Secret taxation

This is a payslip for a supply teacher, showing income and deductions. On an emergency tax coding, tax is levied at basic rate (22%) on all earnings after pension contributions have been made. National Insurance is paid at the reduced rate of 9.4%, because the teacher is in his/her occupational pension. Total tax and NI: £399.61 / £1,472.20 gross pay = 27.14%.

Oh no, it isn't.

The tax that dare not speak its name is employer's National Insurance, which would be around £93.37. It's an extra cost that the employee never sees, but it's money that could be paid in wages if it were not deducted at source. Therefore, the gross (pre all stoppages) pay is higher than shown, and so are the deductions.

So why don't we see payslips that tell the whole story, say something like this? ...

The reason is obvious, isn't it? Especially when you show the appropriate marginal rate.

And if this was a payslip for someone not in an occupational pension, the marginal rate of N.I. would be 11% for the employee, and 12.8% for the employer. In other words, £100 extra payslip-declared salary would actually cost the employer a total of £112.80, with marginal-rate deductions of £22 in income tax and £23.80 in N.I. ! In that case, the real effective marginal rate of revenue-raising would be 45.80/112.80, or 40.6%.

The average wage earner is, in fact, a 40% taxpayer, without knowing it.

Is it illegal to show the truth on your employees' wage slips? Don't you think it would make the ordinary person start to take the taxation issue seriously?

Gold price manipulation: Mylchreet backs Veneroso

I've previously noted Frank Veneroso's theory that central banks have been offloading gold to keep its price down, a ploy that obviously cannot work forever. Now here's Paul Mylchreet saying the same thing:

"Central banks have 10-15,000 tonnes of gold less than their officially reported reserves of 31,000" the Chevreux report announced. "This gold has been lent to bullion banks and their counterparties and has already been sold for jewelry, etc. Non-gold producers account for most [of the borrowing] and may be unable to cover shorts without causing a spike in the gold price."

In other words, "covert selling (via central bank lending) has artificially depressed the gold price for a decade [and a] strongly rising Gold Price could have severe consequences for US monetary policy and the US Dollar."

The conclusion? "Start hoarding," said Paul Mylchreet...

The United States Federal Reserve: why the secrecy?

Two most interesting blog articles by the jokily-pseudonym-ed "Lord Higham-Johnson".

The posts themselves are far from jocular and those who may be tempted to dismiss them as conspiracy theorising must still recognise that there is nevertheless a case, of sorts, to answer; or at least, the scent of a story for the financial bloodhounds.

The first, from March this year, looks at the process by which the Federal Reserve came to be proposed, named and brought into being.

The second, today's, is a restrained fisking of an attempt by a teacher of economics to discount conspiracy theory in relation to "the Fed".

Lasting Power of Attorney: the next step in the Long March

The great day has arrived. The Mental Capacity Act 2005 is now in effect.

Though I'm not sure how many people who take out an LPA are aware that the withdrawal of "treatment" includes denying water, so patients in hospital can be made to die slowly of thirst ("Since a landmark House of Lords judgment in 1993, providing food and water to those who cannot eat or drink for themselves counts as treatment as well."). And no-one can be certain what is felt by someone who is apparently in a coma.

Doesn't this conflict with the Hippocratic Oath?

What oath? Wikipedia says:

In the 1970s, cultural and social forces induced many American medical schools to abandon the Hippocratic Oath as part of graduation ceremonies, usually substituting a version modified to something considered more politically up to date, or an alternate pledge like the Oath or Prayer of Maimonides.

A Catholic scholar details the Oath and its history here.

The Act is here; the government's own take on it is here.

We seem to be approaching a time when anybody except a criminal may be lawfully killed.

Is that charitable trust trustworthy?

I have received another charity mailing, this time from the World Children's Fund. There's so many that I feel guilt at not being able to give to all. And aren't they well-presented these days?

But there's something about the name of this one - similar to other charities somehow. So I google it. Page after page on Google, each leading you directly to their site.

But now for blogpower! I look to see what my fellow bloggers say. Here's one, and it's most interesting. I say no more, since I have no money to fight in court.

I shall now add Elmer to my links, and the US charity evaluation site, Charity Navigator.

Another case where bloggers have proved to be useful, I would say.

How much money do we need?

By W A Sillince (1906-1974)

I'll remove this if someone representing the now-defunct "Punch" insists, but it's so wise and truthful that I think Sillince's work should be more widely known.

The mortgage conundrum

Much of the nation's wealth seems to be tied up in our houses, which don't appear to be very productive from an economic standpoint. There is a kind of circular logic:

1. Houses cost a lot, so you have to borrow a great deal of money to buy a house.

2. Houses cost a lot, because you can borrow a great deal of money to buy a house.

Having regard for the wider consequences of your proposals, what is the optimum solution?