alcoholism, heavy drinking, problem drinking, social drinking and abstinence.
- Thread starter Pinball1970
- Start date
Also, this is just silly. I wouldn't go as far as to say that no one is "proud of (their) ignorance", but I figure most people aren't. I regularly cop to my own ignorance on certain matters and this is why I ask questions--does anyone here dispute this contention?
Matters of taxation, especially matters of taxation in the UK, where I do not presently reside, are not particularly interesting to me and i feel no obligation to be especially informed about such. That said, it's hard to conceive of scenarios with marginal tax brackets wherein individuals can somehow net less while grossing more. I suppose if I thought about it for a while and di some research... but like I said, not especially interesting to me.
At this very moment, I am thinking more and harder about the undeserved contempt so many have harbored for so long about a particular variety of "noise reduction"--specifically, DBX Type II, a system that falls somewhere between consumer-grade and professional and was used widely throughout the 80s to the 'aughts in 4 and 8 track cassette mediums, like the Tascam portastudio series particularly. This widespread contempt largely comes down to misconceptions about how DBX Type II differs from Dolby B and C in it's noise reducing methodology. Basically, the former employs a single pre-emphasis amplifier for high frequency cut whereas Dolby systems use multiple for different frequency bands, and therefore DBX achieves a much more extreme compression (and expansion) ration than Dolby--always 2:1. Consequently, one can--and must really--record less "hot" than one would ordinarily be inclined to. There's a lot more to it than that, obviously, but in the end that's kinda what it really comes down to. And so DBX Type II (no one has a problem with pro-grade Type I) is not, in fact, shit; rather, people have just always used it wrong.
Point being, that's probably not something that you're terribly interested in and I reckon you're rather ignorant about it. Are you "proud" of said ignorance? WHat would that even mean to be "proud" of such, and how would this manifest? I guess maybe you'd pretend to know more about than you do, but am I doing that? I mean, where have I ever claimed or pretended to be knowledgable of tax code--especially tax code for a country I don't even live in? I'm just calling out something that doesn't appear to make a whole lot of sense on the surface, and asking for clarification on it--cuz netting less while grossing more is not something any person would be willing to accept just on your say-so, sans clarification and elaboration.
So stop saying silly shit like that.
Seattle
Valued Senior Member
Yes, the band is between about $100k and $125k.
Seattle
Valued Senior Member
I said "silly shit" like that because you implied that I didn't understand basic economics so maybe stop saying silly shit like that before you accuse me of the same. It's simple really...
I would think that from the way I had phrased that--
"Seattle is in the process of unlearning basic economics--the "misunderstanding" the concept of marginal tax rates is always a clear sign for this."
--it would have been clear that I was being facetious there. You could have simply elaborated upon what you meant by "band" and "cliff" in the first place, as you did above--and you'll note that it didn't even take a whole lot of words to do that.
Still, that's a pretty narrow "band". It almost just seems like an oversight or miscalculation on someone's part. One, they should probably maybe "fix" that, and two, it's hard to imagine people really worrying themselves over it all that much. I mean, who thinks like, "I gotta make sure I either make less than 100k or more than 125/130k, so I don't deprive myself of a few thousand bucks"? And, yeah, a few thousand bucks is a few thousand bucks--it's not nothing. But it's just hard to imagine someone navigating their employment and gigs so that they don't fall within that bracket. Also, what if something were to come along a few weeks later that would have pushed them above and beyond the bracket had they not chosen to forego something else prior because it would have put them within the bracket.
But I agree that that is kind of weird and perhaps ought to be changed.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Which is kinda funny since we are only talking about taxation because the thread got derailed talking about paying music gigs.Is there some unwritten rule here that all threads must eventually be derailed by Seattle onto taxation or laissez faire economics??
Yeah, my rambling post on benzos and beta blockers was at least on topic. Kind of.Is there some unwritten rule here that all threads must eventually be derailed by Seattle onto taxation or laissez faire economics??
And on that subject, it's always been a pet peeve of mine that the market--excepting (Continental) Europe and parts of Asia--tends to reward those who perform others' music, i.e., covers, far better generally than it does those who perform original music. There's also "brackets" for that sort of thing, so it is by no means universally the case, but in the lower brackets... This matter is compounded by the existence of certain "elite" scenes, like with varieties of free improv for instance, for which there are gazillionaires who will pay artists an extraordinary sum of money to perform at one of their many isolated homes for an audience of like 8 or 10 people. I've known a number of people who've done these, some who still do on occasion, but most get kind of sickened by the whole thing because it's just so... elitist.
I have nothing against either sort of performer, I just find it frustrating that there is more money for the familiar as opposed to the less familiar and possibly even wholly unfamiliar.
Post#35 addressed that a bit earlier.Is there some unwritten rule here that all threads must eventually be derailed by Seattle onto taxation or laissez faire economics??
Seattle
Valued Senior Member
I answered the question about alcoholism. The thread started brought up gigs so why blame me?Is there some unwritten rule here that all threads must eventually be derailed by Seattle onto taxation or laissez faire economics??
Seattle
Valued Senior Member
Chemistry is better I suppose? Or life in Houston? At least I didn't mention Max Tegmark.Hahaha. This being Seattle, he has to swerve the discussion onto effing tax rates, of all things!
The Write4U of economics?
No.
The highest marginal tax rate for such people would be 60%, as you gradually lose the zero-rate tax band, but you still always earn more net the more you earn gross. The maths shows that.
At £100k your marginal rate is 40%. Then, for every £2 you earn you lose £1 of your personal allowance (0%). This means that the £1 is now taxed at 40% rather than 0%, so equates to being taxed an additional 20% on those £2 additional earning, making 60% marginal rate.
Simples.
Last edited:
It would happen if, at above 100k, you suddenly lost all of your personal allowance. So if at 100k you were taxed at 40% but than at 101k you were taxed at 40% but also lost your £12k personal allowance and had to stump up another c.5k in tax (being the 40% of the c.12k personal allowance)
But that's not how it works, as, frankly, that would be stupid.
The loss of the personal allowance is a gradual thing between 100 and 125k, reducing the effective tax rate to 60% between those levels. As explained further above.
Seattle
Valued Senior Member
The oddity is that you go from 40% to 60% in that band and then down to 45% after than band.No.
The highest marginal tax rate for such people would be 60%, as you gradually lose the zero-rate tax band, but you still always earn more net the more you earn gross. The maths shows that.
At £100k your marginal rate is 40%. Then, for every £2 you earn you lose £1 of your personal allowance (0%). This means that the £1 is now taxed at 40% rather than 0%, so equates to being taxed an additional 20% on those £2 additional earning, making 60% marginal rate.
Simples.
Yes.
For some reason they'd rather make it complicated than just increase the upper tax rates. I guess it protects the ultra wealthy from higher rates.
It's also a stealth-tax. Sneaky b'stards.
Last edited:
Seattle
Valued Senior Member
Since there is a 40% estate tax, they don't seem too interested in protecting the ultra wealthy.Yes.
For some reason they'd rather make it complicated than just increase the upper tax rates. I guess it protects the ultra wealthy from higher rates.
Попробуйте принимать Афобазол (действующее вещество Фабомотизол).
That kicks in at any estate over £325k... which is only £25k above the average house price in the UK.
The ultra wealthy also have far better and more means to protect their assets from such taxes. (Passing it all to your spouse makes it free of tax).
The easiest one, available to all, is to gift your wealth to someone else more than 7 years before you die. There's a reducing tax % if it is somewhere between 3 and 7 years.
Wealthy people are then more likely to be able to set up "charitable trusts" and the like that will look after them in their dotage while all but eliminating inheritance tax. If all their wealth is in a "family business", for example, then that is also likely tax-free if passes on to family.
Once again it is those in the middle that bear most of the burden, for having a sufficient estate to be taxed but not be wealthy enough to have the means to avoid it.
foghorn
Valued Senior Member
I’m sure Pinball and DaveW are paying VAT on their booze.Is there some unwritten rule here that all threads must eventually be derailed by Seattle onto taxation or laissez faire economics??
Back to Pinball’s medicinal booze for pre-gig nerves.