It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

UK Makes Final Payment

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 27 2006 @ 07:21 PM
link   
The UK will make its final payment for the World War II Lend/Lease scheme on December 31st 2006.

Link:

en.wikipedia.org...


Thanks for honoring the debt guys, few would have paid it reliably for 60 years


[edit on 27-12-2006 by Retseh]




posted on Dec, 28 2006 @ 04:34 AM
link   
in the end..

we ended up paying a lot more.



posted on Dec, 28 2006 @ 09:30 AM
link   
I'm a firm one for believing in the idea that one should never go back on ones' word.
A deal's a deal and I'm glad we stuck by our word.

Given the horrendous situation Britain was in in 1940 I can't even feel badly or blame the USA for making serious deals which saw large chunks of 'British Empire' and British gold change hands.

Naturally I'd rather we never had to have had WW2 but, given the alternative, my own view is that it would have been a bargain at twice the price and therefore I feel gratitude to the USA (and others like the Russians) for all the various help they gave the UK and in defeating nazi Germany.

One thing I am liking as I get older is seeing these news items and realising just how long ago that is all becoming.
It's genuine progress however hard or patchy.
It's nearly 100yrs since the start of WW1 and WW2 has been over for over 60yrs.
Generations coming and going without a major European or 'World' war.
Excellent.



posted on Dec, 28 2006 @ 10:05 AM
link   
Good point sminky,
I think we began to see, particularly with the world cup, how past views of Germans being the enemy and the like are slowly eroding. This is definitley to our advantage.

Incidently Britain has debts from the pre napoleonic war era that it is still repaying, as it is cheaper to do so than to buy back the bonds themselves... I wonder who we are paying those to...?



posted on Dec, 28 2006 @ 07:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by bigdanprice

I think we began to see, particularly with the world cup, how past views of Germans being the enemy and the like are slowly eroding. This is definitley to our advantage.


Of course the Germans are the enemy! At least, in football anyway!

5-1!
5-1!
5-1!

Or, if you want to really un-pc:

Two World Wars and One World Cup! 5-1! 5-1!


Originally posted by bigdanprice
Incidently Britain has debts from the pre napoleonic war era that it is still repaying, as it is cheaper to do so than to buy back the bonds themselves... I wonder who we are paying those to...?


Probably to whomever has inherited the bonds I should imagine.

Incidentally again, Income Tax was only introduced as a result of the Napoleonic Wars to raise money to beat the Frogs and was meant to be temporary....

Temporary my arse...



posted on Dec, 28 2006 @ 07:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
Incidentally again, Income Tax was only introduced as a result of the Napoleonic Wars to raise money to beat the Frogs and was meant to be temporary....

Temporary my arse...


- Are you proposing we switch our society onto a model such as that which existed pre-Napoleonic wars stu? Surely not?!

No state services of any kind - no health service, no national education system, no professional 'forces' (and those malitias that did exist being a mixture of infantry and those on horseback!) and a society so rigidly stratified as to suffocate anyone not born into 'means'.....you see where I'm going with this, hmmmmm?

Whilst I can't talk in complete absolutes I have to say that if the price of our relatively safe, healthy and secure modern society and a decent and relatively comfortable living (compared to most human beings now alive on the planet.....or in fact compared to most who have ever lived) is a little tax then I'm all for paying that tax.

You can't take it with you.



posted on Dec, 28 2006 @ 07:43 PM
link   
I know what you mean and we (tend too) get value for money out of our Public Services.

I just object to paying so damn much! I am borderline higher rate, so a bit of extra overtime here and there and WHAM, 40% "thankyou very much Mr Taxpayer...."



posted on Dec, 29 2006 @ 07:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
I am borderline higher rate, so a bit of extra overtime here and there and WHAM, 40% "thankyou very much Mr Taxpayer...."


- Now come on stuey, you'll be telling me that you've been complaining to your boss for giving you a rise and making you pay a bit more tax!

......and after all it is only 40% on earnings above that particular threshold (£33 300).



posted on Dec, 29 2006 @ 07:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
......and after all it is only 40% on earnings above that particular threshold (£33 300).


That's the answer to the question I was going to ask. It is a marginal tax increase, not a total one. What is the top UK tax rate and when does it kick in?



posted on Dec, 29 2006 @ 08:45 AM
link   
Here you go djohnsto77.


Allowances


Everyone gets a certain allowance (see the tax tables link below) where any income you receive under your personal allowance is tax free. And of course children don't pay income tax. They can choose to have savings interest paid with no tax deducted by filling in form IR85, which is available from their bank or building society.

Tax bands

The first tax band is 10%. The next bands are basic (22%) and top-rate (40%). But you only pay higher rate tax of 40% on the amount you earn over the limit.

link

We have an amount of 'free pay', the individual's 'tax free allowance' that we all get which is currently £5035, rising to £5225 from April 2007.
(we used to have a married couple's allowance, which you'll still see referred to as it still exists for pensioners, now married couples simply get their tax free allowance each).

There is a 10p in the pound tax rate from this tax-free amount up to (a taxable income of) a further £2090, rising to £2150 from april 2007.

Then there is what is usually referred to as 'the basic rate of income tax' (cut under this government to 22%) which apples to taxable income above the £2090 (of the 10p rate) and is applied to taxable earnings up to £32 400, this will rise from £2150 to £33 300 from april 2007.

There's a reasonable little table here -

tax table

Probably like everybody's' 'system' it certainly can get very complicated (when things like savings, shares, property or inheritance enter the picture).
There are still a number of reliefs available in certain circumstances (as applies in many places too) and there have been efforts to simplify the system but, in common with many developed countries, the calculation, checking, quarreling over and settling of income tax is a huge industry here.

I won't pretend to be an expert on the finer points - some people spend years learning it and still get it wrong!
(as can be seen periodically in the courts)

The British system does seem to have one feature that stands out; if you tax lawyers are smart enough and your accountant good enough you can avoid a lot of your liability.


A report in this week's Economist newspaper offers an intruiging update. It states that in the four years to 30 June last year, Mr Murdoch's News Corporation and its subsidiaries paid only A$325m (£128m) in corporate taxes worldwide. That translates as 6% of the A$5.4bn consolidated pre-tax profits for the same period.

By comparison another multi-national media empire, Disney, paid 31%.

The corporate tax rates for the three main countries in which News Corp operates - Australia, the United States and the UK - are 36%, 35% and 30% respectively.

Further research reveals that Mr Murdoch's main British holding company, Newscorp Investments, has paid no net corporation tax within these shores over the past 11 years. This is despite accumulated pre-tax profits of nearly £1.4bn. Payments were made in some years, but in others rebates were claimed.

The Newscorp Investments stable includes newspapers such as The Times and The Sun as well as a 40% share in the satellite broadcaster BSkyB. Had it paid the full 30% rate on its 1998 profit of £309m, it would have netted the Exchequer £92m. (Enough to buy thousands of school textbooks, something that the Murdoch press is currently encouraging parents to do by way of collecting newspaper tokens.)

link

For further info this link is probably as good a place to start as any.
www.hmrc.gov.uk...


[edit on 29-12-2006 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Dec, 29 2006 @ 08:51 AM
link   
$60 billion we've and to pay back to the US alone in todays money.

all in all, appreciate the help but maybe Britain should charge the United States for our support in Iraq/Alfghanistan?


or charge for the US having numerous cold war era bases set up on British soil (that are still going to date).

[edit on 29-12-2006 by st3ve_o]



posted on Dec, 29 2006 @ 09:26 AM
link   
Well it doesn't seem that bad, especially since you guys have no state taxes to pay.


Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
Probably like everybody's' 'system' it certainly can get very complicated (when things like savings, shares, property or inheritance enter the picture).


If you can figure out our tax system, you must be a genius


www.irs.gov...


Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
The British system does seem to have one feature that stands out; if you tax lawyers are smart enough and your accountant good enough you can avoid a lot of your liability.


I think we have that feature too



Anyway, I guess this stuff is off topic so let's get back to discussing the final payment for WWII debts.


[edit on 12/29/2006 by djohnsto77]



posted on Dec, 29 2006 @ 12:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by st3ve_o

or charge for the US having numerous cold war era bases set up on British soil (that are still going to date).

St3ve_o,

The US based are part of the lease/lend agreement. We have just paid the financial element of the agreement off.

All the US bases are listed as UK bases and have typically an RAF commander (As most of the UK bases were for the US Air Force) and a US commander. Of course we can guess who ran things.

I worked at a RAF base that was in fact a US Air Force base. To annoy the Americans, the Brits would only stand up when the RAF commander came in.



posted on Dec, 30 2006 @ 04:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by st3ve_o
all in all, appreciate the help but maybe Britain should charge the United States for our support in Iraq/Alfghanistan?


Well I'd bet we'd say thanks but no thanks.


Originally posted by st3ve_o
or charge for the US having numerous cold war era bases set up on British soil (that are still going to date).


Ah, we do. Under lend-lease the US leased some RN facilities in Bermuda, the Caribbean and the Pacific for a period of 99yrs. As far as US bases in the UK and Europe they I believe are America's contribution to NATO alliance which the US already pays for 50% of NATO's budget. I can assure you st3ve_o where ever we are in the world doing what ever we're doing we are doing it on our own dime.

Believe me st3ve_o you and Europe as a whole have very little to complain about. The US got the short end of the stick in this deal. We got the privledge to send our youth half way across the world to die on foreign battlefields then got the joy of being tethered to those lands mortgaging our futures to insure theirs. And what've we got to show for it.



posted on Jan, 1 2007 @ 09:56 AM
link   


Text Believe me st3ve_o you and Europe as a whole have very little to complain about.


Yes your quite right

Estonla, Latvia and Lithuania had nothing to complain about

Or perhaps the German citizens of Dresden??? What about neutral Finland who were attacked by the Allies(Russia) and left for dead by the USA, they should shut up aswell

and lets not get started on Poland, disrespectful upstarts

Maybe it was Russia that in fact defeated the Nazis and not the USA???



posted on Jan, 1 2007 @ 11:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by dj howls
Yes your quite right


Hey someone finally noticed.


Originally posted by dj howls
Estonla, Latvia and Lithuania had nothing to complain about


Only for the behavior of their neighbors and their supposed allies(Britain, France).


Originally posted by dj howls
Or perhaps the German citizens of Dresden??? What about neutral Finland who were attacked by the Allies(Russia) and left for dead by the USA, they should shut up aswell


The German citizens can complain about the heavy price the paid for their poor lack of vision as for Russia please ever hear of the Molotov-Von Ribbontrop pact? Well if not then let me educate you. Stalin decided to buddy up with Hitler and stab poor Poland in the back. Allowing after the division of Poland for Hitler to concentrate on the west and Stalin to gobble up the Baltic states and attack poor Finland. Hum... I wonder what the British and the French were up to from Sept. 1939 to May 1940.


Originally posted by dj howls
and lets not get started on Poland, disrespectful upstarts


Okay I stand corrected europe can complain about the behavoir of europeans.


Originally posted by dj howls
Maybe it was Russia that in fact defeated the Nazis and not the USA???


Or maybe it was Russia's own damn fault in the first place.

Molotov-Ribbontrop Pact

Thats what I call karma for stabbing your neighbor in the back.



posted on Jan, 1 2007 @ 12:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by danwild6
I wonder what the British and the French were up to from Sept. 1939 to May 1940.


errr....
Trying to prevent a another War in Europe?



posted on Jan, 1 2007 @ 12:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by st3ve_o
all in all, appreciate the help but maybe Britain should charge the United States for our support in Iraq/Alfghanistan?



We should! someone get me on the phone to Washington!



or charge for the US having numerous cold war era bases set up on British soil (that are still going to date).


Majority have been closed now.

[edit on 1-1-2007 by infinite]



posted on Jan, 1 2007 @ 12:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by infinite
errr.... Trying to prevent a another War in Europe?


I thought the war had already begun at that point
I'm pretty sure it effectively began on Sept. 1 1939 when Germany invaded Poland.



posted on Jan, 1 2007 @ 12:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by danwild6
I thought the war had already begun at that point
I'm pretty sure it effectively began on Sept. 1 1939 when Germany invaded Poland.


we did try last minute diplomacy...but it failed.
(well, failed is probably an understatement)

The French wanted more evidence that Germany was a threat...and well, they got their evidence in the end when it came across the border.




top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join