**********************************************************************
WESTMINSTER CITY COUNCIL
Please refer to the disclaimer beneath this message
**********************************************************************
You fill in a tax return and tell the Inland Revenue how much you pay in
professional subscriptions. Check out
http://www.inlandrevenue.gov.uk/home.htm
Catherine Allwood
-----Original Message-----
From: Gillian Fleck [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 10 June 2004 09:16
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: New flat-rate subscription for CILIP
I've been told that it is possible to claim back the tax on the subs. fee
but no-one seems to know where to get the relevant forms.
Gillian Fleck
-----Original Message-----
From: Sarah Humphrey [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Thu 10/06/2004 08:14
To: [log in to unmask]
Cc:
Subject: Re: New flat-rate subscription for CILIP
No-one seems to have taken account of the fact that it is also
possible for members paying the standard rate of UK income tax to claim
nearly a quarter of the subs. fee back. I haven't heard any of the overseas
members bemoaning the fact that they are not able to take advantage of this
extra discount.
Sarah Humphrey
Documentalist
European Space Agency
European Space Research and Technology Centre
Noordwijk, Netherlands
T +31 (0) 71 565 3018
F +31 (0) 71 565 5344
E [log in to unmask]
W www.esa.int
Tracey Paddon <[log in to unmask]>
Sent by: Chartered Library and Information Professionals
<[log in to unmask]>
09/06/2004 22:40
Please respond to Chartered Library and Information Professionals
To: [log in to unmask]
cc:
Subject: Re: New flat-rate subscription for CILIP
hi dan and everyone else,
i totally agress with what you are saying i tried to say this
without
using the simple arithmetic which would have backed up my arguments.
anyone when i say 'i tried to say' i went on the cilip website
http://www.cilip.org.uk/member/newsubscription.html
and filled in the feedback form.
it was mentioned on the emailed news bulletins.
i even got a very quick response too!
tracey
On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 11:12:24 +0100, Bye, Dan J <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:
> It strikes me as an extraordinary innovation to claim that it is
"fair"
> to have a flat rate. It means that the less well paid pay
> a much higher percentage of their income to CILIP than the better
paid.
> There are good ideas in the proposals, but adopting the
> logic of the Poll Tax is not among them.
>
> At the moment, someone on 14K pays £100, which is 0.7 per cent of
their
> income.
> Someone on 22K pays £144, which is 0.65 per cent of their income.
> Someone on 42K pays £206, which is 0.49 per cent of their income.
> And someone at the top of the scale at 57K or more pays £267, or
0.46
> per cent of their income (obviously this gets better the
> more over 57K you go).
>
> So there actually is already a small regressive effect, but not so
> pronounced that it gives me fevered nightmares.
>
> If a standard rate of £150 is introduced, this is what the
situation
> will look like, in comparison:
>
> 14K will pay 1.07% of their income.
> 22K will pay 0.68%
> 42K will pay 0.35%
> 57K will pay 0.26%
>
> Which starts to look a lot less "fair", and a lot less "flat".
>
> (I don't think anyone would ever actually go from earning 17K to
17K and
> a penny, but obviously there will be anomalies due to the
> way the cut-off points work. But I haven't time to work out what's
> involved.)
>
> While it is true that no extra services are available to those
paying
> higher cash rates (although since the lower paid would be
> paying a higher proportion of their income, couldn't we turn the
point
> around?) surely membership of a professional body is about
> more than just receiving services. Those higher up the salary
scale
> have surely benefited much more from their professional
> *status* than those who are not so well paid.
>
> Hey, I know, how about having a flat rate based on percentage of
income,
> so everyone pays, for example, 0.5 per cent of their
> salary? Well, that may or may not be practical. I acknowledge
there
> may be scope for simplifying the salary grades, but I
> cherish the redistributionist principle and in any case the
present
> system is already marginally favourable to the better paid.
>
> Dan J Bye
--
Tracey Paddon
[log in to unmask]
**********************************************************************
Westminster City Council switchboard:
+44 20 7641 6000
**********************************************************************
This E-Mail may contain information which is
privileged, confidential and protected from
disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient
of this E-mail or any part of it, please telephone
Westminster City Council immediately on receipt.
You should not disclose the contents to any other
person or take copies.
**********************************************************************
|