Poll: Poll: UK General Election 2017 - Mk II

[h4rm0ny]

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"

Because it devalues the per-unit of your labour. Imagine you got paid £20 per hour. Then on Fridays your boss told you that they were only going to pay you £10 per hour. You would be less inclined to work as hard or as long on Friday than you had been for the week up until that point.

The above is a correct analogy - bumping up into the next tax bracket has exactly that devaluing effect on your labour even though the total value still increases somewhat.

 

[Greebo]

But tax + NI difference between the lower tax bands is 12%, not 8% (20%+10% vs 40%+2%). Plus, you also start to loose child benefit, so the more children you have, the higher the marginal rate.

Okay 12% not 8%, I got my figures wrong way round but its still not a lot when your hourly rate has doubled. Yet some people dont see those extra hours as worth it.

 

[Greebo]

I don't really care about your original post - If I'd quoted your original post I'd not have asked you to post your link again - what I objected to was this claim:



this is false as I've demonstrated

Well you have shown household income and not individual earnings..................so you havent shown it to be false at all....................yet

 

[dowie]

Okay 12% not 8%, I got my figures wrong way round but its still not a lot when your hourly rate has doubled. Yet some people dont see those extra hours as worth it.

yup - or make higher pension contributions or decide that overall NYC or HK or Geneva would be a better place to live etc...

when you get to say the sweet spot where your personal allowance gets obliterated too then it can change people's behaviour - perhaps that GP decides that running the Saturday morning surgery isn't so desirable

 

[dowie]

Well you have shown household income and not individual earnings..................so you havent shown it to be false at all....................yet

you've not provided anything to back up your claim in the first place... in fact you can quite easily see on that latest ONS chart that the bulk of the household income for the lowest group comes from benefits

actually if you cared to read it the IFS report does talk about VAT etc.. it was created in reference to the same sort of claim you attempted to make and that I objected to in the first place!

 

[Greebo]

you've not provided anything to back it up in the first place... in fact you can quite easily see on that latest ONS chart that the bulk of the household income for the lowest group comes from benefits!

ANd I have always said I am excluding low earners like 20k per annum.

 

[chrismscotland]

Well... under T. May's brave new UK, stealing a copy of the DM will be punished by burning at the stake.

On a semi serious note it struck me as strange, if the election is as much in the bag as the latest linked polls on here would suggest, what do they know that has sent the propaganda machine into overdrive?

Could be that in reality it is much closer than some folk are thinking, or just a safety measure to make sure and get all of the nuts out to vote tomorrow.

 

[h4rm0ny]

I answered. If its currently 11, it's fine to be 11.06. Honestly, looking at how the income of the top 1% has grown compared with the rest of the population, I might be happy with as many as 15 but I will take 11.06 for now.

Okay. Thank you. So then effectively you think it is the case that someone earning £150,000 p/a should be expected to pay as much as from eleven to fifteen people in the lower tax bracket.

So a person earning approximately five times the national average wage should, according to your morality, shoulder the same amount of burden as eleven to fifteen other employed people actually earning the national average wage? How is that fair, or is fairness not required by your morality?

 

[cheesyboy]

Her. And I don't think you understood what I wrote. And you didn't answer my question ludicrously or otherwise. I want to know how many average people's tax you think someone earning £150,000 p/a should be required to pay morally. At the moment, such a person is paying income tax equivalent to eleven other people. Some people are saying they should pay more. I never wrote anything about what it should be, I asked you what you thought it should be. And I merely asked you to put it in the simple and accurate metric of how many people such a person should be expected to pull the same financial weight as. At the moment, 31% means they're giving more than eleven other people on the lower rate. How many people do you think they should be giving as much as?

Applying 'morality' to an upper limit on tax makes little sense. 'Morality' might say that we should all be rewarded on effort, or perhaps that we should be willing to forgo wealth in aid of the less fortunate until such a point as we meet in the middle.

It's not even about 'fairness'. There's little unfair in paying even a very hefty taxation price back to the society which requires a certain amount of maintenance to allow you to become such a high earner.

Really, it's about necessity. It is necessary to maintain society and civilisation, so that we can all prosper, and someone has to pay. Why shouldn't it fall more squarely on the shoulders of those who have.... unnecessary wealth?

 

[danielanthony]

yup - or make higher pension contributions or decide that overall NYC or HK or Geneva would be a better place to live etc...

when you get to say the sweet spot where your personal allowance gets obliterated too then it can change people's behaviour - perhaps that GP decides that running the Saturday morning surgery isn't so desirable

Which is exactly what's happening already as high paid public servants max out their pension contributions. If Corbyn gets in, every hospital consultant and head teacher will be getting a pay cut as they pay thousands more PAYE due to the change in income tax bands. So either senior public sector workers will need a massive pay rise to counter the PAYE and pension changes (called more money required for the NHS etc) or more will be doing part-time hours or retiring early.

 

[dowie]

ANd I have always said I am excluding low earners like 20k per annum.

that wasn't mentioned in your post either:

Oh I agree. i think everybody should and there should certainly be no corporation tax drop this year. I do think the top 5% could chip a little more into the pot as well. on the basis they are paying an effective smaller tax rate than everybody else.

nope I don't see everybody else except for people on 20k or less... you just stated 'everybody else'

it is factually incorrect, you're wrong no matter how you try to change the argument or post a link that doesn't even support your assertion

 

[dowie]

Applying 'morality' to an upper limit on tax makes little sense. 'Morality' might say that we should all be rewarded on effort, or perhaps that we should be willing to forgo wealth in aid of the less fortunate until such a point as we meet in the middle.

It's not even about 'fairness'. There's little unfair in paying even a very hefty taxation price back to the society which requires a certain amount of maintenance to allow you to become such a high earner.

Really, it's about necessity. It is necessary to maintain society and civilisation, so that we can all prosper, and someone has to pay. Why shouldn't it fall more squarely on the shoulders of those who have.... unnecessary wealth?

you're talking about taxing income not wealth and we already tax higher incomes more - this is party about fairness but also people will react to tax changes, you can't expect people to all simply stay put and behave as they did before. Tax might be essentially to society but it isn't essential for higher earners to be continually penalised for being successful and it is a bit risky to penalise too much given how much they subsidise the rest of society.

As has been pointed out people's behaviour changes - some will contribute more to pensions, some will work less some will feel more inclined to move some will try to avoid taxes some will even evade (though this latter behaviour we ought to also try to crack down on)

 

[Yozz76]

I thought one of the main tory gripes was money being wasted. I also thought they prided themselves on 'working hard'. Why then have they paid to have a campaign flyer posted through my letterbox rather than knock on my door and work hard to convince me to vote for them? I'm disappointed really as I'd have liked the opportunity to rip it up in their faces.

 

[wildman]

Questioner: "Is Boris Johnson a smart person pretending to be an idiot, or an idiot pretending to be a smart person?"
Ian Hislop: "Yes."

its just politicians in genneral, with the exception of a few local MP's who are really passionate about their constituencies, mainly because it's the area they came from, the vast majority of our politicians are empty idiotic bumbling shills. I find it hard to believe that the vast majority of them are in it for anything other than themselves, and the whole notion of having politicians of the people for the people is actually a joke, with that joke being on the poor sods called the electorate.

That an entire election campaign (on all sides) is reduced to how much crud you can sling and hope some of it sticks, to the 30 second sound bites with no in depth real discussions around what they are doing or planning on doing for us the public that effectively pay their wages makes me believe, yes, they are all idiots pretending to be smart, but they are slowly getting rumbled. I fear that by the time they are really put to the sword by the public this country will already be wrecked due to political game of thrones

 

[D.P.]

I think it is mostly just about perspective.

High income earners are not penalized for being successful, they are paying a marginal tax rate that wont cause them financial distress. Lower income earners are paying as much as they while similarity trying to reduce the financial difficulties. Basically everyone-is paying the top rate of tax except those that cant afford to.


Ideally we would move to a flat income tax rate of about 40-45% but with a minimum living wage and negative income tax/universal basic income. Then everyone pays the same marginal rate.

 

[stewski]

I don't think so, the fact that he needed to be asked if he condemned IRA bombing says a lot. The fact that he had to caveat the "Yes" says even more. Corbyn's been around for a long time in British politics, he's always been on the side of anyone who is against the UK - IRA, Argentina, Soviet Union etc.

Was Corbyn on the side of South Africa During Apartheid, Pinochet in Chile, Saudi?

 

[chroniclard]

All the manifesto's completely ignore the financial black hole of Brexit too.

 

[Macro]

You could apply that equally to Supreme Leader May.

Can't disagree there - I've said before, all she had to do was shut up, say we'll do more of the same with some more money for NHS, police and puppies and she'd have romped it...

 

[McPhee]

All the manifesto's completely ignore the financial black hole of Brexit too.

Of course they do.

It would be political suicide to talk about it, and totally pointless given nobody is listening.

 

[Roar87]

its just politicians in genneral, with the exception of a few loca l MP's who are really passionate about their constituencies, mainly because it's the area they came from, the vast majority of our politicians are empty idiotic bumbling shills. I find it hard to believe that the vast majority of them are in it for anything other than themselves, and the whole notion of having politicians of the people for the people is actually a joke, with that joke being on the poor sods called the electorate.

That an entire election campaign (on all sides) is reduced to how much crud you can sling and hope some of it sticks, to the 30 second sound bites with no in depth real discussions around what they are doing or planning on doing for us the public that effectively pay their wages makes me believe, yes, they are all idiots pretending to be smart, but they are slowly getting rumbled. I fear that by the time they are really put to the sword by the public this country will already be wrecked due to political game of thrones

At the end of the day being an MP is a job, why are people surprised that most of them are "in it for themselves". Are you also surprised that most footballers will go to the club that offers the highest wage? And that if someone offered to double most of our salarys we'd hand in our notice tomorrow? If you're unhappy with the current MPs you are more than welcome to put yourself up at the next general election, we live in an open democracy