National Insurance

[AtW]

In fact OP is correct in what he is trying to convey.

He is trying to convey a much higher figure (relative increase of 60% over increase in income tax in the same period) than it actually.

The fact that NI got increased is obvious - this is direct taxation afterwards and nobody should be suprised it gone up considerably in relative terms.

I mean FFS, many moons ago Brown increased NI by 1% for both employees and employers, that was like 5 years ago? Since NI was 11% or so, then this extra 2% actually made up 20% relative increase in NI itself. Why then wonder that NICs increased relatively more over period of 10 years?

Nothing new or suprising in it.

[TykeMerc]

One last go.

Income tax increased by 36%.
NIC increased by 59%.

The relative rate of increase is not 1.59/1.36 (16.9%).

It is 0.59/0.36 (63.8%).

You can argue that I was wrong to use the BN66 scheme and to continue fighting the legislation, but I'll stand by my maths.

It's a total waste of your time and brain power to try and convey a point to AtW. He's a troll pure and simple and will always try to wind you up rather than debate in an intelligent manner.

[AtW]

You can argue that I was wrong to use the BN66 scheme and to continue fighting the legislation, but I'll stand by my maths.

Yes I admit - your math is correct. By that I mean you achieved the approximately the right result by dividing 2 numbers. That's math and it is correct, however your interpretation of numbers and actual motivation to use these 2 numbers are both flawed.

Once again here how it is done by someone who isn't biased and does not want to join the ranks of statisticians favoured by likes of Stalin and Goebbels:

Year...........Income Tax (£Bn)........National Insurance (£Bn)
2001/2...............108.............................63
2007/8...............147............................100
% increase..........36%.........................59%

Let's say we expected NI to go up by 36% in order for things to be even (even though there are different ways of calculating income tax and NIC, but lets ignore it for now).

So, 63 bln x 36% would have resulted in 86 bln.

Now we know end result was 100 bln, so in actuality additional NIC raised in that period was 14 bln, now the question is - what is that 14 bln to expected normal figure of 86 bln? Well, that's 16%!

This number makes common sense because it is known that NICs went up by 2% many years ago, this could not have possibly resulted in 60% extra growth over what would be normally expected due to increasing income tax anyway.

You sure don't like my number because you don't really care about objective view on what happened - you are just looking ofr the highest possible number to help in you defend your indefensible position, the great irony of which is that your support of BN66 stuff is actually responsible for increase in general taxation on those who don't cheat.

[AtW]

It's a total waste of your time and brain power to try and convey a point to AtW. He's a troll pure and simple and will always try to wind you up rather than debate in an intelligent manner.

Tyke, go look at something shiny for a while whilst adults engage in a conversation that is way beyond your comprehension.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

It's a total waste of your time and brain power to try and convey a point to AtW. He's a troll pure and simple and will always try to wind you up rather than debate in an intelligent manner.

I have often wondered what people like that get out of it. It would make quite an interesting psychological study.

What did they do before the arrival of the internet?

What are they like in real life?

[AtW]

I have often wondered what people like that get out of it.

I bet a dead donkey's ears that you'd do it gladly if you could reduce your tax to effective 3.5%!

[TykeMerc]

I have often wondered what people like that get out of it. It would make quite an interesting psychological study.

What did they do before the arrival of the internet?

What are they like in real life?

I strongly suspect that trolls are deeply inadequate people in real life since they feel the need to try and score points by causing arguments when they can't actually suffer any reprisals. Trolling gives him a measure of self worth I guess.

I bet a dead donkey's ears that you'd do it gladly if you could reduce your tax to effective 3.5%!

AtW, DR has already said he's retired so I doubt he worries that much about NI these days.

[AtW]

AtW, DR has already said he's retired so I doubt he worries that much about NI these days.

I could not care less what he worries about.

What I know is that he actively defends the indefensible in my view - BN66, and also in this instance he posts rubbish calculations that I, despite my hatred of Nu Liebor and their tax policies, simply can't let go unanswered.

[TykeMerc]

I could not care less what he worries about.

What I know is that he actively defends the indefensible in my view - BN66, and also in this instance he posts rubbish calculations that I, despite my hatred of Nu Liebor and their tax policies, simply can't let go unanswered.

I beg to point out that assuming the revenue figures he's posted are correct then the figure for 2008 is in fact the figure for 2001 +59% (to two significant figures).

i.e. The figure for 2008 is 59% higher than the figure for 2001.

2001 = 63Bn
2008 = 100Bn
Delta = 37Bn
Delta as a percentage of the 2001 figure = 37/63 x 100 = 59% (rounded to two figures).

BN66 has nothing to do with the thread, apart from you harping on about it of course...

[AtW]

i.e. The figure for 2008 is 59% higher than the figure for 2001.

We already know that you betwetting cretin, the question how much more this increase in NI payments when compared to Income Tax - just in case you did not notice there is inflation and salaries increase over years, so income tax take would grow naturally (and thus NI) even if no taxation changes are made.

If increase in NICs was the same as Income Tax the number would be 86 bln, however it was 100 bln which meant that the growth was 16% more than normal expected 36% in that period. This increase was due to 2% tax hike that has been known for a very long time (before 3rd Bliars election).

BN66 is directly relevant because someone like Mr Donkey that supports it so actively should not be whining about tax increases on honest taxpayers who have to cough up extra tax to make up for cheats who do so on technicality of the law, thankfully this strategy does not work out long term otherwise honest taxpayers would have to pay even more tax.