Earning £100,000 extra Friday, Mar 18 2011

Right Wing British politicians (The Tory party, the Labour party) argue that tuition fees are fair because graduates earn, on average, £100,000 more than non graduates, over their working life.

On an extra £100,000 they will pay £20,000 Tax (MINIMUM, assuming they never get into the higher tax bracket), £11,000 national insurance.  Their employers will pay £12,000 over and above this £100,000 in Employer’s National Insurance.  A total to the govenment of AT LEAST £43,000.

The graduate wil be left with £69,000.  If of that money he spends just £30,000 extra over his life time on ‘luxury’ items (computers, TVs, cookers…) the Government will receive another £5,000 in VAT.

One assumes if a company pays extra, it expects extra profit, so they would pay tax on that (or investors pay tax on dividends).  A well educated workforce makes the UK an attractive place for future high tech companies, thus bring jobs to the UK, thus garnering more tax.

The BBC reveal today that it is quite possible the cost of the student loan in interest, will be the same as the loan.

SO, to summerise.

Pay £30k+ in fees and loans, pay another £30k for interest, pay £37k in extra tax.  Benefit the government with attracting employment to the UK, even though they have made no investment (because it’s a loan with interest, it costs them nothing), they will receive £50 grand or more, plus non-monetary, or knock on benfits.

Worth the £75 per year average the graduate will end up with.

One Response »

 

Cost of Civil Service Pensions Saturday, Mar 12 2011

The net cost of paying public sector pensions in 2009/10 was a little under £4 billion. The cost of providing tax relief to the one per cent of those earning more than £150,000 is more than twice as much. The total cost of providing tax relief to all higher rate taxpayers, on their private pensions, is more than five times as much.

Just saying…

(Information from http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2011/03/10/public-sector-pensions-a-response/)

One Response »

 

Questions for bankers Tuesday, Mar 1 2011

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/deborah-ross-your-questions-for-bankers-answered-2228579.html seems fair.

My bank once phoned me, then refused to talk to me unless I proved who I said I was.  I’m hoping they will do it again so I can ask them security questions.  I may also include the phrase “this phone call will be recorded for purposes of being riduculed on the internet.”

Leave a Response »

 

Elitest Bastard (aka Hussar goes off on one) Tuesday, Mar 10 2009

See that blue button with Richard Dawkins on it?  Click on it (not yet- I haven’t finished ranting at you) and you will go to the Carnival of the Elitist Bastards.  Who?  A bunch of bloggers generally pissed off with everything being so damn stupid.

Why am I proud to be an elitist?  The question should be why are you so unconcerned not to be?

We are people who are just annoyed that there is a movement against intellectualism.  I am sick and tired of being clever being seen as somehow a bad thing.  Someone who can kick, throw or hit a ball gets paid millions of pounds, while those who actually work worry about the recession.

People revel in not being good at maths.It’s seen as something funny.  I know I’m good at day to day maths, but I am amazed how many people don’t understand basic principles.

“How does this affect you?”  you say “why should you care?” Because a dumbed down population affects the economy and the planet.

People who don’t understand basic maths GET TO VOTE, often based on what they think will be best for the economy.  They can’t do percentages, for FSM’s sake, how are they supposed to weigh up the advantages and disadvantages of a Keynsian solution?

It is a fact that people, all of us, even Stephen Hawkins, are stupid to one degree or another.   We are very good at ignoring evidence that doesn’t back up our personal beliefs.  Jeremy Clarkson doesn’t like the fact that cars are contributing to destroying the planet. Solution? Insult environmentalists.  Republicans don’t like the fact that Neo-Con ideas have screwed up the market. Call Obama a socialist. The Religious Right don’t like the fact that science shows the Bible isn’t literally true. Solution? Attack anyone who relies on evidence rather than 4000 year old fairy-stories.

And where does it leave us? Click on the break, and I’ll tell you. Forcefully.

4 Responses »

 

Arrrrrrgggg! Stop controlling us in the name of money! Friday, May 4 2007

At the previously mentioned Stupid Evil Bastard blog, Les has posted a thread about a credit provider getting upset with him using their logo here. (If offended by use of bad language- mine- do not click.)

I got annoyed at this. OK he had used their trademark, but their legal department seems unable to tell the difference between trying to rip them off and a conjecture. Did they lose any money? No. Were they ever likely to lose any money because of it? No. Is it linking their name with a major online phenomenon, this ENHANCING their appearance in the online community? Why yes it is. Does this make the companys legal department look like (to use one of Les’ favourite phrases) “a putz”? You decide!

Les of course took down the image (though the fact that it remains slightly altered on other sites is noted by him). No matter if the case against him was 100% wrong, no matter that no judge would have found in the companys favour- things we will never know for certain- they are a multinational who can use lots of money in legal proceedings until he gives in.

Well done that company. You have made yourself look like bullies, while losing lots of free advertising.

One Response »