Forum menu
For 41-55k earners. BBC spinning it as going after labour voters. Seems more like tory territory to me. Interesting times coming up at the next election I reckon.
http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29368838
Is any party actually going to raise taxes?
I'd be happy to pay more for a "high tax, high spend" economy. Mind you, I'm just a bit of an old socialist hippy, and I don't earn enough to fit into that tax bracket anyway!
They are carving out a niche as the party of the selfish and insular. Hopefully their lack of real policies will be enough to keep them 100% outNigel Farage's party will pledge to fund the changes by leaving the EU and cutting UK foreign aid by 85%
They are carving out a niche as the party of the selfish and insular. Hopefully their lack of real policies will be enough to keep them 100% out
Every mainstream party is aiming for that same niche. Labour promising to cut child benefit FFS.
I fear there are enough selfish and insular people within our society to get them at least a toe in the door 🙁
I'm with you Peyote. Grudgingly though you do have to wonder if its the shake up we need to get past having 3 different shades of shite. Could it force labour and conservatives apart? Or am I being hopelessly optimistic as usual?
I do love that the parties that present foreign affairs as "not our problem" (be it poverty war famine or disease) are the same ones that are anti immigration . Why on earth do they think all the immigrants refugees and asylum seekers are wanting to upticks and move in the first place . Foreign aid is in our direct national interest it should be properly targeted to benefit the nations rather than corporations dictators and multinational business but it should not be cut back for selfish economic reasons as well as simple humanity.
Is any party actually going to raise taxes?
@Peynote, every party is going to have to collect more taxes or spend less or both.
Could it force labour and conservatives apart? Or am I being hopelessly optimistic as usual?
@aa I have posted a number of times that the center ground is what wins UK elections, that's why Labour and Conservatives appear so close as to move away from the centre is almost certain defeat. If Labour move further left they will not get elected, I don't see the Conservatives gifting them the center ground by moving further right.
Cutting foreign aid is a disgrace, I would certainly re-direct some of the spending but to cut it is petty headline grabbing.
Cutting foreign aid is a disgrace, I would certainly re-direct some of the spending but to cut it is petty headline grabbing.
Agreed, but it will appeal to the Daily Mail bunch, who have been trained to hate all foreigners....
I think it's quite a clever play, a lot of people within that bracket (myself included) are finding it harder to make ends meet despite earning a good salary. That's not to say I'll vote UKIP.
/Prepares for flaming from those who are raising 14 kids with real values on 20p a week.
Trouble with high spend is that it when POM (other people's money) is involved, the spending can become very inefficient and indiscriminate, or even downright fraudulent.Peyote - Member
Is any party actually going to raise taxes?I'd be happy to pay more for a "high tax, high spend" economy. Mind you, I'm just a bit of an old socialist hippy, and I don't earn enough to fit into that tax bracket anyway!
I'd rather see the personal allowance raised - it's a simple change to administer and would help everyone but especially those on lower incomes.
Talking of selfish middle classes:
Labour and the Torys are anything but the "center". Both are very right wing, with very little difference between them.
The Green Party have an MP...UKIP don't.
Amazing how little coverage Greens get though.
gwaelod - Member
The Green Party have an MP...UKIP don't.Amazing how little coverage Greens get though.
Because LaFarage and UKIP make a better headline with their frothing at the mouth loonie casual racism, as opposed to the Greens frothing at the mouth loonie hippy tofu eating wind farm tree hugging.
* I'll vote Green in any election, purely based on the fact most of their policies are broadly based in good old fashioned socialism.
The Green Party have an MP...UKIP don't.Amazing how little coverage Greens get though.
What do the number of votes overall look like though, I suspect UKIP maybe get more over the country whereas the greens are confined more to Brighton?
That and the greens tend to comment on other debates rather than starting them. UKIP stand up and shout about stuff like imigration, europe, etc. The greens don't stand up and shout about legalising cannabis etc, I suuspect because that would shoot themselves in the foot and they want to be seen as a credible party. Whereas UKIP seem content to be loonies and drag the debate to them.
i honestly believe that the BBC keep banging on about UKIP as an anti-tory tactic.
ukip to cut income tax
They'd have to be in power to do that.
That'll not happen. Not in my lifetime anyway.
We could see them play a part in a coalition couldnt we? The lib dems are ****ed and no one else would play ball with the tories.
Naaa, theyd need enough MPs to make a difference. If the tories were a few short they could form a minority government and rely on a few labour/lib dem votes each time. Coalitions are only needed when theyre 50-100 votes short.
the party of the selfish and insular.
They should do well then. Everyone votes in their own interests.
Labour and the Torys are anything but the "center". Both are very right wing, with very little difference between them.
very right wing? No way! Right of Centre though.
I beg to differ on that point wrecker - the majority or any may bit not all.
TBH as noted with the Greens etc it is amazing that they get so much coverage when they have **** all MP's and are likely to have the same number after the election- might get th eby election but they wont hold it IMHO.
They have no electoral clout in Westinster and yet we laud over his loony musings as if they matter.
He gets so much coverage I also suspect a conspiracy but against whom I do not know.
We may as well ask what I will do as I wont be in a position to deliver either.
I cannot listen to a word the loon says tbh and it is largely irrelevant.
Everyone votes in their own interests.
No they don't, many may vote in such a way, but many others are capable of a bit of compassion and responsibility to see beyond their own greed and selfishness.
Must be a quiet news week, got to give the journalists something to work on.....
they have **** all MP's and are likely to have the same number after the election- might get th eby election but they wont hold it IMHO.
I hope you are right but I'm not sure. If labour had got their act together maybe but they are such a shambles some may think kicking the tories is an option.
They also want to raise the personal allowance to £13,500.
I think they might need to do more than scrap foreign aid to pay for that.
Perhaps they would be more convincing if they jsut offered free coke and hookers to everyone.
Perhaps they would be more convincing if they jsut offered free coke and hookers to everyone.
as long as it's British Coke and Hookers, none of this European muck!
Worryingly populist headline grabber for the unthinking voter.
I really hope all those who say that there is no point in voting wake up and see the kind of loons who may hold some sort of sway after tbe election. Appeals to the worst kind of ignorance, and Daily Fail readers.
UKIP have gained the most votes in a nationwide election, the Greens have never got close to that - my guess their highest position would be fourth.
mudshark - Member
Labour and the Torys are anything but the "center". Both are very right wing, with very little difference between them.
very right wing? No way! Right of Centre though.
[URL= http://i1276.photobucket.com/albums/y477/BigBlackShed/PoliticalCompass_zps75fa48af.pn g" target="_blank">
http://i1276.photobucket.com/albums/y477/BigBlackShed/PoliticalCompass_zps75fa48af.pn g"/> [/IMG][/URL]
I would call both the Milliband Muppet and CMD as far right as opposed to centre right.
YMMV of course.
No they don't, many may vote in such a way, but many others are capable of a bit of compassion and responsibility to see beyond their own greed and selfishness.
I don't think that's nececeraly right or true though.
I vote towards the left of center, but not out of compassion for people 'below' me, because I believe that if everyone's better off on average the impact is felt by everyone from the bottom up.
I don't do it out of some alturistic 'donate my vote to the poor' compasionate reasoning. It's a cool headed decision that I think that's whats best for me.
It's a democracy, if the right wingers were in power and made the rich rich and loads of people poorer, then there'd be enough poor people voting left of center to overthrow them. Ditto if there was a left of center party in power, building huge debts based on giving people shedloads of free cash they'd all be rich and start voting for the right again. That's why we have 2 parties, both pretty much in the center, and swing between them every few years.
If people vote on ideological grounds (either way) rather than in their best interests then we end up with a government that on average doesn't reprisent the needs of the country.
The difference between out reasonings is that despite the fact I'd probably be short term better off voting right of center for lower taxes etc, I don't believe I'd be better off overall in the longer term. Stuff like overseas aid, social welfare, the NHS, imigration, military spending, etc is all to my short term detriment, but I beilieve it is in my own interest.
Which is why single policy parties like UKIP should exist. IF there was a town in Kent, overun by imigrants, to the detriment of the indiginous population, they have as much a right to that being raised in parliment as an issue as unempoyment in a northern indutrial town being a Labour issue. It's a big IF though.
Foreign aid is a total red herring
Haven't they also said that they'd get huge savings from leaving the EU?
That kind of UKIP-maths can probably produce about a one thousand three hundred million billion trillion pounds...
Remind me again why it is that our tax pounds should be given to countries that can afford their own nuclear arms, rather than be spent here.
Haven't they also said that they'd get huge savings from leaving the EU?
According to a quick Google, the UK pays about 10bn into the EU, but once you take into account the amount it receives back (local aid, etc.) the actual net outflow is about 4.7bn. Not enough to cover the tax proposals, basically. (This is assuming that leaving the EU is cost free, of course).
Remind me again why it is that our tax pounds should be given to countries that can afford their own nuclear arms, rather than be spent here.
We like to support the poor in countries that could but don't support them as much as we think they should.
No they don't, many may vote in such a way, but many others are capable of a bit of compassion and responsibility to see beyond their own greed and selfishness.
Not many, and certainly not enough to sway an election. All union members I've ever known have been labour voters. That's not compassion however they dress it up, it's self interest.
True altruism doesn't exist, we are all selfish to cetain degrees.
However, compassion and self interest aren't mutually incompatible, I can be selfish, have my wants/needs met without causing hurt/disadvantage to others, or even approach it from a symbiotic level. Conversely I could just go all out and not give two-hoots about the impact of my wants on others. All three options are selfish though. It's just semantics.
All union members I've ever known have been labour voters
I'm in a union and have not voted labour as many times as I have. You'd be amazed how many teachers vote tory and almost all teachers are in a union.
True altruism doesn't exist, we are all selfish to cetain degrees.
Well depends on how philosophical you want to get but in practical terms I think there is altruism about - say a financial sense or how their time is spent.
So they'll let us plunder their natural resources - if you want some more bile to spill you could also mentioned that we give money to India - and they've just sent a satellite to Mars.
And what natural resources are we currently plundering from anywhere ???
if we had actually plundered as much as received knowledge says we have then there would be nowt left ........anywhere.
Foreign aid is as previously mentioned a small way of bribing developing nations to look to us when they need a bit of new kit, the fact that much of it ends up being spent in Harrods is irrelevant.
Is that bilious enough for you ?
I'm in a union and have not voted labour as many times as I have. You'd be amazed how many teachers vote tory and almost all teachers are in a union.
I stand corrected. Most squaddies were tory voters. I don't think as many are now, in fact I think the few that did (have to do postal votes) won't bother voting. They aren't allowed to be in a union.
as long as it's British Coke and Hookers
Pah. When did you last see a British Hooker? All these foreigners taking our girls' jobs.
I suspect a few teachers may have changed their minds in the last few years too!!
Why would STWers be surprised that Teachers vote Tory, even those in a Union ?
Anyway, UKIP are getting the coverage as they are speaking of issues which resonate with the peopluation and they have 25% of the votes (or opinion polls at least). Something the Greens are nowhere near.
The other point worth making is that leaving the EU will cost us money not save it in the short term (and possibly in the long term) so it's not going to pay for tax cuts.
That UKIP idea of the £13,5k starting point for tax on income sounds like an idea worth stealing by the other parties. Raising the tax threshold has been one of the better policies (maybe the only) from this Gov and a Libdem idea I believe. If I was Mr Milliband I'd be doing a cost benefit analysis on a raised threshold, after all what the point of a tax take you then need to give back in some form of benefit? Yes I know I'm a bit simple.
All union members I've ever known have been labour voters. That's not compassion however they dress it up, it's self interest.
I'm in a union and haven't voted labour since 1997.
In 1979 almost all the union members I knew did not vote Labour.
Well depends on how philosophical you want to get but in practical terms I think there is altruism about - say a financial sense or how their time is spent.
Fair do's, it's a bit early to be getting too deep as well!
I am not voting Labour that is definite but is in a union.
I mean how could you vote those people? None look charismatic at all. 😯
indeed why vote for policies when you have charisma
To be fair they dont have much of that either
bigblackshed - Member
Labour and the Torys are anything but the "center". Both are very right wing, with very little difference between them.
1/3 ain't bad I suppose!!!!! A UK mainstream party being very right wing.....?
Jamabalaya - not true about having to raise taxes and/or cut spending. Yes, they will all have to address the deficit, but raising taxes does not necessarily lead to higher government revenue and labour knows this - good old tax income elasticity. Hard to measure in practice but tipping point in the UK certainly seems to be below 50%, many studies claim it's closer to 46.
tmh I meant taxes in general not just income taxes and you know I agree with you on the correlation between higher top rates and lower tax receipts.
When I get the strength I'll start a thread on the "mansion tax", quite incredible how it hasn't been thought trough at all.
Of course UKIP could promise you free holidays for life, but they're not going to have to back up their promises with action.
Why do these parties come up with policies that create nothing but confusion and split loyalties.
I completely approve of a raising of any personal allowance as it suits me however the idea of creating a new higher band is bloody immoral as all of those here who rattle on about fairness must agree.
Fairness is treating everyone the same, not discrimination just because you don't like something.
Differing tax rates are not fair as people are treated unfairly. 1 straight rate across the board is fair. Those who disagree will be those who think that Cav should be a given a head start up a climb or some weedy climber given a minute head start in the last K of a race son that Kittel doesn't thrash them.
Are you advocating a flat tax rate?
S****.
"Of course UKIP could promise you free holidays for life, but they're not going to have to back up their promises with action."
What like the Libdems?
Differing tax rates are not fair as people are treated unfairly
Funniest thing I have read on this bored for ages. Are you three years old? "Its not fair because its not fair".
Foreign aid is a total red herring - it's 0.7% of our total Tax revenue - UKIP and other down the right end of the political spectrum shout loudly about it in terms of Pounds and Pence and of course that seems like a LOT of money, and of course it is to an individual but to a G8 nation it's not a fortune
Somebody compared the SNP with UKIP on an earlier thread. Would this be an appropriate place to point out that Trident is only 0.3% of public spending? 😈
You can of course increase public spending and reduce tax rates if you have enough growth.
Maybe UKIP are hoping that if they do get a few MPs and hold the balance of power then they can ask for one their more populist policies to be introduced in return.Reducing tax and increasing the lower threshold would prove pretty popular I'm sure and it would be up to the government to find the money to fund it.
here's Nigel's notes what he spoke from for his speech;
[img] 
[/img]
Those who disagree will be those who think that Cav should be a given a head start up a climb or some weedy climber given a minute head start in the last K of a race son that Kittel doesn't thrash them.
If Cav comes last it hurts no-one. If the earner of a family comes last, it hurts the family.
Fortunately, most of us don't think 'tough shit' is a decent response to social problems.
Fairness is treating everyone the same
Well now that's an interesting point. If I commit a motoring offence and got a £500 fine, that'd hurt my pocket. If Alan Sugar did the same he wouldn't even notice £500. So I'd get punished much more than he for the same thing. Is that fair?
Did you think poll tax was fair?
Fairness is treating everyone the same, not discrimination just because you don't like something.
Differing tax rates are not fair as people are treated unfairly
Differing wage rates are not fair as they treat people unfairly
Its amazing how folk have the gall to argue against the unfair tax rate yet fail tot mention the cause of it - unequal incomes,
1 straight rate across the board is fair
For wages I agree completely comrade
Face palm
Its funny as can be to read folk argue for this whilst happy to keep unequal wages.
For wages I agree completely comrade
It's nice how I can disagree so completely with someone yet like them at the same time!
Speak for yourself **** 😛
It is indeed one of the best things about STW
I would say in this point though you cannot argue for equal tax as anything else is unfair without also accepting that wages should be equal
if they are not equal and this is fair then tax also not being equal is fairer.
I know which I prefer and I know i am the minority but the posters point is poor IMHO as it is contradictory/hypocritical
Differing tax rates are not fair as people are treated unfairly. 1 straight rate across the board is fair.
@matt The main issue with a single rate of tax is that it would have to be in the mid/high 30%'s, it would never get voted in as most people would have to pay more. You are correct in that the graduated rates mean the higher income earners pay proportionately more but as everyone has 1 vote that's always going to be the case. Even countries with low top rates (eg Singapore 20%, Hong Kong 15%) have graduated rates with lower earners paying less.
I would say in this point though you cannot argue for equal tax as anything else is unfair without also accepting that wages should be equal
JY, you can argue for a single rate of tax as those on higher earnings pay more. You don't need equal wages for that. We do have one rate of corporation tax for example, you don't pay a higher rate because you are a larger more successful company. However as I said it will never be possible politically because of our democracy.
Speak for yourself ****
😀
I would say in this point though you cannot argue for equal tax as anything else is unfair without also accepting that wages should be equal
Nobody seriously expects a flat rate of income tax surely? I'd love to get a bigger share of my own earnings and have the rich folk foot the bill, or even just by sorting out the tax loopholes.
I would like to see some "flat tax" rates figures if capital gains tax was set at the same level, and NI contributions were also "flattened" to the level they are for the majority of PAYE payers.
I dont think anyone really expects a flat rate and i think everyone accepts the burden should fall more on the rich than the poor. The debate [ my views aside] is about where the line is drawn rather than how it is drawn.
Did you think poll tax was fair?
Yes in principle.A personal local tax based on the local services you are likely to benefit from is fairer than a property tax.
Nobody seriously expects a flat rate of income tax surely?
Why not?
Someone on 100k with a universal flat tax rate would still be paying ten times more than someone on 10k a year.What's so wrong with that?
Someone on 100k with a universal flat tax rate would still be paying ten times more than someone on 10k a year.What's so wrong with that?
In actual fact somebody on 100k a year will be paying an infinite times the amount of somebody on £10k 😉
I do wonder whether there might be an overall benefit (in terms of the total tax take, combined with decreased cost of admin, less chance of loopholes etc.) in having a single flat rate of tax combined with a higher personal allowance. However whilst that would be good for those on lower income, higher earners would pay less than at present and all those middle income folks who are swing voters would pay more.
If I didnt pay as much tax I would definiteley spend more, I love spending, if I spent more I would be more beneficial to the UK economy as I would be assisting in the flow of cash.
When people say they would gladly pay more tax for a better health service etc I am sure they could form a co-operaive with other like minded folk and make a monthly donation to HM Treasury 😀
Whats middle income? Need to decide if I agree 😉
Cheekyboy problem is they'd only waste it on bombs or something
@cheekyboy Only if we can be certain that free loaders like yourself can be left on the side of a mountain with your broken collar bone and wallet to fend for yourself 😉
.What's so wrong with that?
If you need to ask you wont understand.
FWIW tax is the only area where we change the method [ as aracer suggests] because folk ignore and avoid the law. Everywhere else we enforce it. We dont go oh look loads of folk commit benefit fraud [ not true its tiny but that is not important for this point] so lets change the rules so they dont. What we do is enforce the rules
We dont up the speed limit till we find a speed folk dont speed so why do we do it with tax avoidance
Enforce it and fine them.
On the broader point i do agree with having a point at which we go - ok that is the rate at which you start to pay tax - say the MW rate or similar. and then taxing only above this on a sliding scale say 5 % for first 5 k then 7.5 % etc ending at about 97 % obviously 8)
Flat rate are not used anywhere and every country in the world, I am aware of, has a progressive tax system [ must be one ]Technically having an allowance makes even a flat rate progressive though i find it a specious and weak argument personally.
statement from the new leader of the left in British politics
“The country’s got a big, big problem and in the course of the last decade the ‘rich’ have got remarkably richer. I think Patrick is taking us in a slightly different direction and I think that is a recognition and a realisation that for millions of people life is a lot worse now that it was ten years ago. Coming out of this conference this morning for a couple of hours and going down to the factory and meeting all the men and women working that they are a lot worse off than they were.“
However whilst that would be good for those on lower income, higher earners would pay less than at present and all those middle income folks who are swing voters would pay more.
higher earners usually have complex pay and benefits and do things like increase pension contributions to reduce their personal tax
If you need to ask you wont understand.
That's quite an assumption and perhaps says more about you than me.
Progressive taxation isn't working and the gap between rich and poor is increasing.Flat rate taxation can be a radical alternative that may well create the kind of world which you seem to be after.It is not just a right wing dream.Take the blinkers off.
If you have to feed a family on £15k, things will be tight. So the government should take as little as possible. If you are on £150k then the government could easily take 40% of that and you would have £90k left and still have tons left for a good life.
40% off the £15k family would result in £9k but 5% would give them another £5,250 a year. When you are struggling an extra £200/mo really makes life better.
That is why we have progressive taxation. Because there is a minimum basic cost of living.