Poll: Poll: UK General Election 2017 - Mk II

[Greebo]

A lot of the better private schools have entrance exams (which parents also have to pay for) to pick the most capable children. They turn away more people than they take as pupils. They have waiting lists. There is no point in them reducing their fees if there is a waiting list.

So how will VAT being charged reduce the numbers going to private school as what was being claimed then?

 

[VincentHanna]

What's your argument here? Higher earners already contribute more ££, that's how percentages work. It seems that a lot of Labour voters just want higher earners to be taxed more for no particular reason. Even if it was proved that such taxation wouldn't bring in more revenue for the country, they'd still vote for it.

If it's not too personal.

You must earn approx £9,000 take home per month?

And under labour that would drop to £8500?

Am I missing something or is that not still plenty of money to get by on? I understand it's your money but is there no moral obligation to try and help decrease the social divide?

 

[Macro]

What's your argument here? Higher earners already contribute more ££, that's how percentages work. It seems that a lot of Labour voters just want higher earners to be taxed more for no particular reason. Even if it was proved that such taxation wouldn't bring in more revenue for the country, they'd still vote for it.

Ah, the old we should tax more and spend more as long I don't have to contribute view. Can't say i blame anyone but it's then a bit rich to try and stomp off to the moral high ground of the tory voters are only interested in themselves.

 

[snapdragon]

One thing that's really hit home when reading through this thread.

There are a great deal of folks who have previously and would normally vote Conservative who are now seriously going to vote Labour, in my time at OcUK I've never seen such a swing, I applaud those that have mainly for being honest when they simply could have kept their heads down, bravo to them! not for switching but for being honest and open and actually providing some of the most balanced post's in here.

I can't help but recall the Brexit poll, pretty much everyone thought the remain camp had it nailed on, when I woke up at 5am the next day and saw the result I was genuinely stunned! I've got the feeling it's going to be a hung parliament between Labour / SNP.

 

[Greebo]

What's your argument here? Higher earners already contribute more ££, that's how percentages work. It seems that a lot of Labour voters just want higher earners to be taxed more for no particular reason. Even if it was proved that such taxation wouldn't bring in more revenue for the country, they'd still vote for it.

Maybe because the lower earnings have been squeezed as much as they can and the top 1% like yourself can afford a few extra percent?

 

[Hades]

So how will VAT being charged reduce the numbers going to private school as what was being claimed then?

Actually a fair point now I think about it further. If there is a queue to go to private school then when people drop back to state schools others will move out of state into private.

 

[Glaucus]

edit - wrong thread somehow.

 

[Basher]

My argument is that I doubt you're going to get the sympathy you're seeking.

I'm not asking for sympathy. For me, I would rather strive to be more successful (I earn less than my companies average) and earn more than support policies which aim to punish the 'wealthy'. The attitude of many seems to be increase the tax burden of the wealthy, rather than strive to be wealthy yourself.

 

[Deleted member 66701]

it should just be like £25k tax free allowance, then 50% tax or what ever percentage is needed, and less tax loops so more things are counted as income.

I'd rather see a minimum citizens income then tax brackets as they are currently. Then those that desire pointless shiny things are free to do so and those that would rather live a simple life or pursue other interests that better society but don't generate a (higher) income (academia, charity work, art, music, science etc) are free to do so.

 

[Greebo]

edit - wrong thread somehow.

??????

 

[wildman]

What's your argument here? Higher earners already contribute more ££, that's how percentages work. It seems that a lot of Labour voters just want higher earners to be taxed more for no particular reason. Even if it was proved that such taxation wouldn't bring in more revenue for the country, they'd still vote for it.

It seems that a lot of Tory voters just want deeper cuts and more the less well off to have more of their social welfare cut because they all have Sky Q and smoke 20 b&H a day even when it proven that deep austerity cuts do not actually help to balance the books in the long term.

yes we can play this game all day long sunshine

 

[Glaucus]

??????

Somehow i quoted another posted in another thread, then ended up quoting you in this thread, i have no idea.

 

[Ayahuasca]

I'm not asking for sympathy. For me, I would rather strive to be more successful (I earn less than my companies average) and earn more than support policies which aim to punish the 'wealthy'. The attitude of many seems to be increase the tax burden of the wealthy, rather than strive to be wealthy yourself.

It isn't and never will be as simple as vast amounts of people just striving for salaries anywhere near your own, are you just going to create £80K+ annual salary jobs out of thin air? Even £50k+ salaries outside of London are rare.

 

[Greebo]

I'm not asking for sympathy. For me, I would rather strive to be more successful (I earn less than my companies average) and earn more than support policies which aim to punish the 'wealthy'. The attitude of many seems to be increase the tax burden of the wealthy, rather than strive to be wealthy yourself.

No we can all strive. I am at the point where I am very comfortable on what I earn. Am i striving to earn more? Yes. Would me paying some more tax per year change the way I live? No.

Any tax proposed by Labour would be more than wiped out by the £10k payrise I get most years.

 

[Deleted member 66701]

I'm not asking for sympathy. For me, I would rather strive to be more successful (I earn less than my companies average) and earn more than support policies which aim to punish the 'wealthy'. The attitude of many seems to be increase the tax burden of the wealthy, rather than strive to be wealthy yourself.

Well, when you use emotive words like "punish" rather "increase contributions of", it seems like you're angling for sympathy.

 

[GizF1]

Want or need? Big difference.

They definitely want (and need) more when everything has been cut to the bone.

Would they ever say when they are moving from need to want though?

 

[Macro]

If it's not too personal.

You must earn approx £9,000 take home per month?

And under labour that would drop to £8500?

Am I missing something or is that not still plenty of money to get by on? I understand it's your money but is there no moral obligation to try and help decrease the social divide?

If he earns £150kpa that's £7.5k per month after tax. To be fair to him high earner then also tend to pay into private medical care, personal pension, often have to pay for expensive season tickets into place link London as well as a substantial mortgage if he lives in London/South East. Although without doubt it's still a great salary depending on where he lives I doubt he's swigging champagne every day especially with cost of living in London/South East (as well as some other areas around the country). We also should take into account as well as paying more tax etc someone at that level is unlikely to get any state handouts/benefits etc or be a burden on the NHS so he'll be contributing substantial and unlikely to be taking much back out of the system.

No disputing it's a good salary to be on but just some perspective that it's not 4 ferraris on the drive money.

Just to add that also means he already pays £54k per year in tax and £6.5k in NI to fund things - not bad when you talk about moral obligations to contribute to the greater good.

 

[Lartyconshayo]

such dignity (taken from the Guardian):

Jeremy Corbyn has just finished speaking at a rally in Runcorn. He sounded remarkably energised and positive, and he ended with

"I’m very proud of the positive message we’ve put forward ... And we have refrained from personal abuse because I do not believe that gets us anywhere. I understand, because my neighbours tell me, that some people have said some very unkind things about me. I forgive them all."

 

[Hades]

Genuine question. If the percentage of tax for the wealthy is continuing to go up and if there are always calls for them to pay 'just a little bit more' then at what point does it stop?

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.te...s-trebled-since-1970s-telegraph-analysis/amp/

 

[gettothechopper]

In summary:

TM seemed to be the best of a bad bunch, when she took over from DC
Her speech on becoming PM was quite inspiring I thought, and was fairly positive at that point
Her start to brexit was worrying, more set on insults, threats and bridge burning rather than redefining our relationship with the EU
Also stupidness like fighting the court case about triggering article 50 when everyone was already going to push it through anyway
Launching the election was always just a grab at more seats, as the polls were favouring that result
They clearly have had a terrible campagin, full of blunders, uturns and rubbish policies
Not turning up at the debate was a huge mistake, I think, and the dementia tax completely against tory voters values

After the attacks other things like the police cuts she was a part of, and accusing them of crying wolf in 2015 etc are all very damming
the power grab for more internet restrictions and scrapping human rights laws are all very worrying
The suppression of the Saudi Terrorism funding report is a disgrace, and undermines the very thing we are trying to stop happening
Also her cosying up to Trump I found repugnant, and then not condeming his actions at times (paris accord etc) and especially attacking the mayor of an attacked city on twitter - pathetic indeed


As for JC, before the election I though he had no chance, apart from a very loyal and loud minority group supporting him
As the campaign has gone on though he has talked a lot of sense about properly funding essential services like police, nhs and education
This has clearly boosted him while at the same time TM has been making a mess of her own campaign

He isnt strong enough on defence policies for me (usually) and there is plenty I dont agree with that he says - but he does seem to be 1)more honest / trustworthy and 2)able to carry on under a great deal of pressure
I have never voted for Labour before, (usualy LD) I am tactially voting labour as my area LD bloke doesnt have much chance and things are reasonably close to need me to be vote for someone who at least wants to properly fund core services.

I dont really expect JC to win, if TM loses a single seat - I will count it as a victory over her loss of such a winning margin, as well as againtst her new unplesent authoritarian policies
Certainly denying her a large majority will please me enough for now