1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

The Conservative Party: Where do we go from here?

Discussion in 'Speaker's Corner' started by Gigabit, Jun 10, 2017.

  1. D.P.

    Caporegime

    Joined: Oct 18, 2002

    Posts: 29,873

    The at rate would have to be 45% to make sure the highest earners are taxed the same rate, ideally with a plan to move to 50-55% at least. The tax free allowance would then have to be something in the 20-25k range. Then you end up in a weird society where half the people don't pay any tax and then suddenly you get hit heavily half the marginal salary goes to tax. All the guise of pleasing a few right wing lunies who think people better able to pay more tax shouldn't pay more while those unable.tp pay more tax should magic money from their money tree in order to subsidies the rich.
     
  2. D.P.

    Caporegime

    Joined: Oct 18, 2002

    Posts: 29,873

    The but of 10% on a 15k earner is far higher than the 150k earner, so this would be a very unfair tax system.
     
  3. chroniclard

    Capodecina

    Joined: Apr 23, 2014

    Posts: 11,404

    Location: Hertfordshire

    Tax seems relatively fair at the moment. Certainly no need to give higher earners a tax break. Everyone needs to pay more at the moment.
     
  4. 413x

    Capodecina

    Joined: Jan 13, 2010

    Posts: 15,848

    Location: Stamford

    Id agree
    Seems about right
    Possible another band even higher than what we have now
     
  5. Nitefly

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Sep 24, 2005

    Posts: 30,474

    I agree.
     
  6. Dolph

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Oct 17, 2002

    Posts: 46,391

    Location: Plymouth

    Or, you give a universal benefit and tax from the start, allowing the interaction of the two to create an effective tax free allowance that ends at the point where tax paid is equal to benefit received. Much simpler to administer, and ensures that tax and benefit changes impact all (raising the benefit raises the break even point, raising the tax rate impacts all and so on).

    Remember, we already have a heavily biased system where almost 50% of households are net recipients and most income tax is paid by a few at the top.
     
  7. Dolph

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Oct 17, 2002

    Posts: 46,391

    Location: Plymouth

    This is still special pleading, coupled with a tinge of jealousy.

    If you earnt £150k and felt you could spare more, you are free to do so. Nothing is stopping you choosing to to do that. The thing is, you aren't advocating that. You are instead advocating that the government takes a disproportionate amount of someone else's property under threat of use of the state monopoly of force, because you believe, based on an arbitrary value assignment, that they do t need it.

    The tax rate on someone on £15k is already 32% (basic rate +NI)...
     
  8. cheesyboy

    Capodecina

    Joined: Dec 7, 2012

    Posts: 10,980

    Location: Gloucestershire

    ** marginal rate. Quite a contrast to a flat tax

    The 'fairness' argument is nonsense here. Unless you truly believe that what people are paid is a "fair" compensation for what they contribute to society, then you are only applying your 'fairness' measure to one side of the equation. (and we all know that's exactly what you're doing)

    And if you think stock traders provide more to society than refuse collectors, I suggest you imagine a world living without both for a couple of months.
     
  9. Dolph

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Oct 17, 2002

    Posts: 46,391

    Location: Plymouth

    It's not the marginal rate, the marginal rate is different as you would factor in allowances etc. The quoted rates are the result of adding tax and NI together and ignoring allowances and starting points, which is standard practice.

    As for the fairness argument, I argue for equality under the law, or equal treatment of individuals. As most people aren't employed by the state, whether you think their compensation arrangements (that they have entered into voluntarily with another private individual or party) are irrelevant.

    The state has additional powers due to having the monopoly on the legitimate use of force or compulsion. As such, the state must use this power in a non discriminatory way, using no arbitrary discrimination in the deployment of that monopoly.
     
  10. Mr Badger

    Soldato

    Joined: Dec 27, 2009

    Posts: 6,004

    I would suggest a problem with this discussion is that talking about moving to flat rate income tax in isolation is nonsensical, as it would have to be part of a complete new system. Simply changing the tax rates to make everyone pay (say) 38.2% to balance the budget would clearly cause massive problems and be unaffordable to many lower earners. Unless of course they also receive a significant pay rise (in the form of salary or a state benefit) to rebalance the situation. As a point of principle though I do agree that however you dress it up, account must be taken of the ability to pay.
     
  11. Dolph

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Oct 17, 2002

    Posts: 46,391

    Location: Plymouth

    Only if you are innumerate.
     
  12. Dolph

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Oct 17, 2002

    Posts: 46,391

    Location: Plymouth

    Indeed, and I have said many times it would have to be done as part of a much wider overhaul of tax, benefits and support structures, which I'm perfectly comfortable with as well.
     
  13. cheesyboy

    Capodecina

    Joined: Dec 7, 2012

    Posts: 10,980

    Location: Gloucestershire

    What is your end vision with this flat tax system? Because taking more at source before re-distributing to the poorest is simply a recipe for a scaling up of bureaucracy: more, bigger government departments. Why take it just to give it back, rather than let those who need it keep it in the first place?

    And what of the very rich? they will pay less, which mean everyone else pays more. What is the benefit to society, or even the economy (since the rich spent less of their total income than the poor)?
     
  14. wesimmo

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Mar 19, 2012

    Posts: 1,796

    What I find I don't get is Dolph's insistence on a flat rate, but then applying benefits to effectively go back to a marginal rate? Isn't that what you're doing by making everyone pay the same but get different amounts back?

    It seems a waste of resource to me, you're having to calculate and administer 2 sets of payments when you could do it in one go?

    But broadly, people who don't see it as fair that the richer pay more don't seem to understand that society is largely a vast network of a vast amount of symbiotic groups of people.

    The rich can't be rich and use their riches to have the life of luxury without the poorer to dig the gold out the ground, take their rubbish away, valet their car, etc

    I have no issue with rich and poor, it's a natural consequence of the diversity of people, but the global economy has made unfettered capitalism a dangerous thing for me.

    That there is a gap in income is fine, but at the moment that gap is offensive when there is such poverty in the world causing real suffeting, we're killing the planet and people are doing stuff like porcelain coating their second Bugatti.
     
  15. Dolph

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Oct 17, 2002

    Posts: 46,391

    Location: Plymouth

    Running a universal benefit system is much more efficient and less effort than running a means tested one (in addition to the equality of treatment benefits), and running a single flat tax with no direct allowances is much simpler and more efficient (as well as much harder to avoid and much easier to identify evasion) than running multiple tax variants, bands and allowances.

    To run the two together is also simpler than trying to precalculate it because of the simple nature.
     
  16. wesimmo

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Mar 19, 2012

    Posts: 1,796

    So are you now saying the universal benefit system isn't means tested?

    And while I don't disagree that the system should be simplified to avoid loop holes etc that's an entirely separate argument to marginal tax rates. Without allowances and such complications the average person should be able to comprehend paying tax on their income in today's day and age with online calculators.
     
  17. StriderX

    Capodecina

    Joined: Mar 18, 2008

    Posts: 17,996

    A negative tax could be useful in a flat tax system.
     
  18. D.P.

    Caporegime

    Joined: Oct 18, 2002

    Posts: 29,873

    If you don;t have a tax-free allowance in a flat-tax system then negative income tax or universal benefits are a requirement,

    The problem is these are both incredibly inefficient. You take money away form people just to give it back to them. The actual tax rate then has to be even higer since the higher income earners get their tax back.

    The argument for a universal income improving efficiency by removing some benefits is not entirely clear. The UI has to be high enough for disabled, pensioners and unemployed to live on for example, including money for children of disabled etc. So now the tax rate has to be huge to cover everyone. So do you tax everyone at 65-70% and give 12-14k back?

    It is a very slippery slope to full on communism. next step just tax everyone at 100% and give everyone a fixed stipend regardless of work.


    Personally I much prefer a system where the richest workers can indeed earn massively more than the poorest, just that the absolute inequality between the distribution ends are controlled so wealth distribution doesn't just continuously move to the select richest fraction of a percent.


    Excuses that marginal tax rates etc. are complex are purposely false and misleading. The complex tax code is hundreds and hundreds of pages long, marginal tax rates cover maybe 1 page. This isn;t rocket science, you put your salary into a website and it will give your tax amount.
     
  19. doodah

    Capodecina

    Joined: Oct 18, 2002

    Posts: 19,387

    Location: London

    Tories gut the solar panel programme and now desperate for any type of legacy other than being the worst post war PM, she now commits the UK to be net zero by 2050. Honest and believable.
     
  20. StriderX

    Capodecina

    Joined: Mar 18, 2008

    Posts: 17,996

    But the tax rate in early - middle 20th century was 70-80% (albeit the wars were the biggest reason for the increases, but it kept up for a while after) and that was the biggest growth the west had ever seen too.