Quizzes & Puzzles2 mins ago
Oh Dear It Seems Balls Is A Bit Off Message Here!
29 Answers
http://
Unusualy for Balls he is correct but how does that fit with the Party's shaft the "rich" approach?
Unusualy for Balls he is correct but how does that fit with the Party's shaft the "rich" approach?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ToraToraTora. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
// Ah, right. It was the "or at least think they can" that threw me. //
Well, the point of that was that I also believe if you have nothing but Right wing govts in power from now on, all of that stuff I mentioned earlier is likely to be slowly dismantled - not back to Victorian times obviously but to a kind of American state of affairs - not something I'd personally want.
Well, the point of that was that I also believe if you have nothing but Right wing govts in power from now on, all of that stuff I mentioned earlier is likely to be slowly dismantled - not back to Victorian times obviously but to a kind of American state of affairs - not something I'd personally want.
It's typical labour bite your nose off to spite your face.
However this rule is not really right. In my opinion it should be phased out, then we get rid of it and dont loose the people.
Of course if we simplified our tax system and reduced it to a flat level as suggested above then we would not have any of this endless scrabbling.
But what would Politicians have to argue about.
Dont see any lefties on this thread for some reason!
However this rule is not really right. In my opinion it should be phased out, then we get rid of it and dont loose the people.
Of course if we simplified our tax system and reduced it to a flat level as suggested above then we would not have any of this endless scrabbling.
But what would Politicians have to argue about.
Dont see any lefties on this thread for some reason!
Ed hasn't achieved the great tax rates of his predecessors - yet
How about 147%?
"Special rates have been introduced twice within the post-war years, causing income tax in certain circumstances to exceed 100%.
For 1947-48 a special contribution was payable when a person’s total income exceeded £2,000. For investment income over £5,000 it was 50%. So with income tax at 45% and surtax at 52.5%, the effective rate was 147.5%.
In 1967-68, the special charge was imposed. For investment income over £8,000, the rate was 45% which - with income tax at 41.25% and surtax at 50% - meant a total rate of 136.25%."
From the National Archives site
http://
How about 147%?
"Special rates have been introduced twice within the post-war years, causing income tax in certain circumstances to exceed 100%.
For 1947-48 a special contribution was payable when a person’s total income exceeded £2,000. For investment income over £5,000 it was 50%. So with income tax at 45% and surtax at 52.5%, the effective rate was 147.5%.
In 1967-68, the special charge was imposed. For investment income over £8,000, the rate was 45% which - with income tax at 41.25% and surtax at 50% - meant a total rate of 136.25%."
From the National Archives site
http://
// Ludwig, can you be sure that wouldn't happen under a future Labour government though? I wouldn't trust Mr Miliband et al to organise a kids' tea party! //
Well, I think it's a route we're going down inevitably anyway. Labour isn't a left wing party anymore. They're more like 'Conservatives Lite'.
Half of the dismantling that's already been put in place was started by them under Blair. Brown was completely clueless and spent his time pre-empting Tory policies in a desparate bid to avoid election defeat.
Well, I think it's a route we're going down inevitably anyway. Labour isn't a left wing party anymore. They're more like 'Conservatives Lite'.
Half of the dismantling that's already been put in place was started by them under Blair. Brown was completely clueless and spent his time pre-empting Tory policies in a desparate bid to avoid election defeat.
// Well, I think it's a route we're going down inevitably anyway //
Small correction - we're not all going down that route. The lucky Devo-maxed Scots will still get to carry on their socialist utopia of free everything, paid for by the rest of the UK. That's the price the SNP will demand for either propping up or sabotaging whichever lame duck arrangement ends up in office.
Small correction - we're not all going down that route. The lucky Devo-maxed Scots will still get to carry on their socialist utopia of free everything, paid for by the rest of the UK. That's the price the SNP will demand for either propping up or sabotaging whichever lame duck arrangement ends up in office.
Baldric said:
It's all rather sad, the majority of Labour voters belong to the lower tax paying groups who are no longer represented by the Labour Party, but you can't tell them that, they won't accept it.
------
Lower tax paying groups?
20% PAYE
11% NI conts *
20% VAT
x% fuel duty
y% booze and cigs duty
z% Council Tax (separate debate re that being flat rate/not)
So, the low waged pay 51% plus a variable amount on top.
I think all most socialists want to see is parity: the rich experiencing the same levels of constriction on lifestyle that they experience.
There is a large sector of the population who do have 'discretionary spending' power but they like fun and don't like being stingy to their friends, so they genuinely struggle to accumulate savings.
The more well off can afford to have a large(r) circle of friends, throw some seriously good parties, booze themselves silly (if they want) and still have money left over to squirrel away into savings AND build a pension fund (tax breaks as incentives to do so), to ensure a very comfortable retirement.
In short, once above a certain comfort level (you can only eat/drink so much), the upper half of a high earner's income is mostly discretionary spend and can be deployed into things which generate further wealth but which do not attract VAT in the way most of the things low earners buy do.
All concepts of progessive taxation formulae revolve around lifestyle issues of this sort.
Rather than hike the top rate, we should really be scrapping tax relief on certain investment areas, such as mortgages for anything beyond the second home (which would torpedo buy-to-let empires but that's another story*) or whatever is required to encourage more investment in industry, especially start-ups from which the next Apple-like money-spinner may emerge.
* I may be unintentionally implying that all property-empire types are receiving state assistance, which makes them welfare kings/queens, of a sort. Sorry for any offence so caused.
It's all rather sad, the majority of Labour voters belong to the lower tax paying groups who are no longer represented by the Labour Party, but you can't tell them that, they won't accept it.
------
Lower tax paying groups?
20% PAYE
11% NI conts *
20% VAT
x% fuel duty
y% booze and cigs duty
z% Council Tax (separate debate re that being flat rate/not)
So, the low waged pay 51% plus a variable amount on top.
I think all most socialists want to see is parity: the rich experiencing the same levels of constriction on lifestyle that they experience.
There is a large sector of the population who do have 'discretionary spending' power but they like fun and don't like being stingy to their friends, so they genuinely struggle to accumulate savings.
The more well off can afford to have a large(r) circle of friends, throw some seriously good parties, booze themselves silly (if they want) and still have money left over to squirrel away into savings AND build a pension fund (tax breaks as incentives to do so), to ensure a very comfortable retirement.
In short, once above a certain comfort level (you can only eat/drink so much), the upper half of a high earner's income is mostly discretionary spend and can be deployed into things which generate further wealth but which do not attract VAT in the way most of the things low earners buy do.
All concepts of progessive taxation formulae revolve around lifestyle issues of this sort.
Rather than hike the top rate, we should really be scrapping tax relief on certain investment areas, such as mortgages for anything beyond the second home (which would torpedo buy-to-let empires but that's another story*) or whatever is required to encourage more investment in industry, especially start-ups from which the next Apple-like money-spinner may emerge.
* I may be unintentionally implying that all property-empire types are receiving state assistance, which makes them welfare kings/queens, of a sort. Sorry for any offence so caused.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.