Forum menu
[i]Economics is voodoo bullshit to me mostly anyway. [/i]
Which pretty much sums up the left, when it comes to money and managing the UK economy, as far as any Government can.
What I'm also sensing on this thread is that the leftites really just hate those who have. Over whelmed by jealousy, the leftites exercise a predujice and disrimination towards anyone who has anything they think those people shouldn't, no better than if they were racisists.
Except that instead of their prejudice being based on the colour of someone's skin, it's based on some perceived level of a person's [i]wealth[/i]. It's a prevailing attitude expressed on here by the leftites, which is, frankly, shameful.
That's it for me then. Enjoy the bickering, again.
That's it for me then. Enjoy the bickering, again.
Please quit trolling it's boring
Really boring.
Cameron has just announced the intention to raise the HRT (40%) threshold to £50k if they get in. Not sure how that helps the vulnerable and poor in the UK. It does sort of smack of self interest.
just saying!
[quote=slowjo said]Cameron has just announced the intention to raise the HRT (40%) threshold to £50k if they get in. Not sure how that helps the vulnerable and poor in the UK. It does sort of smack of self interest.
Here
just saying!
Did you miss the raising of the personal allowance up to £12.5k bit ?
Probably....
I was under a bridge at the time!
Does anyone even believe high tax rates would work, heck even government institutions have been know to employ people on terms that minimise the tax paid by the individual.
Will never understand the pride the conservatives take in opposing human rights. What moron would vote for someone that boasted about to putting your rights on a par with China.
It's about time they added 'National Insurance' and income tax together. Then we would realise what our actual tax rates are ......
Economics is voodoo bullshit to me mostly anyway.Which pretty much sums up the left,
Interesting comment.
Of course it was Ronald Reagan who came up with the phrase "Voodoo Economics" so, a choice bit of irony there. Like it.
Does anyone even believe high tax rates would work
Whilst you can claim that you are reducing tax to raise more money it is a little like saying we are increasing the speed limit to reduce speeding
It would work but it is needs explaining and it is a bit deceitful as an argument.
IMHO we need to do is reduce avoidance.
Personally I do not think that someone who goes to extraordinary lengths to avoid tax will stop just because you reduced the rate by 5 p as they will still have to pay loads more than if they continue to avoid. as they do not actually need the money ,in the real sense, its clear they do not care morally about paying tax.
Using speeding if someone drives at 100 mph will they stop if the speed limit becomes 80?
Personally I doubt it.
Not the best analogy but it will need to do.
Economics is voodoo bullshit to me mostly anyway.
Which pretty much sums up the left, when it comes to money and managing the UK economy, as far as any Government can.
Hmm not seen too much economic acumen from the 'right' on this thread to be fair.
But this is STW and flinging the proverbial from left to right is the new/old world order.
Great line from CMD....(re Gen Election voting) You might get into bed with Nigel Fararge and wake up with David Milliband!
😀 Brilliant!
Junkyard that is completely unfair and how you cannot see that is beyond me. Several people seem to suggest that having wealth is some kind of wrongdoing and I just don't agree.
[i]If you wish to disagree could you actually point out which bit you find unfair?
Have you notice its you v STW? A rarity for here so well done you.[/i]
Not quite Junky....its aracer and me v STW apparently! I work in Sales and if I don't sell I don't earn, so am incentivised to work hard. At which point have I earned enough? When I can afford a holiday to Butlins, Majorca or Barbados? Or pehaps you think because some can afford a holiday, I should abandon mine and give the money to the needy?
Its not about needs, its about wants.....if we all based our lives on needs we wouldn't be human.
[quote=Rockape63 said]Great line from CMD....(re Gen Election voting) You might get into bed with Nigel Fararge and wake up with [s]David[/s] Ed Milliband!
Brilliant!
FTFY 🙂
Difficult to remember the guys name though, granted.
FTFY 🙂
oops! rather ruined the joke! 😳
Share it
Fairly
But don't take a slice of my pie
I can't believe people are genuinely arguing about differential taxation
IF man in the state of nature be so free, as has been said; if he be absolute lord of his own person and possessions, equal to the greatest, and subject to no body, why will he part with his freedom? Why will he give up this empire, and subject himself to the dominion and control of any other power? To which it is obvious to answer, that though in the state of nature he hath such a right, yet the enjoyment of it is very uncertain, and constantly exposed to the invasion of others: for all being kings as much as he, every man his equal, and the greater part no strict observers of equity and justice, the enjoyment of the property he has in this state is very unsafe, very unsecure. This makes him willing to quit a condition, which, however free, is full of fears and continual dangers: and it is not without reason, that he seeks out, and is willing to join in society with others, who are already united, or have a mind to unite, for the mutual preservation of their lives, liberties and estates, which I call by the general name, [b]property.[/b]
Those with the most benefit the most from stable societies that guarantee their safety and continued property rights. Therefore they should pay a higher percentage of of their earnings to protect it.
Did you miss the raising of the personal allowance up to £12.5k bit ?
Why not raise the personal allowance even more, say to 15k and leave the 40% threshold where it is? Everyone bar those on 100k+ plus would benefit ah, but then you don't give extra tax breaks to the middle classes and your core support, plus we wouldn't want to help the plebs too much, would we?
Everyone bar those on 100k+ plus would benefit ah, but then you don't give extra tax breaks to the middle classes and your core support, plus we wouldn't want to help the plebs too much, would we?
He is going after the London Tube drivers vote.
Just to let everyone know I've been reading the thread and as usual have plenty to say, will post later. I am sure you can't wait 😉
ot quite Junky....its aracer and me v STW apparently!
Pretty sure he agrees that the better off should pay more tax via higher tax rate.
At which point have I earned enough? When I can afford a holiday to Butlins, Majorca or Barbados? Or pehaps you think because some can afford a holiday, I should abandon mine and give the money to the needy?
Not sure what your point is tbh
what is more important feeding the poor or you holidaying in barbados? Its not even a dilemma for me.
Its not about needs, its about wants.....if we all based our lives on needs we wouldn't be human.
wants can never be satisfied only needs can.
I am not sure calling anyone who disagrees not human is helpful tbh.
Why not raise the personal allowance even more, say to 15k and leave the 40% threshold where it is? Everyone bar those on 100k+ plus would benefit ah, but then you don't give extra tax breaks to the middle classes and your core support, plus we wouldn't want to help the plebs too much, would we
Because a load of people who are currently putting money into their pension to avoid paying tax at the higher rate on it, will stop doing that with some of it, start paying tax on it again, and inject it into the economy by spending it now rather than in 30 years time.
edit: and in case you think I'm talking balls, thats exactly the advice that accountants were giving people
http://www.actuarialpost.co.uk/article/pension-contribution-can-help-avoid-new-higher-rate-tax-185.htm
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/06fcc62a-308b-11e0-9de3-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3Etvxw9wJ
In other news [url= http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/world/europe/article4213550.ece ]Germany scraps tuition fees[/url], they use the Euro right?
Then again George is gonna scrap all tax on inherited pension funds, so we got our priorities right. 😥
WARNING: Contains the odd F-bomb
[i]wants can never be satisfied only needs can.
I am not sure calling anyone who disagrees not human is helpful tbh.[/i]
Nice spin there Junky! Don't remember saying anyone who disagreed isn't human. My point was that its human nature to 'want' nice things. Some people believe that if they want 'nice things' and they work hard to get a few of them....it makes life a bit more enjoyable.
If I vote for Nige, he'll give me £600. But if I vote for Dave he'll only give me £400.
Tight bastard!
Nice spin there Junky!
It was a cheap shot [ meant in humour tbh] but then again so was yours 😛
You are saying what you want is human nature and its unnatural to not agree with you - its a poor point IMHO. Its like me claiming what i think is typical of humans - we are both at the extreme of what humans think tbh
As for nice things it depends on the person I dont want to be a billionaire or have the "nice" things they have
many of them are IMHO gaudy , exhibitionist and bereft of taste and class tbh
Well being a Billionaire is a bit off my radar too...but I'm speaking up for people who do want a bit more out of life and are prepared to work hard and perhaps take a few risks along the way to achieve it.
Who wants to ride a 10 yrs old bike, when you might be able to buy a new one? Don't tell me you'd rather ride a 10 yr old bike and give the price of a new one to charity?
Rockape63 - Member
but I'm speaking up for people who do want a bit more out of life and are prepared to work hard and perhaps take a few risks along the way to achieve it.
🙄
Pretty sure he agrees that the better off should pay more tax via higher tax rate.
Indeed, even me - I thought Junky made the "you v STW" comment having seen my comment. Don't try and suggest I support something I don't (that it's unfair for the wealthier to pay more taxes).
My point was that its human nature to 'want' nice things
Yeah - I want society to be a nicer place. I've also come to realise that having "stuff" doesn't actually make you happier.
but I'm speaking up for people who do want a bit more out of life and are prepared to work hard and perhaps take a few risks along the way to achieve it.
What about all those who did work hard, took a few risks and fell on their arses. Couldn't they do with a government prepared to lend a helping hand?
Did you miss the raising of the personal allowance up to £12.5k bit ?
Smashing for the those on more than £10K now
There's plenty of people on subsistence level part time wages that won't be better off.
The lowest paid won't benefit from it, the very people that need the most help, if there's money to give away, it should go to them first and work up from there.
Hang on there folks.
Daves actual statement was that there would be all these tax cuts [b]when the defect is paid off[/b]
So.... don't hold your breath then.
Vote for me instead. I'll give you all a million quid, and a unicorn
This is genius!!
NSFW
Vote for me instead. I'll give you all a million quid, and a unicorn
But do you look like Beaker off the muppets? If not, Farage's comedy face wins my vote.
That is a clever move by CMD.
The 40% tax rate kicks in at about £38k gross. There are lot of "working class" people who earn more than that but less than £50k.
Offering to put more money in their pocket will be very tempting.
Well if I lived in the Uk right now I would earn (using google for a euro to pound calculation) 44k, and I would rather that money be spent on strengthening services than a tax cut.
Though if the quote above is correct about it being based on the deficit being paid off (debt paid off or deficit reduced to zero?) then it is just pie in the sky promise that they know will never happen and just cheap electioneering.
I would rather that money be spent on strengthening services than a tax cut.
This is just a bland platitude what services? Pay more mandarins to visit Japan under the guise of 'learning' trips? New carpets for Whitehall? More cruise missiles? Better pay for GPs?
OK I will accept the tax cut as long as whitehall gets cheap nylon carpets and civil servants get a nasty static charge whenever they try to knock one out in the office.
that video is just brilliant in terms of the timing and rhythm
Thanks Grum - outstanding. 😀
Happily in the real world the top rate is 45% I hope it's stays that way for a long time although even that's about 15 % north of what it should be but you know, society.
@jools just an aside that the top rate is 45% plus 2% national insurance plus the 12.8% of employers national insurance = so total tax take at top end is basically 60p for every pound earnt
@ernie, there is plenty of evidence that when tax rises above a certain "tipping point" it drives changes in behaviour which means less tax is collected. When Thatcher cut tax from 60% to 40% the tax take went up not down. Also as you raise taxes you take money out of the economy (as it was previously spent one stuff) and gives it to the government who may or may not return it to the economy. As I have posted before when the tax went to 50% I was directly aware of lots of changed behaviour including people moving their jobs abroad, maxing out pensions etc all in a way which meant less tax paid to the government than before and much less spent in the economy. Increasing top rates of tax encourages the top jobs to go abroad at which point the lower ranks follow suit as you want to work near the bosses if you are interested in promotion. Pushing top rates of tax up leads to less tax collected and lower economic activity. Singapore has a big and growing financial services sector actively encouraging people to relocate. I posted before how Brevan Howard (Hedge Fund) moved all its high paid traders to Switzerland. The lower paid back/middle office staff remain in the UK. The lost £10's of millions in tax and spending every year as a result.
France has a top rate of 66% now (payable by the company on wages not the employee as that rate was decided by the courts to be confiscatory). What is laughable is footballers are exempt !!! Also wealthy French now hold 17 billion euros in assets in Belgium due to high French taxes. So instead of taxing interest on those 17 billion of assets in France that money goes to the Belgium government. Genius, not !
Changing taxes has a habit of producing unintended consequences. I think high rates of stamp duty (5% and 7%) has meant the wealthy have bought cheaper (or less expensive) buy-to let property rather than move house. Why pay 300k stamp duty moving from a £3m to £4m house when you can put £1m into 2 or 3 buy to let or a second home ?
Increasing top rates of tax will slow the economy and result in less tax actually being collected as a result of that and of changed behaviour.
That sounds like an argument for a more unified tax policy across Europe, surprises me from you.
@jools just an aside that the top rate is 45% plus 2% national insurance plus the 12.8% of employers national insurance = so total tax take at top end is basically 60p for every pound earnt
Not if you classify yourself as self employed, a simple tool not allowed for most of us
I think high rates of stamp duty (5% and 7%) has meant the wealthy have bought cheaper (or less expensive) buy-to let property rather than move house.
Or they have built huge basements.
I read a lot about high taxes lowering the tax take as if it were fact but no one ever posts compelling evidence. It makes sense and at really high levels I'm sure its true but from 40 - 50% is there real evidence?
Don't forget you're only talking about tax on income here, which is the obvious one.
I wonder what would happen if we abolished all income (and perhaps profit) based taxes completely and just taxed on consumption. You could include all consumption to spread the load - so VAT or duty on things like insurance policies and loans.
We could then choose to pay tax by choosing whether to spend money or not.
So those who can save pay less tax, wonder who they would be? Sounds like a recipe for economic collapse.
....by choosing whether to spend money or not.
Spending money is a choice for some people ?
12.8% of employers national insurance
Er, employers pay that, it doesn't come out of your salary.
Spending money is a choice for some people ?
Well assuming that our actions are not just the result of automatic responses to external stimuli and that humans do indeed have free will, then yes, not spending money is a perfectly valid choice.
Of course, all choices do have consequences. The most serious one in this case would be starving to death. But you would avoid paying taxes, thus proving that Mark Twain was wrong about one thing. 😀
Er, employers pay that, it doesn't come out of your salary.
It does. Your budget for staff includes it. One of the reasons that contractor get paid more.
But you would avoid paying taxes,
No VAT on many foods 😀
Edit
Of course, all choices do have consequences. The most serious one in this case would be starving to death. But you would avoid paying taxes, thus proving that Mark Twain was wrong about one thing.
This clearly explains the beauty of Inheritance tax! 😈
Well assuming that our actions are not just the result of automatic responses to external stimuli and that humans do indeed have free will, then yes, not spending money is a perfectly valid choice.
Well not spending money is a perfectly valid choice if you are a hunter-gatherer, otherwise it isn't.
And it's rather silly to suggest it is.
that video is just brilliant in terms of the timing and rhythm
Seriously brilliant piece of work.
😆
I've just read this :
jambalaya - MemberWhen Thatcher cut tax from 60% to 40% the tax take went up not down.
The "tax take" went up under Thatcher because she increased the tax burden. In fact the highest tax burden Britain has ever endured, in its history, was under Thatcher.
So yes the "tax take" went up under Thatcher, because everyone bar the rich had to pay more in taxes to fund her failed policies of mass unemployment and tax cuts for her wealthy mates.
national insurance plus the 12.8% of employers
That should be 13.8% shouldn't it? But not if you are classified as a mariner as they are exempt, although HMRC has been tightening up on that.
Well not spending money is a perfectly valid choice if you are a hunter-gatherer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freeganism
It's about time they added 'National Insurance' and income tax together. Then we would realise what our actual tax rates are
The only problem with that is the employers part of NI - this is as much as you pay
My highest paid employee is the Paye !
(Yes I am one of the scum who has invested a large amount of money for the joy of employing people, who mostly earn more than me at the mo !)
Free Hover-boards for everyone!!! And your lunch served to you every day by Kelly Brook in here underwear*
* terms and conditions apply
And it's rather silly to suggest it is.
Sorry Ernie. Forgot you didn't have a sense of humour.
jambalaya - Member
there is plenty of evidence that when tax rises above a certain "tipping point" it drives changes in behaviour which means less tax is collected. When Thatcher cut tax from 60% to 40% the tax take went up not down.
'History' of economics in many respects is interesting but doesn't necessarily dictate how it will play out, its the present and future which rules.
not sure I buy that jambalaya on several counts:
1. The HMRC receipts after the 50% tax rate was introduced show that revenue was down in both of the following years - discounting the short term effect of deferring bonus payments etc and showing a longer term trend.
2. In two periods (70s and 2000s) the experience in the UK has been that when tax rates go higher than 50% the net receipts go down and people who are able to move abroad - with 1% of the population paying 30% of all tax it takes tens of thousands of “normal” tax payers to make up the gap caused by one "rich" person moving abroad for tax purposes.
3. The socialist experiment in France (much lauded by Ed Miliband when it was announced in 2012) significantly raised taxes on wealthy individuals and businesses and by all accounts has completely wrecked their economy in the following two years. Well paid jobs and professionals have been move abroad - London's francophile population would make it France's 4th biggest city of french speakers. Capital has also been moved abroad (17Bn euro to Belgium so far) , even the left wingers in France are now using language such as "we’ve only got 3 months left to reverse the policy and save France from disaster".
4. The experience of some people I know (mix of friends and neighbours working in the public and private sectors) is that as tax has gone up they've simply bought more holiday / worked less.
Whilst appearing not to have lost sight of money not being everything and their need to pay towards the things that make the UK country great (healthcare, education, benefits for people who need them), my acquaintances use language along the lines of "when you see a net salary of 38% of your gross pay above a certain threshold you basically land up thinking "what's the point" and choose to work less. Their change in behaviour doesn't create jobs or help the economy - it just reduces direct tax receipts (and indirect taxes such as VAT on spending) and also means that some “key” professional roles like Hospital Consultants are now seeing fewer patients at a time when there are waiting lists.
But.. surely if people have the option to work less, and you tax them LESS they would be likely to work fewer hours as they wouldn't need to to remain comfortably off?
That's a question, btw - just saying it's probably quite complicated.
I've been pretty open on here and have plenty of examples of friends and colleagues who changed their behaviour when the tax rate went from 40% to 50%. This included maxing out pension contributions (inc making use of historical unused allowances), changing their working practices and the way they where paid and ultimately moving abroad (a big part of why I went to Singapore for 2 years).
I've posted example before of sailing, a sport I am familiar with. Participation in racing has dropped more than 50% since 2008 and most notably since the tax rate went up. The marginal increases in tax affect peoples leisure and luxury spending. For every rich yacht owner you have plots of people sailing for free (and buying clothing, drinks, food etc) and all the support staff be they maintenance, marina staff, component manufacturers. These people's livlehoods are impacted, jobs and skills are lost. The guy who did my boat maintenence has 25% of the businesses he used to have. The flip side is the government now has more money to what with exactly ? They may help the poor but there is a raft previously employed people now out of work or making less money with a shrinking economy. High taxes take money out of the general economy and hand it to the government.
@robdixon - I think you and I are in agreement, I agree with what you've posted above
On NI, yes @dragon you are right I didn't remember the correct figure (12.8 vs 13.8). Also employers National Insurance is a tax on employment, whether it's paid by the employee or employer, as noted above it's in your staff costs budget. Its one of the drivers as to whether busineses decide to locate in the UK or not. Its all about the total tax burden.
Sorry Ernie. Forgot you didn't have a sense of humour.
I thought your joke :
[i]Well assuming that our actions are not just the result of automatic responses to external stimuli and that humans do indeed have free will, then yes, not spending money is a perfectly valid choice.[/i]
was absolutely hilarious !
Surely my witty response provided you with a clue 🙂
The flip side is the government now has more money to what with exactly ?
Oh I don't know, possibly invest it in infrastructure, health, or education, just like Germany has now that it has abolished all tuition fees for Universities, or they could just let the rich have it to spend on luxury yachts that keep a few people employed I suppose.
There seems to be a lot of talk over personal taxation on the rich, leading me to believe that some people round here still believe in the trickle down effect, yet no talk on VAT which affects all, I could mention corporation tax, which is one of the lowest in the EU.
ernest has already established that his particular slice of leftism does not include being a "trot" and therefore, not humourless, apparently.
He's a "Lenin-ist". This means that he is prepared to laugh at certain things, as long as there's a side-benefit to a restricted strata of the population and is allowed by the Central Committee of the Comictern..
All other jokes are ruthlessly quashed if they are found to alleviate the mood of the middle and upper classes, under the tracks of history as laid down by the Party.
[img] 
[/img]
[img] 
[/img]