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]
|
