Why would 'more money' not be encouragement to succeed but 'even more money' would? The idea that people are getting to £42k and then just kicking back is quite funny.
March Budget 2016
- Thread starter helpimcrap
- Start date
Why would 'more money' not be encouragement to succeed but 'even more money' would? The idea that people are getting to £42k and then just kicking back is quite funny.
Proponents of a flat tax usually underestimate how unequal incomes are. Any reasonable flat tax rate would result in an increased tax burden for mid to high earners and a substantial tax cut for very high earners.
This paper for the ACCA for example runs through an example implementation. The result is reduced taxes for those earning less than £22k and more than £75k, and a tax rise for earners in the middle (pp 47). How is that better than the current situation exactly?
I'd rather see a smoother increase up to a higher top rate, maybe 65% (as suggested by Tony Atkinson), but each to their own.
A yes I do, I would be in the bracket hit hardest.
And the high earners wouldn't benefit massively if you close loop holes. Close loop holes and they would actually pay far more than they currently do.
Last edited:
This mirrors my thoughts. A flat tax would be a huge backwards step for the UK.
I upped my pension contributions to attempt to avoid 40% tax.
Also IRT Lifetime ISA, I would have transferred my HTB ISA over to a lifetime ISA, but then I would have to wait till April 2018 to cash it out on a house, but we're looking to buy just before then unfortunately, but if could have I would have been able to up my monthly payment from £200 to £300.
Last edited:
Which is just being tax efficient....It didn't stop you refusing the job paying into the higher tax band though did it
So it's just a stupid statement from helpimcrap, which unfortunately a lot if people seem to think is right
- Joined
- 13 Jan 2004
- Posts
- 12,812
- Location
- Leicestershire
Because I'm guessing there is more to it than what we see. Tories never do things for others that do not benefit themselves.
- Joined
- 13 Jan 2004
- Posts
- 12,812
- Location
- Leicestershire
I thank you.
I don't particularly care about that bit so I just take it on face value.
I thank you.
I don't particularly care about that bit so I just take it on face value.
Sorry mate, I generally like your posts....except that one
Soldato
- Joined
- 31 May 2009
- Posts
- 21,506
That you do not seem to be able to access until you are 60, or place it all into a first home.
Not convinced by this one, but then I am probably a few months to old to avail of it anyway
Caporegime
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2013
- Posts
- 30,779
Well he's broken his other two promises already.
Probably wont make it, but it absolutely make sense.
We aren't going to grow our way out of this slump. World economics are screwed. There will be some years of growth some years of decline.
It makes sense in this climate to spend within our means, if you look further out to stabilising population, ageing population etc, it makes even more sense to spend within our means and for each generation to pay for itself.
It's better than the other party would do, which is just spend and when the next slump comes we would be even more screwed.
Not that I agree with were cuts and spending our happening. But the principle is right.
And then when we want to increase debt we can pick and choose, and should be for large infrastructure projects, not day to day running.
I disagree, I'm of the economic theory that running a surplus does not make sense at all (in macro economic terms) running a small(ish) deficit balanced against growth is the most efficient way of running a country - in very simplistic terms (plenty of exceptions and caveats to that of course)
If a surplus was that important we would have run one for more than 5 yrs in the last 40...and only blips at the time...and we currently still seem to be the 5th biggest economy in the world
And absolute debt is unimportant, no one wants the capital back, as long as you service the interest you just wait for inflation to erode the debt away....its worked for us for the last few hundred years
If a surplus was that important we would have run one for more than 5 yrs in the last 40...and only blips at the time...and we currently still seem to be the 5th biggest economy in the world
And absolute debt is unimportant, no one wants the capital back, as long as you service the interest you just wait for inflation to erode the debt away....its worked for us for the last few hundred years
Last edited:
But you can't guarantee growth in this global climate and it looks unlikely it will change in the coming decade or two. It also leaves no room for massive infrastructure budgets, which have to be a deficit.
You can not compare it to the last 40years, change is happening. Just because that's what happened before doesn't mean that's what can continue to happen.
If we went with well that's what's always happened, then the stabilising population, ageing population would screw us, as the next generation would be unable to pay for the pensions which has been the model for generations. This is something that still isn't being addressed fast enough.
Last edited:
It sits well with the electorate, who have been brainwashed into thinking that managing the economy is akin to managing a household budget - living within your means and all that bs. I don't believe history will judge Osborne in a favourable light, his style as Chancellor is very old school - tax give aways before elections etc.
But running the miniscule amount of surplus he is talking about isn't going to change anything. If we sustained that every year it would still take us over 500 yrs to pay the debt off...and we've not sustained it for more than 5 yrs in 40
And yep, the world's economy is on a knife edge due to China, but if it goes pop, it goes pop for all of us, so we're all ****** anyway, and who is going to call the ticket in then. It's the old adage of "if you owe the bank a thousand pounds it's your problem if you owe them a million pounds it's their problem"
His aim for the surplus is an ideological or personal aim, with little to do with economic theory