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.
Flat rate taxation can be a radical alternative that may well create the kind of world which you seem to be after
How? By increasing tax on the poor and decreasing it on the rich?
molgrips
You appear trapped in the same way of thinking as this man too.
"The millionaire to pay exactly the same tax rate as the young nurse, the home help, the worker on the minimum wage".
molgrips
You appear trapped in the same way of thinking as this man too.
"The millionaire to pay exactly the same tax rate as the young nurse, the home help, the worker on the minimum wage".
What do you mean?
Flat rate are not used anywhere and every country in the world, I am aware of, has a progressive tax system [ must be one ]
At least 40 countries do .Maybe appraise yourself of the facts a wee bit before making assumptions about others eh?
Why does it work better then nick?
jambalaya - Member
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.
Yeah, right. Amazon, Tesco, etc.
Flat rate tax benefits the rich, those who earn 6 figure sums, and impoverish the low paid, those people who work, still pay tax and then receive benefits because their pay is below a level considered to be enough to support a family. At the same time large companies are effectively handed cash in the form of lax enforcement of tax laws and the government topping up poor wages through benefits due to the minimum wage.
So, yes, it's fair if we all pay the same rate of tax. 🙄
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.
Actually you do - there's a discount for small businesses afaik. Or at least there was last time I had to pay it.
@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
I suppose that was you and your accolytes laughing at me whilst I lay in a star-shaped configuration at the bottom of the Slab up at Gisburn with a dislocated shoulder 🙂
Fact is they will probably be leaving more folk on the side of mountains after they have ridden us much further into the valley of DEBT once they get fed bombing he sands of the middle east into glass.
It is a Gordon Brown quote used to criticise flat rate income tax.A man bankrupt of ideas who ended running an almost bankrupt nation.Progressive income tax is a sacred cow and the elephant in the room(apologies for the mixed animal similes).
Progressive taxation isn't working and the gap between rich and poor is increasing.
What a bizarre comment. Increased income inequality has nothing to do with progressive taxation other than the shift away from it and onto more regressive taxation.
From the Victorian days right up until 1979 the share of income received by the wealthiest 1% fell, then after 1979 their share of income increased.
[img] 
[/img]
Why this happened isn't a mystery - Thatcher got elected and and her policies have continued to be applied since then. She certainly didn't increase progressive taxation in Britain. Today as part of her legacy we have purchase tax/VAT set at exactly the same rate as the basic income tax rate. Something which would have been completely unacceptable 40 years ago.
