Poll: The official I voted/election results thread

[thebennyboy]

Nows a chance for you to get an actual job, a real job in the private sector that you've never had. Y'know, the same as the ones who voted for the "other party". The people who actually pay the taxes you're so keen to spend.

Bit of sweeping statement. So those who voted labour don't pay any tax? Not sure you meant that but that what it reads.

 

[kindai]

No, I measure how well I am doing by the degree to which I can provide for my family and the quality of life my efforts afford them. Are you going to find fault with that as well?

Completely agree with your views.

It made me sick when I got my income tax bill this year.

My business was entirely my undertaking. I got zero help from any grants, funds, hell, I couldn't even get advice from the job center about starting up at the time.

So I took the risk, invested all my own savings into it and now that im earning good money, people think I owe them for my years of hard work?

 

[George Hincapie]

Yet you would sell off the NHS to save a few quid a week. An institution with the sole purpose of care for those that need it. Including mine and you family regardless of wealth.

No, you are misrepresenting what I posted.

What I said was that if that was the decision they made then I would expect to see a reduction for everyone in NI contributions to reflect the fact that people would need to fund care themselves. I did say that we already pay for private healthcare and that the idea of paying for the NHS wouldn't cause any difficulties, but at no point did I state they should do it, or that it was a good idea.

 

[thebennyboy]

So I took the risk, invested all my own savings into it and now that im earning good money, people think I owe them for my years of hard work?

So those on benefits due to disabilities preventing them for working don't deserve state help? Because you think that it should all be your money? You started a business knowing that you'll be contributing to the same pot of money that everyone paying tax into.

So if your business fell though, what would you have done? Gone onto the streets? No, the state would have been there to help you. Another bigoted tory voter it seems.

 

[joeyjojo]

My point was it wasn't a Tory/Coalition 'thing'. I think the figures were something like 4% of its budget was going to private companies under Labour, with it now being 6%... so if the coalition privatised it, Labour were worse.

It was 6% by value in 2013/14. More recently the rate going to private companies is 40% (36.8% by value).

Contracts monitored by the NHS Support Federation campaign group show that private firms won £3.54bn of £9.628bn worth of deals awarded in England last year – a win rate of 36.8%.

Far more NHS contracts going to private firms than ministers admit, figures show

So if your business fell though, what would you have done? Gone onto the streets? No, the state would have been there to help you.

This is exactly it. So many people seem to think that society should help them if they need it but not receive their taxes when they're doing well.

 

[D.P.]

Fine, final piece of evidence that a flat tax rate would be idiotic:



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22575135

I personally prefer getting those who've been lucky and have more than they need to make life a bit easier for those who haven't.

Which is why the flat tax would have to be 50% and then a large rise in the personal allowance to compensate. The problem is people who advocate a flat tax don't want to pay 50%.
And in the end it is just the middle income earners then would get shafted.


the UK basically has a flat rate tax anyway, but with a discounted rate for those that cannot afford it. Reducing the number of tax bands down to 1 really doesn't achieve much, slightly easier to calculate one's taxes. . The US has dozens of tax bands where it increases by a % every few K. The tax documents end up hideously large with dozens upon dozens of tax tables .

 

[George Hincapie]

I'm probably not even talking about you! That article linked earlier said 3,000 people earn over £2.7 million a year, paying 4.2% of all income tax. I was just arguing that at the very least we should tax the crap out of these people, far more than the 45% rate (although the disgusting truth is many of them probably pay FAR less with tax avoidance).

But why don't you accept that even under a flat rate tax system they'd still pay more tax then you and just about everyone else on this forum combined?

Why is your driver 'Earn more pay a higher %'? At what point are you going to allow them to enjoy the rewards of their efforts?

 

[Mynight]

Completely agree with your views.

It made me sick when I got my income tax bill this year.

My business was entirely my undertaking. I got zero help from any grants, funds, hell, I couldn't even get advice from the job center about starting up at the time.

So I took the risk, invested all my own savings into it and now that im earning good money, people think I owe them for my years of hard work?

To some extent you do owe the state. While I'm in the same posistion as you you have to realise we're funding the next generation some of whom may be working for us. We've benifited from education and health to get to where we are which was paid for by other earners. Seems only fair to give others the same chance we've had.

Besides if you had failed the money paid into the state by those that suceed would have been a safety net for yourself.

 

[George Hincapie]

Which is why the flat tax would have to be 50% and then a large rise in the personal allowance to compensate. The problem is people who advocate a flat tax don't want to pay 50%.
And in the end it is just the middle income earners then would get shafted.


the UK basically has a flat rate tax anyway, but with a discounted rate for those that cannot afford it. Reducing the number of tax bands down to 1 really doesn't achieve much, slightly easier to calculate one's taxes. . The US has dozens of tax bands where it increases by a % every few K. The tax documents end up hideously large with dozens upon dozens of tax tables .

50% is a stupid percentage and you clearly haven't thought that through. No-one pays half of their entire salary now, why would they agree to do so under a flat rate system?

Personally, I feel 30-35% with no personal allowance at all for those earning over a threshold salary, but with the allowance remaining to protect low earners.

 

[kindai]

So if your business fell though, what would you have done? Gone onto the streets? No, the state would have been there to help you.

No, i'd of gone and worked at McDonald's if I had to. I don't mind paying tax, my issue lies that my own success means I have to pay a disproportionately larger amount. Tax should be a flat rate for everyone, so if you earn £10 an hour or £1000 you pay the same percentage.

 

[V F]

To some extent you do owe the state. While I'm in the same posistion as you you have to realise we're funding the next generation some of whom may be working for us. We've benifited from education and health to get to where we are which was paid for by other earners. Seems only fair to give others the same chance we've had.

Besides if you had failed the money paid into the state by those that suceed would have been a safety net for yourself.

Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and co didn't think so… As they pulled up the ladders.

 

[George Hincapie]

This is exactly it. So many people seem to think that society should help them if they need it but not receive their taxes when they're doing well.

No, that's not what anyone is saying. Not one person has suggested not paying any tax at all. Perhaps you might consider that and try again. Or just stop, because with respect, I am not sure you get it.

 

[George Hincapie]

No, i'd of gone and worked at McDonald's if I had to. I don't mind paying tax, my issue lies that my own success means I have to pay a disproportionately larger amount. Tax should be a flat rate for everyone, so if you earn £10 an hour or £1000 you pay the same percentage.

Applause.

The crowd goes wild.

 

[Tunney]

Why is your driver 'Earn more pay a higher %'? At what point are you going to allow them to enjoy the rewards of their efforts?

If you earn £1,000,000, you still get to enjoy the rewards of your efforts whether you pay a flat tax rate of 30% or a top rate tax band of 50%. Under either system, you take home more than than anyone earning less than you.

Those who can afford to pay more, should pay more. Be grateful for what you've got rather than bitter about what you haven't got.

 

[D.P.]

But why don't you accept that even under a flat rate tax system they'd still pay more tax then you and just about everyone else on this forum combined?

Why is your driver 'Earn more pay a higher %'? At what point are you going to allow them to enjoy the rewards of their efforts?

I don't think you understand how taxation work.

Increasing tax rates is not meant as a drive, you got it the wrong way round. Low income earners physically can't pay so much tax so they have to pay at a lower rate.

 

[do_ron_ron]

There must be some indication in the preparatory documents and negotiations? Any indication whatsoever?

There have been lots of scare stories, but like the couple I refuted earlier... they're not all true . It's weird how there are all these scare stories, but no evidence... even though there's loads of documents available/the process is pretty transparent...

You really do not understand English, do you There can be NO evidence against ANYTHING until AFTER it has happened. By then it is too late. To judge whether something will be bad for you, you look at the available indicators of the person acting in a similar way. That is what the links people have provided show. Your head in the sand, " I see no nothing", will not alter the likely outcome.

 

[George Hincapie]

If you earn £1,000,000, you still get to enjoy the rewards of your efforts whether you pay a flat tax rate of 30% or a top rate tax band of 50%. Under either system, you take home more than than anyone earning less than you.

Those who can afford to pay more, should pay more. Be grateful for what you've got rather than bitter about what you haven't got.

I disagree. Those who earn more do pay more. They would pay more under the current system or a flat rate system. I've explained this several times now, it's not rocket science.

 

[Mason-]

So those on benefits due to disabilities preventing them for working don't deserve state help? Because you think that it should all be your money? You started a business knowing that you'll be contributing to the same pot of money that everyone paying tax into.

So if your business fell though, what would you have done? Gone onto the streets? No, the state would have been there to help you. Another bigoted tory voter it seems.

Implying disabled people aren't/won't be supported by the state. Of course they will. Tory reforming the welfare state is because of how labour made it so that people can be better off on benefits than if they worked. Why should not working EVER pay more than working? It's not right, it needed to be changed and it has done. The only benefit I've claimed is 1 and a half weeks of JSA after leaving university, and I was surprised at how difficult it was to get, you actually had to work at it and show that you were actively seeking work. It's not just oh you're not in work here have some money. The way it should be.

Why is it such a bad thing that the Torys want to make it so that people who work are better off than people that don't? And please don't pull out the rubbish that the torys will leave all the disabled people out on the street because they'll stop their benefits, because that just won't happen.

 

[Mynight]

Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and co didn't think so… As they pulled up the ladders.

What do you mean sorry. Severely lacking sleep and I've missed your meaning .

 

[George Hincapie]

I don't think you understand how taxation work.

Increasing tax rates is not meant as a drive, you got it the wrong way round. Low income earners physically can't pay so much tax so they have to pay at a lower rate.

With respect, you've proven you have no clue whatsoever about politics, taxation or anything else you've posted in this thread. You have no legitimacy to call my understanding of taxation, or anything else into question.