Poll: Poll: UK General Election 2017 - Mk II

[TheBiznes]

I am finding it odd the poll looks like Labour...this is normally quite a middle England slightly to the right forum...might be close....

I think everyone is letting the various poster have their fun and the ones saying not voting are perhaps shy and don't wish to bait.

 

[Surfer]

Don't feel at all inspired or anything by any of the parties. Even the basic stuff they seem to getting wrong....utter mess of both con and labour tbh....then there's that complete megalomaniac krankie as well....sad sorry **** we are in ATM....

Where is monster raving loony party when you need them

 

[chroniclard]

Some of the schools around here are already trying to operate on £100,000 less than previous years and having to cut facilities, etc. they've had a few million spent on glamming them up as academies and now dumped with less money to work from while expected to operate at a higher standard.

Its a disgrace having to go to ****** school fetes and endless fundraising crud.

 

[Roar87]

As to yours, I have no idea how you distorted what I wrote into your bizarre interpretation. No, I do not think someone on £50,000 should pay 100% tax rate. Next bloody stupid question.

It's because he took 31% of 150k to be around £50k then decided to come to the conclusion that you think everyone should have to pay £50k in tax, irrespective of how much they earn, rather than take on board your point which was that 31% of a high earners income is many times that of someone earning £20k

 

[Raikiri]

It's because he took 31% of 150k to be around £50k then decided to come to the conclusion that you think everyone should have to pay £50k in tax, irrespective of how much they earn, rather than take on board your point which was that 31% of a high earners income is many times that of someone earning £20k

Well of course it is, that's how taxes work. Even if it was a flat rate it would still be many times (7.5x) more.

Having higher taxes for higher earners allows lower/middle earners to have more expendable income which they you know, actually spend which helps growth. Rather than having it sitting in a bank account or tied up in property making more money and further increasing the wealth gap.

 

[Basher]

They are. That report I linked to shows they are paying an effective tax of 31%, the same as they did in 1980. In fact it hasn't changed for 35 years.

Higher earners take home less money (as a percentage of their income) that lower earners. Are you suggesting otherwise?

 

[Schlong&Stable]

GDP GROWTH is much better than a surplus. But as you'll just keep copy pasting "lol greece", "lol Blair government" and "lol totally not an American crash with consequences". I won't bother.

Depends how much growth, how much interest you're paying on borrowing etc. The UK spends far more on public spending (as a percentage of GDP) than most over advanced nations, including the likes of Norway, Japan, Germany, Canada and Australia.Most of this is financed by borrowing so long as we have a deficit. Are we getting the sort of returns we'd expect in GDP growth for all that spending? No.

 

[Roar87]

Well of course it is, that's how taxes work. Even if it was a flat rate it would still be many (7.5x) as much.

Having higher taxes for higher earners allows lower/middle earners to have more expendable income which they you know, actually spend which helps growth. Rather than having it sitting in a bank account or tied up in property making more money and further increasing the wealth gap.

Yeah we get the point that flat taxes can't work, but equally how much is fair to tax someone who in most cases has actually earned their level of income? It gets to the point that you remove the incentive for people to work harder and achieve more, why should they pay for someone who hasn't put in anywhere near the same level of effort? Why should someone who's put in many years at University and worked their way up to a high earning job pay for someone who's happy to work part time at a low paid job without ever trying to do better for themselves? Not only do you remove the incentive at the top by taxing higher earnings, you remove the incentive to progress at the bottom if you pay everything for them. Society does better when people strive to achieve, that's why Communism ultimately failed.

 

[Greebo]

the claim you made, that I objected to, was:



this is likely false:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39641222

see also:

https://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/9178

Maybe if you select some scenario whereby someone is on a low income but high enough to pay income tax and spends all their disposable income of beer/fags/petrol etc.. but I suspect it isn't so simple

I never disputed they don't pay the biggest amount into the total tax pot and your chart disproves nothing that I have said or linked to. As my link showed they pay the same effective rate of total tax of 31%, the same as they have paid for the last 35 years.

What has changed over those 35 years is that the 31%of tax paid by the number of people in that top bracket is now three times more than it was in 1980 wheres the rest of the tax paying population have paid less in total. That can only happen if the gap between the top earners and the rest of the country has grown massively.

And yes at 31% they are paying less as a proportion than middle incomers paying 35/36% effective tax rate.

Of course they are paying less tax than the low paid on £20k as they will be paying between 10% to 20%.

 

[Mercenary Keyboard Warrior]

Someone on £27k would take home 80.1% of their salary.
Someone on £50k would take home 73.6% of their salary.

For comparison, someone on £150k would take home 60.1% of their salary.

All based on current, not proposed taxation.

Im playing catchup here so someone else may have replied
They look at averages of all taxation, not just direct payroll type taxation. The issue is that VAT for example hits lower paid harder typically
Booze taxes hit lower paid higher if they drink exactly the same amount as its the same amount of tax, so a lower percentage for the higher paid of their salary

 

[StriderX]

Depends how much growth, how much interest you're paying on borrowing etc. The UK spends far more on public spending (as a percentage of GDP) than most over advanced nations, including the likes of Norway, Japan, Germany, Canada and Australia.Most of this is financed by borrowing so long as we have a deficit. Are we getting the sort of returns we'd expect in GDP growth for all that spending? No.

Except we were.

During the Blair years we had deficit to gdp of below 2% and generally below 1% and in surplus in the early years, our growth was minimum 2%... so we gained. The crash changed this and certainly some level austerity was required, but the Tories did nothing to invest in the country.

So now we have nothing to mitigate, even if we run a surplus , it wont matter if we have no growth or prospective growth.

 

[Basher]

Im playing catchup here so someone else may have replied
They look at averages of all taxation, not just direct payroll type taxation. The issue is that VAT for example hits lower paid harder typically
Booze taxes hit lower paid higher if they drink exactly the same amount as its the same amount of tax, so a lower percentage for the higher paid of their salary

The figures I posted are just on take-home pay, so income tax/NI.

 

[Mercenary Keyboard Warrior]

Home information packs were a good idea, badly implemented.

In fact its such a good idea, the Tories are bringing them back and its in their manifesto.

http://www.financialreporter.co.uk/...lan-to-bring-back-home-information-packs.html

Yes, anyone who has paid for surveys etc on a house then had the vendor change their mind completely supports the concept
Concept is spot on, implementation was C- must try harder

 

[Greebo]

It's because he took 31% of 150k to be around £50k then decided to come to the conclusion that you think everyone should have to pay £50k in tax, irrespective of how much they earn, rather than take on board your point which was that 31% of a high earners income is many times that of someone earning £20k

Well the question was clearly asked that it was the same as 11 was too many and how many it should be. On that basis it maybe should be 1. His question is ludicrous which is why it deserved a stupid answer.

 

[Raikiri]

Yeah we get the point that flat taxes can't work, but equally how much is fair to tax someone who in most cases has actually earned their level of income? It gets to the point that you remove the incentive for people to work harder and achieve more, why should they pay for someone who hasn't put in anywhere near the same level of effort? Why should someone who's put in many years at University and worked their way up to a high earning job pay for someone who's happy to work part time at a low paid job without ever trying to do better for themselves? Not only do you remove the incentive at the top by taxing higher earnings, you remove the incentive to progress at the bottom if you pay everything for them. Society does better when people strive to achieve, that's why Communism ultimately failed.

It doesn't really remove the incentive though, it just slows the level of growth as you get towards the higher end.

For example:

£150,000 pre tax = £90.176 after all deductions
£200,000 pre tax = £116,676 after all deductions

It's not like you're earning the same or less post tax by earning a higher wage.

 

[Deleted member 66701]

You're also assuming my political leaning. Until recently I was almost tempted to vote Labour this time and will probably vote Libdem.

I said it was a typical Tory attitude, not that you were a typical Tory

 

[Greebo]

Higher earners take home less money (as a percentage of their income) that lower earners. Are you suggesting otherwise?

No, I am ignoring low earners on £20k. But middle income people pay around 35/36% effective tax and the top 5% pay only 31%. So on your way to aspiring to be one of the 5% you have to go through the pain of paying a higher effective rate of tax comapred to when you make it to over £150k per annum.

Yet the people on over £150k are complaining that they shouldnt pay more than 31% as its not fair. What about the person on £50k paying 35/36% They have more right to complain now than the top 5%.

 

[Mercenary Keyboard Warrior]

I'm not sure how meaningful that is - consumption is rather different and if you chose to smoke, drink lots etc.. then that is entirely on you. Also why assume that a high earner consumes at the same rate as a low earner?

As mentioned in another post I am playing catchup so sorry if already discussed further.
Yes averages and all that, but on average the higher earner pays a lower percentage in tax once you take the direct and indirect taxes into account
A tee total, anti smoking, non car driving low wage earner may pay a lower % than a bolly drinking, cigar smoking, jag driving medium wage earner, but on average the more you earn the lower actual percentage you will pay in tax

 

[Greebo]

Yeah we get the point that flat taxes can't work, but equally how much is fair to tax someone who in most cases has actually earned their level of income? It gets to the point that you remove the incentive for people to work harder and achieve more, why should they pay for someone who hasn't put in anywhere near the same level of effort? Why should someone who's put in many years at University and worked their way up to a high earning job pay for someone who's happy to work part time at a low paid job without ever trying to do better for themselves? Not only do you remove the incentive at the top by taxing higher earnings, you remove the incentive to progress at the bottom if you pay everything for them. Society does better when people strive to achieve, that's why Communism ultimately failed.

I have never undertsood this attitude. I get this at work. "nah mate, I'm not going to do any overtime this week as it will put me into the top tax band and those extra hours at double time I will get taxed another 8% so it isnt worth it"

 

[dowie]

I never disputed they don't pay the biggest amount into the total tax pot and your chart disproves nothing that I have said or linked to. As my link showed they pay the same effective rate of total tax of 31%, the same as they have paid for the last 35 years.

What has changed over those 35 years is that the 31%of tax paid by the number of people in that top bracket is now three times more than it was in 1980 wheres the rest of the tax paying population have paid less in total. That can only happen if the gap between the top earners and the rest of the country has grown massively.

And yes at 31% they are paying less as a proportion than middle incomers paying 35/36% effective tax rate.

Of course they are paying less tax than the low paid on £20k as they will be paying between 10% to 20%.

I didn't see you link, can you post it again please?