howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
that doesn't actually the question that sw raises tom. the reds have neither agreed or disagreed over the issue of whether a lower tax rate brings in extra revenue - as the opposition surely they should have a point to make?
SWWood- Location: Dover
- Registered: 30 May 2012
- Posts: 261
That is pretty much what I was asking Howard. Surely if the Government are wrong about higher tax rates reducing revenue, it would be an open goal for the opposition, as it would support the idea that the Tories are looking after the wealthy at the expense of the poor. If, on the other hand, the Government (and BarryW and others) are correct, it is difficult to argue against it in terms of the national interest. The point is, the opposition should be making it clear if the Government are wrong.
Guest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
Certainly, I am not the one to ask, nor the one to speak about such things IF it is to be presupposed that our 2/3 Party System is ever concerned with the well-being of the country;in terms of as a populace or as an economy.
I do not believe it is.
I can't help either in assigning truth of falsehood to the propaganda of Party Politicians.
But, as I say, come April 1st, or closely thereafter, we may have something close to a definitive answer.
It all sounds to me too much like an abused wife being assured that her wearing of the 'maids' outfit' will make all the difference.
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
If the reds keep quiet on the subject they can not be accused of getting it wrong, what I would call sitting on the fence.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I try to be neutral and polite but it is hard and getting even more difficult at times.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
Uncollected dues as quoted above have to be must if we believe we are all in it together
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#95 - Jan. You ignored what I actually said. Higher rate tax starts at only £42,475, paying 42p over that - not the £100,000 because that is where an effective rate of 62p kicks in (dropping back to 42p after £116,210 then up to 47p at £150,000).
People on £43,000 are far from rich.
SWWood:
There is a mass of evidence to support the FACT that higher tax rates reduce HMRC receipts. You need only look at what happened in the UK when the penal rates once at over 80p were cut back to 50p and then again to 40p plus the impact of when the 50p rate was re-introduced. There is a mass of overseas evidence as well.
Other evidence:
Gordon Brown knew it too - he only brought in the 50p rate at the end when he was looking defeat in the face as a political trap. He did not do it in the first 12 years of the Blair/Brown government because he knew what it would do.
Additionally there is simple common sense and experience. Why would someone earning £100,000 want to work harder if they were then faced with keeping only 38p out of every £ as a result? Indeed the same calculation is being made regularly at every tax threshold from the 40p one upwards. I do it myself because I am in the process of restructuring my business so I will not pay tax at 42p any more. These high rate tax thresholds not only reduce the HMRC receipts but also damage economic growth. Why take risks and expand a business if you are just going to get clobbered? People make these decisions all the time.
As for the 'political point' you make - It is a far easier way to score points by claiming a tax cut is some kind of bonus to the rich. Labour politicians calculate that this is an easier argument to make that will resound better than the more considered and intelligent one about the damage high tax rates do to the economy. We live in a sound bite world where the lowest common denominator determines political stances.
I have said many times before that the problem with the coalition is that too much policy is for political not economic reasons otherwise the highest rate of tax will be at 37p (including NI) as a step towards a single simple flat rate for everyone.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
The problem with flat rate taxes is the rich would benefit more from it
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 714- Registered: 14 Apr 2011
- Posts: 2,594
How would they Keith?
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Now that Keith is typical of a socialists answer.
To you it does not matter that it would increase HMRC receipts or would help economic growth and generate more jobs. It does not matter that it is also fairer and that simple low flat taxes reduce opportunities and incentives for avoidance. No, none of that matters - the only thing that matters to you is that, by your terms, the 'rich' would end up better off.
You need to get your priorities right, the green eyed monster does not make sensible economic policy.
Guest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
We are off to some sort of beginning, though hardly any closer to loading the balance-pan of your dilemma one way or the other perhaps.
Perhaps we have come some way to answering the two questions I posed earlier...
From #96
-What has changed?
-What is being sold at this time?
We now have some insight into the phase shift of the dominance of endeavour to the supremacy of self.
Whether any of this has really helped anybody decide how to vote in 2015:-
-Conservative
-UKIP
-Lib-Dem
-New Labour
I have my doubts, for it is still very much a matter of personal prejudice as to whether the above list is to be read 'diminuendo' or 'Crescendo'.
Happy Voting all.
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
I give up as I just can not be bothered to keep making the point that being rich is relative to what someone on a lower income receives.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
Quite right, both Jan and Barry.
Those 'on' £43,000 are not rich and they are not poor. This is doubtless why Income Tax hinges around that figure.
If a flat rate tax system is to be all for the good, why not then make £43,000 the maximum wage? Oh, well while we at it let's make it £50,000. Or for the sake of history £45,000, for '45' is the new '42. (The answer to life, the universe and everything, thanks to Tony B)
Ignorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
For lots if people getting even half of £43,000 is the issue
whilst they struggle to make ends meet
other get millions its a difficult egg to crack
but neverthe less its a problem of how it's seen
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
You will never change that Keith. We need to aspire to something more than we have and work for it, not caste envious eyes. To help those on low pay you need a more stable and prosperous economy and flat lower taxes will help towards that.
Guest 714- Registered: 14 Apr 2011
- Posts: 2,594
It seems Keith wants to cut off his nose to spite his face.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
Fairness we come back to
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
No Keith - we come back to what David said, cutting off your nose to spite your face. Your definition of fairness just leaves everyone poorer with those in poverty locked into it.
Brian Dixon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
like we getting now,
Jan Higgins- Location: Dover
- Registered: 5 Jul 2010
- Posts: 13,895
....and always have but luckily some through hard work or even good luck escape poverty.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I try to be neutral and polite but it is hard and getting even more difficult at times.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
But its though that caught up in this trap for no reason of there own that we should think of
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS