Forum menu
So grahamS what you are saying is basically your wife does not care and only does it for the money...
She's no brain surgeon 🙂 She cares and she enjoys her job, but yes of course the money [i]helps[/i]. I'm not sure she'd put herself through all the stress and long unsociable hours if there was no financial reward above that of a burger flipper.
In fact if that was the case she'd be a lot worse off.
Professional costs this month include £250 for GMC/MPS sub and £800 to sit her MRCP/SCE exam.
FFS when peole spped we dont increase the spped limit
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/sep/29/speed-limit-raised-80mph
FFS when peole spped we dont increase the spped limit
Doesn't mean we shouldn't consider it though. 😉
Not really a good analogy either as the rich aren't likely to crash into the poor.
@Junkyard why do you have so much negative energy? It can't be good for you, let it go. Why do you think that "rich" people are any more amoral than the rest of society?
The politics of envy I believe it's called, alive and well on STW, which I thought was a bastion of middle classiness.... 😉
THM - it IS LESS PROGRESSIVE THAN WHAT WE HAVE NOW THUS IT IS MORE REGRESSIVE IE THE RICH PAY LESS TAX. 50 billion tax cut to the rich
this is the bit you seem unable to understand.
With that I really will just ignore you as you are so dishonest in these debates. be a Thatcherite if you want to be - just don't deny it and do not try to tell others that thatcherite muyths are facts
Junkyard - Member
THM - so your point is they want a flat rate tax because they want a progessive tax rate.....someone has not thought this through properly have they. its a mute pooint and you can defend your stance if you wish but i doubt you actually "believe" it.
No JY - I have no idea what their motivation is (and haven't read what they are saying in detail TBH). My SIMPLE point is that if we are going to debate the merits or otherwise of their suggestion at least lets be honest and correct in what we are talking about. Many people assume that a flat rate of tax is not progressive ie, its like VAT. This is factually incorrect. That was my only point. But fun to see how people jump to conclusions!
I think that combining NI and the lower rate of income tax into a single tax rate would be a good idea. A flat rate of tax for everybody (plus the personal allowance) seems like a good idea as long as it is watertight when it comes to avoiding paying tax. There is a big difference between percentages and absolute amounts.....
The politics of envy I believe it's called
Or its down to the "squeezed middle" wanting to see rich people pay their fair share of tax.
I have just looked at the countries operating a flat tax system...some real success stories there. 🙄
It's never going to happen since the 49billon would be one of the biggest right off's in history (and payments for the better off) and businesses would go nuts if you put up a 30% corporation tax.
Oh I do randomjeremy. A flat rate tax reduces the amount of tax paid by the rich
Either services need to be cut as in this proposal or the poor need to pay more tax to make up this shortfall
You cannot reduce taxation for the rich without either cutting service or increasing taxation elsewhere
@tandemjeremy you don't seem to get that 30% of a big pot is more than 50% of a pot that doesn't exist.
Thats a very good swerve TJ and quite different from your opening line on what a flat rate of tax does. So be honest.
We may well agree that in comparison with the current system this proposal may well be less progressive. But the difference (while being subtle) is an important one. But never let fact...oh forget it, life is too short!!!
Funny how the mood of the forum suddenly changes!
edit
This thread is only "likely' to end in tears,
i m a tory voter but i could nt vote for this. lift the poor out of tax to spend what they need on essentials big telly staffies etc and tax the big earners ( 50k +) more tax pensions over 50K at 75%.. (whose grandma needs a grand a week! ha but thier not grandmas thier over 50yr old former public sector workers, over 9ooo of them!)
let clever folk make a bundle no problem with that just let tyhem know they have a commitment to those less fortunate.. havent a problem with that!
TJ does £13500 make me rich then? Cos my tax under this goes down. I really don't think I am btw, still junky thinks I'm selfish and you think I'm rich!!
Weird world, I feel like I'm missing something that I don't understand.
Has the BBC been bought out by the Telegraph?
"Conservative" opinion now appears to regularly be presented in the headlines as FACT , whilst any contrary views are immediately attributed to their originator and clearly quoted as opinion.
Its about 6 paragraphs in before the sponsors of this report are revealed.
This is where the STW forum shines, as it's right (or left 😉 ) wing opinion is always preceded by it's source so readers can make their own mind up on the "facts".
Surely Hollande has proved in the last couple of weeks that excessivley high taxation results in an overall reduction in tax take, due to the 'fat cats' fleeing abroad?
or has there not been a sudden surge of interest in West London Apartments within easy reach of the Eurostar terminal?
as Boris said - 'Bienvenue a Londres' 😉
TJ - its only less progressive (I hate that word) than the system you think we have - which is not the system that is actually in place. In reality the rich don't pay the same %age of income as even the comfortably well off. The whole point about "flat tax" is there are no loop holes, so everyone has to pay. The downside is there are no loopholes - so the things the treasury might want to encourage people to do (e.g. save for pensions) get reduced...
What would this proposal do for employment in the accounting sector?
My two cents worth:
When did it become fact that how hard people work is related to how much they are paid or what they are taxed? All the evidence shows a very poor correlation between the two. So lowering taxes just means the better off pay less tax, you don't get any more GDP for it.
Secondly, what do people really want - lower taxes or to be happier? If it's the latter then minimising inequality would be a better aim. Lower taxes just increase the gap between rich and poor, increase envy and make people less happy.
Surely we'd get a stonking saving from not having to employ vast numbers of people in HMRC (PAYE, self-assessment and NI)?
Not for the first time I'm disagreeing with TJ, as long as the 'start' amount is set at a decent number (say £10k) and both income tax and NI are abolished then even the poorly paid will be no worse off.
Also need to ensure that the rate applies to all income, including investment, Capital Gains, divi's etc - and that everyone gets the same tax-free amount (unlike now!).
poly - Member
TJ - its only less progressive (I hate that word) than the system you think we have...
I fear that distinction may just be a little too subtle!!!!
I am still interested to know has a system in which the MRT rises can be described as regressive?
She's no brain surgeon
She would have married someone brighter if she was?
She married beneath her , all women do etc
Junkyard why do you have so much negative energy?
I am sorry I should adopt a more tolerant approach to injustices lest a troll mocks me on the internet 😉
Why do you think that "rich" people are any more amoral than the rest of society?
Why do you think they are not ? DS taught me this style of debate
Is a flat rate of tax with a minimum threshold, progressive, neutral or negative
Is it flat rate with a threshold? You can argue this either way..if you pay tax you pay the same as everyone else whether you earn £1 above the threshold or £20 billion. Its not called flat rate because it is progressive now is it ? If you pay tax you pay a flat rate. Selling this as “progressive” is spin and you know it. It is not designed to redistribute wealth or to make the rich pay more than the poor [ above the threshold] and you know this to. Bit of a MLEH point as we could argue it from either way so lets just agree that it is a flat rate with a threshold and discuss the effects of this?
On that point we can be fairly sure redistributing wealth is not one of the effects of this.
Many people assume that a flat rate of tax is not progressive
It is not progressive without a threshold…what were you saying about honesty and lack of understanding ?
Ok I give up you and TJ can have the floor on this one
he politics of envy I believe it's called
Nah I would have to want to be a rich amoral asshole to be envious what I want is for people all over the world to eat and not die from preventable disease because some rich person has to have a £20 billion pound fortune because they worked hard…. I can see why this moral code is repellent to some 🙄
you don't seem to get that 30% of a big pot is more than 50% of a pot that doesn't exist.
If I believe this argument [ I don’t] why not just change the law to make sure you get the 50% as 50 % is bigger than 30% hence why the rich want it lowered…they don’t want it lowered because they want to pay more tax do they…FFS how can anyone buy that as the reason for the change
still junky thinks I'm selfish
Well you did just think of yourself didn’t you what would you call it?*
FWIW I have no issue witha large personal allowanc elike the lib dems say to change the burden form the really poor [ I think you are poor if that helps emsz] to the more well off. i do not support aflat rate tax as it it doe sshift the burden from the rich to the less well off/poor.
Do we need th graph that shows how much more the rich pay to prove this point or can we just accept if a billionairre plays 15 % less then asomeoen poorer has to pay more to counter this.
PS emsz the 30% tax rate is higher than basic rates so I assume middle /avergae earners would be worse off
* i was more lamenting the fact that Thatcher changed people's perception from thinking about the common good to thinking about their own personal self interest than I was meaning to say anything personal about you. I did not mean to offend so apologies if I did
emsz - I think you have something that they don't understand...called common sense. You need to think more about points scoring in personality clashes and less about the OP's original question.
It is not progressive without a threshold…what were you saying about honesty and lack of understanding ?
JY - please read my first post (including the bit about the threshold) and do the basic maths. Its really very simple. What I was saying about honesty, was let's respect it!!! 😉
I'm glad that Junky and I can agree on the progressiveness of a basic flat Tax (without threshold)
Personally, I'm thoroughly of the belief that the [b]overall[/b] tax burden should not be either progressive or regressive, but equal - ie everyone, yes, everyone pays an equal and fair share into the pot, as that means that even those at the bottom are contributing to the system and contributing equally towards the society around them - this leads in the long term to greater social inclusion.
from each according to his ability, to each according to his need, I believe was the goal...
please read my first post
I did and I even quoted it and replied to it 🙄
Again Can we call it a flat rate with a threshold as that it what it is ?
FWIW if flat rate was progressive we would have no need for the word and tax coulld be divided into two types
regressive and progressive with flat rate as a sub set of progressive....that is how they teach economics isnt it? 😛
Anyway you and TJ have the floor on this I cant be arsed beyond what i have posted
you can't have that because we don't know what most people actually pay after their deductions etc? I thought I saw some highlights from self assessment recently but google didn't find it. IIRC though people on £1M income were paying less than 25% tax. Assuming there are no loop holes they would be paying more.Do we need th graph that shows how much more the rich pay to prove this point
to some extent yes, although there can be efficiency savings from a much simpler system.or can we just accept if a billionairre plays 15 % less then asomeoen poorer has to pay more to counter this.
actually on the proposed figures (£10k threshold + 30% on earnings above it, no NI) everyone pays less ! (Hence the £50 Bn hole!). To put that in perspective: here are some examples:PS emsz the 30% tax rate is higher than basic rates so I assume middle /avergae earners would be worse off
£15k pa -- current PAYE 16.3%; proposed 10%
£30k pa -- current PAYE 24.0%; proposed 20%
£60k pa -- current PAYE 31.0%; proposed 25%
Junky, when you put it like that I suppose j was being selfish! Duh!
I think I need to apologise too, sorry. 😳
I'm glad that Junky and I can agree on the progressiveness of a basic flat Tax (without threshold)
Ah the bit where you argue that the rich pay more but only if you ignore the % part of the % tax rate...see my point above why would we call it flat rate if it was progressive? You know we dont agree on this as one of us can count you cheeky little scamp you 😉
Its deja Vu all over again.
Edit - Strange layout...
There won't be a massive hole... we'll just cut more services... privatise healthcare properly maybe.
Then we can spend all our tax savings on healthcare insurance.
Brilliant.
If you want to boost grow, reduce VAT to 15% and take a serious relook at the construction market and homes building.
Poly - why not simply remove the loopholes in our current system?
Junkyard - you are wasting your time arguing with THM. He is so wedded to the far right economics that he believe the myths and propaganda the proponents of it put out are facts.
Where does this "the rich wouldn't dodge tax if we lowered it" argument come from? It's cobblers. If you were getting paid 300 million a year and a nice friendly [s]tax-loophole-finder[/s] accountant said "oh you can save £50 quid if you do this", how many people would say "no no it's ok I'll pay the £50"?
not many
edit emsz has broken the internet
"take a serious relook at the construction market and homes building"
Hmmm.....lets let the construction industry boom, maybe with cheap loans so people can buy homes that they could never afford to pay back, letting the bankers make huge profits without any checks.....it will never fail......
I'm with TJ on this one.
You've got to look at taxation as a whole too, including VAT, Fuel Duty etc. Do that and the poor pay more than the rich.
And where do the rich get there money from? They don't just create it out of thin air, its money transferred from other people in society. If they've got none to spend, the economy collapses. You can't stimulate the economy with tax cuts to the rich at the expense of the poor. Can you??
If you want to boost grow, reduce VAT to 15% and take a serious relook at the construction market and homes building.
There is no growth to boost. We're in a recession, and need to prevent further contraction first.
You're right about construction though, the 4.8% reduction in that sector over the last quarter put us here. I've posted it before, but there's an interesting article with more detail on this sector.
http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2012/05/11/how-spending-cuts-delivered-the-double-dip/
Private housing was actually up in the last Q, but massive drops in public housing and infrastructure dragged the overall figure down.
Would it be possible to reverse that whist still cutting taxes as the report suggests?
For a small business all the various taxes are a complete pain in the arse. Its not like we actually spend NI on pensions, road tax on the roads. In reality it all just goes into one big pot. The tax system in this country is so bloody complicated that it allows people to find all the loop holes and skip paying tax. Personally I think that it should be simplified into one flat rate or at least far fewer taxes as they are used for more than just collecting money they are also used to control habits.
Also why should the rich pay a higher %. They pay more anyway as they earn more. If you work bloody hard and are successful why should you then have to pay so much tax. I don't think you should pay less like in some countries where the more you earn the less % you pay. Granted there are some rich people we all hate and we want to pay lots of tax but in reality there aren't many rich people that have just lucked out, they usually have worked bloody hard for it or have taken lots or personal risks.
The first thing we need to do is stop throwing so much bloody money down the drain. An article in the Telegraph last week said there were 30K people in council houses that were earning over £60,000 and the subsidy was costing the country £120 million. WHAT!!!!! Bloody hell kick them out. My household income is far below that and I don't expect to get cheap housing from the government. If this is just one example god only knows where else we waste money.
I have nothing against people getting money from the state if they need it but it hacks me off when people who really need the money get hardly anything, when at the same time we pay for people on massive incomes to live in council houses, and all because we want to have some lefty policy that says once someone has a council house they can have it for life and in some cases they can also pass it on to their children. When you need subsidized housing then you should get it and when you don't need it you should have to move out and battle on like the rest of us. That life!!
You've got to look at taxation as a whole too, including VAT, Fuel Duty etc. Do that and the poor pay more than the rich.
Based on what? Actual tax amount paid or percentage of income or percentage of net wealth?
I don't think it is surprising that the rich have more disposable income than the poor. Isn't that kind of the definition of rich?
Income tax: staggered, so the rich pay more.
VAT: no applicable to essentials like food. Rich and poor pay the same rate.
Fuel duty: rich and poor pay the same rate (though the rich are more likely to be driving a gas guzzler).
Woody - the rich usually have got their money thru abuse of power not from hard work.
COEs of listed companies remuneration has gone up 50% over the last few years despite the profits and values of the companies falling.
Does anyone need or deserve and income that is multimillions a year?
Its not like we actually spend NI on pensions, [u]road tax on the roads[/u].
[i]*ahem*[/i] "[url= http://ipayroadtax.com/no-such-thing-as-road-tax/the-orgs-which-get-road-tax-wrong-why-this-matters/ ]car tax[/url]"
Does anyone need or deserve and income that is multimillions a year?
Yep. Me.
tonyg
You are the only one talking about a "boom", no-one else.
There is a shortage of housing in this country, that is why prices are artificially high. Why not build some more?
road tax on the roads
what road tax 🙄
f you work bloody hard and are successful why should you then have to pay so much tax
yes the only way you can be rich is to work hard and if you are poor it is because you are lazy TRUE DAT INNIT
Nice attempt to rant at poor people "fleecing " the system when it is about rich people avoiding tax.
You are cptFlash and I claim My 5 whatever country he claims to be in this week currency
Yep. Me.
If you shut the **** up I am on board with this 😉
TJ in my "I've won the lottery" fantasy I spend millions 🙂 LOL