Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
We are still AAA with Fitch. This would just bring them into line with Moody's and s&p. Fitch are mainly a US domestic rating agency and their international guys are a bit slow.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Brian Dixon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
if they did it would be another kick in the google box for osbourne.
Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
The budget was good for?
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Brian Dixon- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
nothing,and the rich are 75000£ better off.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
But Brian - HMRC will be getting more tax. Not enough, to maximise tax revenues the top rate should be reduced to a total of 37p (IT and NI) as a step towards a flat rate, the same rate for everyone.
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
Yes quite. And corporation tax should be abolished completely, with payments by companies for services, royalties, intellectual property, interest, dividends and transfer-priced goods subject to a 25% withholding tax.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Brian Dixon- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
but barry,its helped the well of people yet again.it hasent helped the lower paid sector.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
£10,000 tax allowance not helping the lower paid sector? Come off it Brian.
Guest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
I did once, perhaps foolishly - apparently wrongly, claim that raising the tax threshold was good for those higher earners also. No no, I was told, mechanisms are in place to prevent this.
Alas, as I understand it, this new proposal to raise the tax allowance shall indeed benefit those high earners.
In any case, the raising of the income tax threshold shall, all too soon, be countered by the loss of all tax-credits, to go along with recent Council Tax Benefit changes. So these 'enriched' poorly paid will gain £1 and lose a tenner. (or so)
Ignorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Tom. As allowances rise the basic rate band has been reduced.
In 2011/12 it was £35,000 plus nil rate band of £7,475
In 2012/13 £34,370 plus nil rate band of £8,105
In 2013/14 it will be £32,010 plus nil rate band of £9,440
The £10,000 nil rate band applies for 2014/15
Everyone on over £100,000 loses the nil rate allowance - an effective tax rate of 62p (tax and NI) being paid.
This is scandalous and simply wrong. More and more people are getting dragged into the higher rate tax bracket.
The budget will increase the number of higher rate taxpayers to over 5 million. High rate tax is not for the rich or well off any more.
Guest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
These figures are certainly widely available. (see link below)
HMRC does add this...
"The Personal Allowance reduces where the income is above £100, 000 - by £1 for every £2 of income above the £100,000 limit."
http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/rates/it.htm
" High rate tax is not for the rich or well off any more. " A little humour does go a long way.
Ignorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.
Jan Higgins
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 5 Jul 2010
- Posts: 13,895
BarryW wrote:
Everyone on over £100,000 loses the nil rate allowance - an effective tax rate of 62p (tax and NI) being paid.
This is scandalous and simply wrong. More and more people are getting dragged into the higher rate tax bracket.
The budget will increase the number of higher rate taxpayers to over 5 million. High rate tax is not for the rich or well off any more.
In my mind anyone earning that amount of money is rich but I guess it all depends how much your own income is.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I try to be neutral and polite but it is hard and getting even more difficult at times.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Jan - no they are not rich at all. Besides how can you justify anyone losing 62p of what they earn in tax?
Anyway these are not the people I was referring to. It is those paying at the 42p rate and this year it is those earning only £42,475 - these are not rich.
Tom - your point is? The loss of personal allowance means that those over £100,000 are paying a penal 62p rate.
These high band lose HMRC revenue and are a disincentive. Why on earth should anyone work harder if they are going to get only 38p in every £ they earn?
These high tax rates from the 42p rate upwards are all good justification for everyone to do all they legally can to avoid paying it.
SWWood- Location: Dover
- Registered: 30 May 2012
- Posts: 261
I tend not to post on political threads, but the issue of taxing the rich is one which will influence the way I vote at the next election, and as such I have followed this thread with interest. As I see it, this issue is a clear indication of who can be trusted with the economy. The Government, (along with one or two here), repeatedly claim that the 50p tax rate reduced the Treasury's tax take from higher earners. I have yet to see Labour, or their supporters here, disprove this. Indeed I don't remember hearing Miliband/Balls even dispute the fact. And yet every Labour minister, MP, candidate and activist interviewed on TV complains about tax cuts for the rich, tax cuts which would increase the tax take. I understand they don't like it, but the important factor surely is the treasury coffers. From this I read one of two things. Either Labour don't grasp the extent of the trouble this country is in, or they do, but consider their political ideology to be more important.
I am a self confessed economic novice, and welcome anyone to correct me if I'm misunderstanding this. As I see it, the Government may be on the right path, they may not. I don't know. But what can be certain of is Labour is failing as an opposition, in that it is not providing the country with a credible alternative.
Jan Higgins- Location: Dover
- Registered: 5 Jul 2010
- Posts: 13,895
Barry, I am not justifying anything but I am saying in my mind £100,000 is a lot of money to someone on far less than that so they are rich.
We all hate paying our taxes but those in the higher income bracket so often seem to shout the loudest.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I try to be neutral and polite but it is hard and getting even more difficult at times.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Guest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
Where to begin, SWWood, where to begin?
First a word from me on me.
You may not agree with the following, but it is entirely correct by my own lights. I regard myself as a-Party-Political, (as distinct from merely non-P-P) The sticky labels cast my way by Barry and his posse say far more about them that they do about me.
Nobody, I am certain, would think less of you because you chose to post rarely (if at all) on threads concerning National Politics, I do not blame you for not reading all that is written here upon such matters and those other issues that touch upon National Politics, but I will say that you do not read all that is written and so, inadvertently, misrepresent the actual situation here.
Just a word or two upon Partys in opposition. Every Political Party which (all too) regularly finds itself in opposition claims that it's 'job', it's prime objective, is to oppose. Each has also stated, time and time again, that it is for the Party in Government to advance policies. Lets us at least cast the Tar-Brush in broad strokes.
Growth & High Taxation, [Largely a re-stating.]
PATENTLY!!!!!
For three decades or more of the post-war years economies grew and grew, yet the tax rates throughout that time were 'eye-watering' by comparison with those of today.
Given what you have written in #94, and what Barry has again stated in #93 you would have got my little joke in #91
" High rate tax is not for the rich or well off any more. "
For the humour is to be found in the stark fact that in the post-ear era high rate taxes were very much in vogue.
The issues at the core here, and upon which much turns, are not in the least beyond the scope and understanding of the 'ordinary' person in the street. No matter how much any and all Political Partys wish they were.
-What has changed?
-What is being sold at this time?
P.S.
It will soon be April 1st. The dawn of the tax-break. Would you, Mr.SWWood expect to have your question answered shortly thereafter: Will lowering the 'high rate tax' be the cure-all?
Ignorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.
Brian Dixon- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
in a word barry no it hasent.
SWWood- Location: Dover
- Registered: 30 May 2012
- Posts: 261
Tom, thank you for your reply. I said previously I tend not to post on political threads, but I did not say I don't read them carefully. You seem to have skirted round my main point. Labour seem to give the impression that taxing the rich more would help solve the problem, yet they don't deny that higher taxes for the rich reduce treasury income. How is this position consistent? How does reducing the tax take help the country out of this mess? Please enlighten me as I do not understand.
Guest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
Well really, what you need is a response from New Labour.
You do seem to take it as read that higher taxes equate to reduced revenue. That being so I wait with you for the green shoots of a renewed burgeoning of our economy shortly after April 1st.
For myself, I question the wisdom of the HMRC falling upon it's sword over the tax due, but it's collection not pursued, with the likes of Vodafone etc.
Quite why you cannot see the similarity of the plea for lower taxation with the much vaunted, but never realised, promise of the Trickle-Down-Effect in Thatcher's time, for it seems plain to me.
Of one thing we all can be certain;any reduction in the tax rate will benefit some (and Barry himself) immediately. The promised benefits to the rest of the country and to the exchequer are just that, 'promises'...later to be termed 'aspirations'...and then to be forgotten...again.
Ignorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.
Guest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
Oops, wait a mo.
Is it because New Labour do not argue against this one point that leads you to believe that it must be correct?
If it is so, then we are back to waiting for a New Labour apologist to drop by.
Ignorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.