ukip to cut income tax

Notice how he did not say how it was for the rich as if the purpose is not to make them better off but it is done to help the poor …that is not even spin it is disingenuous

As it was proposed in 2008 – would you say it has progressed much then ? Caught on in a massive uprising of popularity or was my pointless comment accurate ?

Using a tax haven as an example of what we could achieve…priceless.

PS dont question me on my views just use Google 🙄

Using the NHS as an example again, when it was first mooted it was no doubt derided as pointless and wouldn’t catch on.Same with most of the things that have benefitted the poor in society.It’s about ideas JY not just a popularity contest.
And Jersey was mentioned simply because it is the nearest.Mind you ,didn’t you say a few posts back that there were no countries in the world that had flat rate tax.Your Google must be broken.fixed now. 🙄

How does a flat rate benefit the poor more than progressive tax? You could set a 0% rate up to 12k or where ever in both systems. What you are talking about isnt a benefit of a flat rate.

So other than Jersey what other developed successful countries have used this system and how are the poor getting on in those places?

So thats a no then?
Just saying the current system isnt very good doesnt make an alternative better.

Well AA it helps if you know the basic criteria for assessing tax systems.

So no, that’s not a no. The current system achieves less of the objectives than a flat date – so yes, flat rate is better.

And it is progressive.

Anyway, must, read what UKIP nutters actually said.

It doesn’t matter what they said. As they’ll never be in power it’s irrelevant – a bit like the LibDems really.

PS dont question me on my views just use Google

As Junkyard said above, its a pretty thin argument.

It doesn’t matter what they said. As they’ll never be in power it’s irrelevant

Yes, but like the above, always a giggle to read.

I can think pretty well. You whole argument seems to be that flat rate is better as the UK system doesnt meet certain criteria. Ignoring the fact one of the criteria you mentioned earlier was being simple, which obviously would make a simpler system meet more criteria. I dont follow the leap that says a flat rate system is better. I also dont see you presenting any evidence to back up your dogma.

But your a legend in your mind so please carry on.

Well you are in an unfortunate position then.

So “Dogma” is understanding the Nobel winning economist’s literature on the subject (and having taught it) but that is clearly irrelevant??? 😀 you must be a hoot in class.

I will thanks and enjoy the wallow.

So evidence of places its been successful and where the poor have benefited. Got any?

So, as I understand it then, we are pouring millions into overseas aid because we feel sorry for the people who are not being looked after by their own governments who are wealthy enough to do so.

We’ve been doing this for years, and nothing seems to be getting any better for them.

Aren’t we just encouraging an addiction to welfare and an indifference towards them from their own governments?

THM’s flat rate tax concept seems to be just abolishing a tax band and changing the threshold. How is that revolutionary? Or is there something else I am missing?

I’m all for adjusting thresholds and bands if it improves matters.

As far as I can see all THM has said is that the current system isnt very good and is too complex so a flat rate would be better. Its a massive leap as far as I can see. Its like a Tory voter thinking the Tories are shit, rather than vote labour I’ll become a communist. I may have misunderstood his ramblings though I find getting a straight answer out of him difficult.

we are pouring millions into overseas aid because we feel sorry for the people

I don’t think you fully understand what oversea aid is about Woppit. One of the most generous provider of oversea aid is Saudi Arabia, a country which last month publicly beheaded someone for “witchcraft and sorcery”, you need to ask yourself the motives behind the generosity of such as brutal country as Saudi Arabia.

Furthermore oversea aid is defined as spending which has “the economic development” of poorer countries as its primary objective, you would be surprised how that is interpreted, it includes “military and security training”, and spending over “oversea” aid in the UK.

And much of the aid is actually in the form of loans.

Have a read of this :

Millions of pounds of overseas aid money spent in Britain

what you are missing is that flat rate helps the rich – look at it as a tac reduction for the rich as under the new system the flat rate is generally lower than the higher rate tax band. To get what we do now[ paying a flat rate and raising the threshold] the lower rate would need to be raised as well so it would be a tax rise for many as well.
Basically it removes the progressive nature of tax [ ie higher earners paying a higher rate of tax] for all nick mentioning of the poor it is a tax system for the rich. You have a billionaire paying the same tax as a cleaner…who benefits most from this? Hence why the right wingers on here are arguing for it.

As mentioned in my earlier answer you can claim it is progressive as it ha sa threshold but the fact remains it is a flat rate so we all pay tax at t the same rate once we pass the threshold and , IMHO, it is newspspeak to call it progressive – if it was we would not need to call it flat rate we would just call it progressive.

As mentioned before you can claim it is but it is not a great argument- using maths it is technically correct but , if you pay tax, we all pay the same rate.
Its flat rate with a threshold.

You’re confusing a tiered tax rate with a progressive tax system – process with outcome. With a flat tax system, the higher the tax free threshold, the more progressive it is. If the tax free threshold were 30 grand, no one would be complaining.

An interesting lesson in semantics.

Interesting to note that the ‘flat tax’ part of the announcement has taken all the attention, but this bit has been hardly mentioned here:

I’m not seeing a persuasive argument that’s all. I don’t see how adjusting the bands will close loopholes.

It eliminates them altogether (well almost)

When labour laid the successful political trap for the Tories they created a bizarre system where one person was paying a marginal rate of 60% when another earning 50k more was paying 52% – and that’s a sensible system???

Equally as we have seen in actual practice, some countries have set, the flat rate at a very high level for periods of time.

How did it work out for them? How about the countries that set it lower? Why if its so obvious does it mainly only get done in Russia and Baltic States?

Still banging on about my job as a cheap jibe eh…pathetic, mindless and cheap.

With a flat tax system, the higher the tax free threshold, the more progressive it is

I am not confusing it I am rejecting this point for the reasons stated. I think it is spin and a sophist argument
It is a flat rate tax system with a threshold – once we pay tax we all pay the same. I can do the maths and I understand your point BUT IMHO it is not a progressive system as we all pay the same rate of tax [ if you pay tax]. No one pays a higher rate than anyone else no one as clearly a flat rate tax is designed to be a flat rate rather than progressive.

It is not a flat rate in terms of what you pay out above a threshold.

That is exactly what it is a flat rate above a threshold. If it was not it would not be a flat rate it would be a variable rate above the threshold.

Progressive tax[ a definition] is the taxing mechanism in which the taxing authority charges more taxes as the income of the taxpayer increases.

It charges the same irrespective of income – it does not charge more it charges the same rate- its not the very definition of progressive or we would not need another word for it.

There is no denying that technically it can be argued as you and KB do [ the progressive point ] but it a sophist argument IMHO for the reasons stated.

I get the argument I just think it is disingenuous – like arguing the bedroom tax is not a tax – that sort of thing.

See, on the other hand, the threshold/progressive argument falls down on the other side

one of the basic principles of the welfare state, much protected by the left, was that of universality – the concept that because everyone benefitted it had the effect of tying society together, we saw that argument much discussed over the withdrawal of child benefit for higher earners.

Of course the argument applies the other way too – society* and support for the system in general benefits by everyone contributing, if a section of the population don’t pay tax then they have no real interest in seeing that it is spent wisely and with maximum value for money, its not ‘their’ money that goes to cleaning up the litter that they drop in the street.

thats why, although its far more radical, I would prefer to see a flat system with no threshold – I feel that it binds society together better if everyone contributes, not just some.

note here that I would also like to see removal of a number of other taxes, I feel that a great many of our current ‘consumption’ taxes are extraordinarily regressive, like council tax, fuel taxes etc. and would prefer to see them, along with capital gains tax etc. moved into the income tax sphere when doing the calculation for a flat tax rate.

(* a word I would have to prefix with ‘The abstract concept that we refer to as’ for obvious reasons)

Ninfan, the problem is you still have a 0% bracket so by you view they would never give a shit surely?

Do you? where?

edit – if you mean people on benefits, nope, I’d happily give them a weekly payslip that said, for example

‘gross benefit £100’
income tax ‘£25’
total payable ‘£75’

although its largely a paper exercise, but as I say I see the value of the universality argument, I just think it works both ways.

TBH I dont see the value of universality in benefits. Healthcare, social care and education should be universal the rest based on need in my view.

Ah, well, Beveridge was along similar lines – however its notable his original report was based upon a flat rate of benefit in return for a flat contribution rather than a progressive one.

hats why, although its far more radical, I would prefer to see a flat system with no threshold – I feel that it binds society together better if everyone contributes, not just some.

Those ex doms and tax avoiders are disgusted at your lack of support for their tax methods 😉
Its a difficult one – take the poll tax – we can all see why all paying is a good idea but it has to be implemented fairly based on ability to pay.

Personally I think it is ridiculous to argue all must pay the same amount or % when we do not all recieve the same from society. The flat raters and the right wingers only ever want the “same” in terms of tax- ie they want more money and then they want more money again. We should not pander to them. Here have less than the millionaire but pay just as much a % and a higher % of your disposable income etc – its kicking someone who is on their knees rather than holding out your hand to help them off their knees

I know which i prefer to do.
Beyond being simple to administer it has no advantages IMHO and serves the rich not the poor.

As for universality it is universal but only if you need it

Giving child benefit to the wealthy makes as much sense as me having the same knee op as A-A had. Provide equally to this based on need rather than provide to all irrespective of need. Never understood the point of it TBH if you do not need help.

I have no idea why the best off in society would ever feel hard done by the system that enabled their won and protects the iniquitous spread of resources. It may not be “fair” but the unfairness is still massively in their favour.