Is It Snowing In Your Neck Of The Woods?
ChatterBank1 min ago
When Will The Reds Ever Learn?
36 Answers
http://
Higher rate tax rakes in very little extra, in fact it possibly lowers total tax receipts. Labour just can't help themselves can they. The envy tax helps no one but hey they'll feel a lot better having shafted the "rich". If anything we should abolish the 40% rate.
Higher rate tax rakes in very little extra, in fact it possibly lowers total tax receipts. Labour just can't help themselves can they. The envy tax helps no one but hey they'll feel a lot better having shafted the "rich". If anything we should abolish the 40% rate.
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.
“If more taxation revenue is required….”
It isn’t. The government should try to run its affairs by wasting far less on useless projects which benefit nobody and stop lavishing cash on so-called “foreign aid”. £12bn was wasted by the previous government on an aborted NHS records system and this government, learning nothing, is now embarking on a similar venture which will probably also go belly-up once enough cash has been squandered. This year’s overseas aid (sorry, “development”) budget is set to reach £10bn. This £20bn+ makes the few million that might be raised from a 50p tax rate seem exactly what it is - childish political posturing.
Meanwhile many taxpayers in Somerset (no doubt some of them high earners under threat of these increased taxes) have been flooded out since before Christmas and are set to remain so as no assistance is forthcoming from the government. At the same time the Foreign Secretary pontificated this morning about how the UK is planning to welcome “thousands” of refugees from the shambles that is Syria. I’m sure those in Somerset will be more than pleased to welcome a few Syrians fleeing their self inflicted misery.
This country needs to shape up. It needs to stop treating anybody with above average income as if they are participants in organised crime who must have their assets seized. Taxpayers' cash should be spent far more wisely Also, so long as the government needs to borrow money to make ends meet, not a penny of taxpayers’ hard-earned should leave these shores in the guise of overseas aid (after all, who in their right mind borrows money to give to somebody else?). Then there would be no need to increase taxes for anybody.
It isn’t. The government should try to run its affairs by wasting far less on useless projects which benefit nobody and stop lavishing cash on so-called “foreign aid”. £12bn was wasted by the previous government on an aborted NHS records system and this government, learning nothing, is now embarking on a similar venture which will probably also go belly-up once enough cash has been squandered. This year’s overseas aid (sorry, “development”) budget is set to reach £10bn. This £20bn+ makes the few million that might be raised from a 50p tax rate seem exactly what it is - childish political posturing.
Meanwhile many taxpayers in Somerset (no doubt some of them high earners under threat of these increased taxes) have been flooded out since before Christmas and are set to remain so as no assistance is forthcoming from the government. At the same time the Foreign Secretary pontificated this morning about how the UK is planning to welcome “thousands” of refugees from the shambles that is Syria. I’m sure those in Somerset will be more than pleased to welcome a few Syrians fleeing their self inflicted misery.
This country needs to shape up. It needs to stop treating anybody with above average income as if they are participants in organised crime who must have their assets seized. Taxpayers' cash should be spent far more wisely Also, so long as the government needs to borrow money to make ends meet, not a penny of taxpayers’ hard-earned should leave these shores in the guise of overseas aid (after all, who in their right mind borrows money to give to somebody else?). Then there would be no need to increase taxes for anybody.
It may not raise vast amounts (but that seems to be a topic of debate) but it at least appears fair in the context of tax rises and service withdrawal that has been experienced since the austerity measures were introduced; the brunt of which disproportionately affect the poor it appears to me.
I'm still not sure how the tax cut in 2010 was deemed appropriate in the first place.
I'm still not sure how the tax cut in 2010 was deemed appropriate in the first place.
Judge you make a good case for better spending priorities and I would tend to agree with the sentiment (though I'm sure we could accrue about the detail!) But as things stand we don't have that option to vote for. The electorates choice are between two very similar parties who are trying to differentiate themselves in these small ways... You want a new choice, I want a new choice, I fear we will be disappointed.
Exactly, iggy.
For some years now the two main parties (who are realistically the only ones likely to form a government) have moved from their respective wings towards the middle. The result is that they are petrified of upsetting any small group that might take umbrage from what they do, everybody gets what nobody wants, they appeal to nobody and voters have their choice determined by who they’d least like to see in power. This latest Coalition government is the epitome of that and not even those who voted for the winning party is getting what they want. Seemingly petty issues such as this (which will not matter to those against whom they are directed anyway because they organise their affairs so as to minimise tax) are blown out of all proportion and become deal breakers. Meantime the huge waste and squander goes on.
The result of this is that not only do “rabid right wingers” (like me) and “looney lefties” (like some others) have nobody to vote for but neither really does anybody who occupies the centre ground. It’s a perfect breeding ground for extreme parties to gain a foothold.
For some years now the two main parties (who are realistically the only ones likely to form a government) have moved from their respective wings towards the middle. The result is that they are petrified of upsetting any small group that might take umbrage from what they do, everybody gets what nobody wants, they appeal to nobody and voters have their choice determined by who they’d least like to see in power. This latest Coalition government is the epitome of that and not even those who voted for the winning party is getting what they want. Seemingly petty issues such as this (which will not matter to those against whom they are directed anyway because they organise their affairs so as to minimise tax) are blown out of all proportion and become deal breakers. Meantime the huge waste and squander goes on.
The result of this is that not only do “rabid right wingers” (like me) and “looney lefties” (like some others) have nobody to vote for but neither really does anybody who occupies the centre ground. It’s a perfect breeding ground for extreme parties to gain a foothold.
-- answer removed --
At best a complete red herring by Balls - this will not solve the UK's issues or even make a dent in the mountain. In the worst case, it could damage economic growth. Far better to cut the tax and then from increasing GDP and the taxes that accrue from corporate, other taxes like excise, and bonuses, fund a significant increase in the basic tax free allowance - such as quick acceleration to 15000 a year before tax kicks in - that way all benefi and much more socialist as a concept.
Yes It's amazing how the right wing never give in to blackmail when it's about defense against terrorism
But when it's about higher rates of taxation the instant scream goes up 'Don't do it they'll all leave the country'
It didn't when it came in the first time and it won't this time either.
So it's safe economically and politically as I can't see many Labour voters letting this put them off.
If David Cameron really thinks 'we're all in this together' he should back this.
But when it's about higher rates of taxation the instant scream goes up 'Don't do it they'll all leave the country'
It didn't when it came in the first time and it won't this time either.
So it's safe economically and politically as I can't see many Labour voters letting this put them off.
If David Cameron really thinks 'we're all in this together' he should back this.
Its an estimated 300,000 people affected; just 1% of the taxpaying population.
And it is raising the tax back to 50% from the 45% it is already at. I would expect the 1% to whine; I am at a loss as to why anyone else would support them in this.
http://
And it is raising the tax back to 50% from the 45% it is already at. I would expect the 1% to whine; I am at a loss as to why anyone else would support them in this.
http://
It may not be “Super Tax”, Mikey (I’m not quite sure of its definition) but it is certainly extortionate.
Nobody should pay half their income to the government however much they are paid. And also bear in mind that Income Tax is only part of the story. There is now no upper limit on National Insurance deductions.. Someone earning £150,000 now sees (under this year’s rates and allowances) more than £59,800 deducted from their pay - a tad under 40%. Any pound over that sum that they earn will see them left with just 53p (45% Income Tax and 2% NI will be lost). If Mr Balls gets his way that will reduce to 48p.
By contrast, somebody on £30,000 per year (by no means a fortune) will see around £4,600 in deductions - about 15%. So the well paid are already making a hugely disproportionate contribution to the nation’s coffers and now it is suggested that 52% of any additional money they are paid goes towards the government’s profligacy. Fair? I think not.
As I said in my earlier post such a strategy might be justified (though I would argue that it is not) if the Exchequer needed more funds. But he does not.
No, I don’t think this particular proposal will drive anybody from the country, Jake (apart from those already considering leaving for the myriad other reasons I can think of). But it will see little revenue gained and may in fact result in a net loss. And nobody here (or in the Labour Party) has managed to explain why 40% was sufficient for all but three weeks of Labour’s 13 years in office but suddenly 45% is now far too low.
Nobody should pay half their income to the government however much they are paid. And also bear in mind that Income Tax is only part of the story. There is now no upper limit on National Insurance deductions.. Someone earning £150,000 now sees (under this year’s rates and allowances) more than £59,800 deducted from their pay - a tad under 40%. Any pound over that sum that they earn will see them left with just 53p (45% Income Tax and 2% NI will be lost). If Mr Balls gets his way that will reduce to 48p.
By contrast, somebody on £30,000 per year (by no means a fortune) will see around £4,600 in deductions - about 15%. So the well paid are already making a hugely disproportionate contribution to the nation’s coffers and now it is suggested that 52% of any additional money they are paid goes towards the government’s profligacy. Fair? I think not.
As I said in my earlier post such a strategy might be justified (though I would argue that it is not) if the Exchequer needed more funds. But he does not.
No, I don’t think this particular proposal will drive anybody from the country, Jake (apart from those already considering leaving for the myriad other reasons I can think of). But it will see little revenue gained and may in fact result in a net loss. And nobody here (or in the Labour Party) has managed to explain why 40% was sufficient for all but three weeks of Labour’s 13 years in office but suddenly 45% is now far too low.
At a salary above 150K a year, when we are talking about a 5% increase over an above what they currently pay on earnings over 150K, they can well afford it; At a time of austerity, when we were expected to pay for the financial crisis brought about in a large part by the banks, it beggars belief that Osbourne could cut taxes for the richest 1% of the country whilst implementing large cuts in budgets for various social and support services, upon which the poor rely upon disproportionately.
I think it's more of a political gesture than a way of raising a meaningful amount of money.
As The Guardian points out "When Osborne cut the 50p rate, the Treasury calculated at the time that the policy would cost the Exchequer £100m"
Whilst I would have no sympathy for rich footballers, singers and other 'celebrities' being charged tax at a higher marginal rate, I can see it would lead to more artificial tax avoidance.
The top earners already pay a significant share of our tax and subsidise the majority of us. Whilst this is right I think there is a limit to how much someone should have to pay on their earnings. Whether that should be 45% or 50% I don't know.
As The Guardian points out "When Osborne cut the 50p rate, the Treasury calculated at the time that the policy would cost the Exchequer £100m"
Whilst I would have no sympathy for rich footballers, singers and other 'celebrities' being charged tax at a higher marginal rate, I can see it would lead to more artificial tax avoidance.
The top earners already pay a significant share of our tax and subsidise the majority of us. Whilst this is right I think there is a limit to how much someone should have to pay on their earnings. Whether that should be 45% or 50% I don't know.
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.