That's about where I stand on it. I think it's a great idea.
Now if we can just get VED rolled into the price of fuel then that'll be another step towards better taxation as well.
Proposed change to the tax system, 30% rate for all....
- Thread starter Spit
- Start date
That's about where I stand on it. I think it's a great idea.
Now if we can just get VED rolled into the price of fuel then that'll be another step towards better taxation as well.
Demand creates jobs.
This stupid tax idea by the UK Tea party morons (along with the possible sales tax by local councils) - would decrease the disposable income for most of the population - which in turn would decrease DEMAND for goods & services (which is what really creates jobs).
This plan has nothing to do with job creation, or promoting growth - it's a pet project of a group of people who simply want to pay less tax (in this case, despite the fact they benefit greatly from society).
Most crybaby capitalists (like many on here) like to pretend they don't live in a society, or that they benefit from it.
I'm sure that false sense of self-achievement gives them a warm fuzzy feeling inside.
Do you rely on any government services?, NHS etc?.
If you do, then no ... it's not a good idea.
Best post on this thread so far, the lefties that deny this are lying to themselves and making up every ridiculous reason under the sun.
No more so than the false sense of entitlement that the cry baby socialists harp on about.
The problem in this country is down to succesive governments pandering to specific cuts of the demographic. Labour did an awful lot of pandering to the so called 'poor' and left us with a legacy of 'benefit earners', who have basically been programmed to believe the wealthy are required to keep the poor.
Tory governments have pandered to the capitalists / wealthy, making them beleive that they are entitled to pay less tax as they are the 'creators' of wealth.
What needs to happens is a government somewhere needs to grow a pair and do whats right for the good of the entire country without playing the favour cards to the chosen voting demographic.
Too much worrying about returning to office and not enough worrying about good policy making is why most of the governments we have had over the past 20 to 30 years have literally failed to deliver on all counts.
Cameron is doing a fine example of this now, I think he is making policy simply for ratings and not for good politics sense. Milliband and Balls are jsut points scoring, because even if they got into the hot seat they'd be equally screwed.
Maybe the politicians should be 'all in this together' before they start lifting fivers out of my wallet. All parties should sit together and actually work out a way of getting UK Plc back on track, rather than playing their usual palyground antics at PMQ's.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 17 Feb 2003
- Posts
- 29,640
- Location
- Chelmsford
Excellent idea! Bring it on!
Absolutely, the two tier Tax and NI system must be a enormous drain on resources and expenses.
My only feeling there would still need to be a higher rate tax system for higher earners as this would benefit them the most.
I'm certainly any any change that boosts both the general publics pocket and the treasury. Seems like a win/win proposal.
Well, I do agree with this (just not the last few).
A well reasoned post +1
I'm in favour of simplification, the fact we tax the same people we give benefit's to is an example of the stupidity of the system (if they are poor enough for the state to give them money, why is it taking it off them?).
What a silly question - of course I do?
I just don't subscribe to making the rich pay for everything.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
Which is a problem that has nothing to do with cheaper overseas/labour being exploited by the business leaders of the country?
So OK, you convince every business in the country to stop hiring Eastern Europeans and force them not to do a Dyson and close their factories and move them to India whilst getting all Britain's able but unemployed back to into work.
Who then pays for the sick and the old (we have an aging population rememeber and this proposal suggests we have a lower state income that BEFORE the baby boom), who pays for the NHS, defence, the police etc?
I dislike the f3ckless, workshy Jeremy Kyle types as well but if you think subsidising their wasteful lifestyles even scratches the surface of the State's financial commitments you need to do some serious reading.
Is this happeneing though or it it just an empty threat that the richest in society use to avoid paying their way? Kind of like when an abusive husband tells his wife "If you leave me you'll never find another man like me" and they stupidly believe it?
What people forget when they make the argument about people running off because they don't want to pay tax is that the UK is quite a nice place to live (relatively speaking) and that counts for something.
Would all these 'innovators' go an take themselves off to Iraq providing it had a low tax rate? Would they ****. Do people regulary up sticks and move their whole family, their lives, learn a whole new language, and everything they know off to another country just because it has a slightly lower tax burden on them? No they don't
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 6 Sep 2005
- Posts
- 154
- Location
- Cambridgeshire
[TW]Fox;21968043 said:
Exactly. If the low earners pay 30% under this system rather than 31% at present (20% Income tax + 11% NI), and the top earners pay much less, how could this sort of thing possibly be revenue neutral?
In the private sector....... ? Just No, its none of your business or mine what someone else gets paid. At a board level its the business of the shareholders as to whether they think they are getting value for money from their CEO's. If they think not then they do what Aviva share holder did and vote down the pay increases.
Appart from that its got nothing to do with governments / laws / joe public. Anyone that says they think it should be, are usually acting from jealousy or envy. Seriously why the hell should you be bothered what CEO of compnay X gets if yo are not a shareholder ?
For public sector jobs its the business of the entire taxpaying community as we directly pay for those positions. For provate sector as I mentioned above its down to the shareholders.
Why is everyone so het up on getting their noses stuck into someone elses pay business when it doesn't affect them directly. Sure I;d love to be on a few 100 grand a year, but I am not and I am not going to start wanting punitive action in the form of ridiculous tax levy's against those that are simply to make me 'feel better' or give me a sense of 'justice'
It's not.Exactly. If the low earners pay 30% under this system rather than 31% at present (20% Income tax + 11% NI), and the top earners pay much less, how could this sort of thing possibly be revenue neutral?
It would require highly slashed public services that 95%+ the population rely on - I'd like to see the evidence that decreasing income tax significantly for the top few percent of earners yields economic growth.
Here's a fresh idea.
Perhaps some people are against it because they recognise the detrimental effect it has on wider society?, which in turn makes the country we all live in to be that little less pleasant.
Who do you think pays for the goods these CEO's company makes?, who do you think works for these CEO's (who is getting 1/500'th of the wage of the boss?).
So please, stop with that tiresome "all people who don't agree with me are jealous", I'm not the one who goes on the warpath every-time I hear about somebody else getting something for free.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
I wasn't referring to the government vs non-government I was more talking about the people including those in the private sector.
E.g. Is it OK that someone who works as a cashier at Lloyds Banks cares about how much his or her boss is being paid?
This is what Republicans in the US refer to as 'starving the beast'; they believe the best way to destroy the welfare state is to cut tax revenues, so gutting services can be sold to the public as a necessity rather than as an ideological aim. Anyone who thinks that a group like the Taxpayer's Alliance (which is a think-tank sponsored by big business, not a grass-roots organisation as it pretends to be) would propose a system that was revenue neutral is kidding themselves. Easing the tax burden on the rich is the only reason the group exists. Public services would be slashed under this plan, forcing low-earners to rely on private companies for services that used to be provided by the government and paying through the nose for it (which would suit the TA just fine).Exactly. If the low earners pay 30% under this system rather than 31% at present (20% Income tax + 11% NI), and the top earners pay much less, how could this sort of thing possibly be revenue neutral?
The rich have benefited from society much more than the average Joe and should be taxed accordingly. The state paid for the infrastructure that allows them to transport their goods or sell their services and provides their workers with education, health-care and pensions. How much would it cost a company to provide any of those things?
There is paying your way and then there is punitively punishing for punishings sake.
look at it from another angle. The wealthy could say they actually pay more than their way as they use less public money than the poor. e.g someone on over 200K a year will not get any of the benefits that a low income earner would. SO the argument could so easily be reversed into saying 'why should we pay more when we use less? '
Now I am not saying I agree with that statement, but your argument is null. its not about paying your way, its about raising revenue for the government to deliver public services. You can tax the wealthy to a certain point where they likely wouldn't care, but if you simply start jacking the rates up to get more cash from one slice of the tax paying community do you think they will stick around ?
High taxation is only viable when those paying it are 1. Here to pay it, and 2. Although they dislike it are not that incensed that they would rather move their business elsewhere.
After a certain level high levels of tax become disingenuous. The trick is to extract high taxes from the wealthy without making it in their face. This is why all the left wing tripe about tax these rich *******s and bankers back to the stoneage will never work. Its not that difficult to move your entire operation to another 'tax friendly location'.
Many large business organisations have these kinds of plans in a dusty drawer for when they know they are going to get a savage sting. So unless taxation is applied evenly across the world by all countries these people will naturally gravitate towards the ones where there is less tax burden, taking with them a lot of potential jobs.
example
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...veals-plans-to-quit-London-for-Hong-Kong.html
now if that went ahead how many job losses would there be of people who would mostly be in the 40% Tax bracket with a few in the 45% all who are paying 40% on their bonus cheques.
That equates to a far larger loss than could be possibly gained by hiking their tax levels ups
How does it benefit the rich?
Who would end up paying far more money as they can't hide behind other forms off pay.
Seeing as revenue would be expanded while cutting or minimal change to the benefit of the poor/middle earners. What you say is rubbish.
Who would end up paying far more money as they can't hide behind other forms off pay.
Seeing as revenue would be expanded while cutting or minimal change to the benefit of the poor/middle earners. What you say is rubbish.
Last edited:
No, why should they care if they are getting a wage that ensures they are living at a reasonable standard i.e have food on the table, can put clothes on the children's backs and have a house to live in.
Again people should worry about their own positions and not about how they can have punishment loaded on to someone who is in a better position than theirs.
"Yeah its not fair that Lewis Hamilton drives a DB9. god damn I want to drive one, so because I can't lets tax that git hard because it makes me feel better."
That is the basic argument of most of the left I read not only hear but in the press.
No offence, but this is a load of tosh.
People are not asking for high earners to be taxed more so they can go "Yeah! screw those rich folk!" - they are asking so the wages can be more evenly distributed throughout the population via government redistribution.
Personally, I'd much prefer a society in which the government didn't have to do it - one in which business owners are paid more (but not 100's of times more) than the average worker, making the idea of a flat tax rate far more appealing for all involved (which I'd also support if we had a fixed max earnings ratio).
But alas, personal greed has forced the hand of the government to ensure the population have enough to continue the cyclic consumption to keep the capitalist model going.
Are you one of those people who think capitalism could survive without a state?.