Poll: The official I voted/election results thread

Who did you vote for?

  • Alliance Party of Northern Ireland

    Votes: 4 0.3%

  • Conservative

    Votes: 518 39.5%

  • Democratic Unionist Party

    Votes: 6 0.5%

  • Green Party

    Votes: 65 5.0%

  • Labour

    Votes: 241 18.4%

  • Liberal Democrats

    Votes: 99 7.5%

  • Didn't vote / spoiled ballot

    Votes: 136 10.4%

  • Other party

    Votes: 6 0.5%

  • Plaid Cymru

    Votes: 6 0.5%

  • Respect Party

    Votes: 1 0.1%

  • SNP

    Votes: 67 5.1%

  • Social Democratic and Labour Party

    Votes: 2 0.2%

  • Sinn Fein

    Votes: 4 0.3%

  • UKIP

    Votes: 158 12.0%
  • Total voters
    1,313
Tunney said:
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.
Click to expand...



This is the problem of people these days. They see no value in helping others who are disadvantaged, it's just me me me. Those who are wealthy should pay more and be happy they are in a better position than most, not bitter about paying taxes
 
Tunney said:
Those who can afford to pay more, should pay more.
Click to expand...

Why?

They already pay more from the fact they earn more, why should they then pay EVEN MORE on top?


Let assume a flat rate of 20% to make it easy.

You earn 10,000 a year, I earn 1,000,000.

You pay a £2000 tax bill, I pay a £200,000 tax bill.

So im already paying 100x the tax you are, why should I then have to pay more than that?
 
Tunney said:
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.
Click to expand...

And you so obviously miss the point that successful people do pay more with a flat rate of tax. Or maybe you think they should be put in the stocks and pelted with rotten fruit too for being successful?
 
George Hincapie said:
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.
Click to expand...

So with that, me or my Mrs would have to give up work because we couldn't afford to pay the additional tax and childcare.

25% flat or not at all I say.

It's stuff like that which get Government's ousted right when they are close to making change for the better.
 
George Hincapie said:
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.
Click to expand...

So, using your figure of 30-35% tax rate for all, revenues fall massively, making it impossible for the govt to balance the books. What then?

If services get cut somebody still has to provide those services (street lighting, roads, waste collection, etc). You'd rather it was all provided by private enterprise?

What do you gain by having less tax and needing to buy all these services from private providers? Apart from screwing all the less well off who can't afford these services at all any more?

Or are the govt going to somehow manage to provide them with a fraction of the revenue they had before? How does this all work? What do you gain or achieve? Sorry if I'm being dense here.
 
George Hincapie said:
The voting system has to be fair to everyone, you cannot fairly argue that the electorate in one country should have more influence than those in another if they have fewer voters; that's madness.
Click to expand...

George Hincapie said:
Or the 'poor' could use it as incentive to get off their arses, take control of their own life and stop taking handouts.
Click to expand...


Was about to argue the rebuttal you made to me, since the figure is actually proportional to the population, then I saw this post and realised you're not worth it. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Moses said:
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 :eek:. 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... :confused:
Click to expand...

do you remember the "codex alimentarius" thread in SC where the EU was going to legislate everything and ban garlic etc lol

still waiting for that one.
 
George Hincapie said:
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.
Click to expand...

With respect, you are utterly wrong
 
kindai said:
Why?

They already pay more from the fact they earn more, why should they then pay EVEN MORE on top?


Let assume a flat rate of 20% to make it easy.

You earn 10,000 a year, I earn 1,000,000.

You pay a £2000 tax bill, I pay a £200,000 tax bill.

So im already paying 100x the tax you are, why should I then have to pay more than that?
Click to expand...
You can't live on 8 k a year but you can on 800k

What don't you get ?:rolleyes:
 
To be fair the 800k is much more likely to be spent and subjected to VAT or the unavoidable capital gains 40%(iirc). Which then helps prop up the £8k to a living wage through benifits.

Not perfect.
 
Tefal said:
do you remember the "codex alimentarius" thread in SC where the EU was going to legislate everything and ban garlic etc lol

still waiting for that one.
Click to expand...

here we go

http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=17886986&highlight=codex

WHAT CODEX WILL BRING
What can we expect under Codex? To give you an idea, here are some important points:

* Dietary supplements could not be sold for preventive (prophylactic) or therapeutic use.
* Potencies would be limited to extremely low dosages. Only the drug companies and the big phytopharmaceutical companies would have the right to produce and sell the higher potency products (at inflated prices).
* Prescriptions would be required for anything above the extremely low doses allowed (such as 35 mg. on niacin).
* Common foods such as garlic and peppermint would be classified as drugs or a third category (neither food nor drugs) that only big pharmaceutical companies could regulate and sell. Any food with any therapeutic effect can be considered a drug, even benign everyday substances like water.
* Codex regulations for dietary supplements would become binding (escape clauses would be eliminated).
* All new dietary supplements would be banned unless they go through Codex testing and approval.
* Genetically altered food would be sold worldwide without labeling.


This comes into power in 2009. I hope you have enough vegetable patches ready to keep your family going.
Click to expand...


lol 6 years on...
 
kindai said:
Why?

They already pay more from the fact they earn more, why should they then pay EVEN MORE on top?


Let assume a flat rate of 20% to make it easy.

You earn 10,000 a year, I earn 1,000,000.

You pay a £2000 tax bill, I pay a £200,000 tax bill.

So im already paying 100x the tax you are, why should I then have to pay more than that?
Click to expand...

The person who earns 10k spends it all on food/shelter/clothes and that gets taxed again through VAT but the one who earns 1m spends most of it on real estate, trips abroad, stocks and many other things for which there's no VAT calculated. The effective tax rate of the poor person is thus much higher.
 
George Hincapie said:
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.
Click to expand...

IF no one will be happy with a 50% flat tax then perhaps that is proof enough that a flat rate of tax is useless and unworkable?


You are just proving my point, you are mistaking a flat rate of tax for high earners paying less tax. A Flat rate of tax can only work if the total tax contribution is equal or higher, with personal allowances set so the low income earners get equal or more net money. Typically under a flat rate tax the high income earners will have to pay more tax to help balance everything out.

How on earth are you going to balance by reducing the top rate of tax to 30-35%? The answer is you can't, because you don't want to, because you are selfish and want to pay less tax while other less fortunate than you are kicked into the ground. What a lovely person you are:rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom