Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,573
DAVID
Inthe real world,,,,,,,,
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 716- Registered: 9 Jun 2011
- Posts: 4,010
Even if Pickles gets his marching orders tonight,District Councils have been placed
in an untenable position.............
Ross Miller- Location: London Road, Dover
- Registered: 17 Sep 2008
- Posts: 3,681
So lets get away from the punch and judy show and talk about how local authorities can/might deal with further funding cuts?
"Dream as if you'll live forever. Live as if you'll die today." - James Dean
"Being deeply loved by someone gives you strength,
While loving someone deeply gives you courage" - Laozi
Guest 716- Registered: 9 Jun 2011
- Posts: 4,010
An East Kent Council.......
Guest 649- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,118
Even that I am a cllr on four parish council,I think there are far to many then there need be,they are so close to each other and have the same parish clarks and must say all of them are very very good, and work alot more hrs then they are paid for,and without them we would not have any parish councils.And they are only part-time.
Guest 745- Registered: 27 Mar 2012
- Posts: 3,370
Barry too much money going out of the country, stashed in tax havens'
Tax loopholes for the rich.
The tax under Lady Thatcher was 60%, just what do you think it looks like, to the voters when your party cuts the taxes of the rich.
The forcing down of wages, of the people you need to vote for you ,Distorted labour market
The movement of bank debt from the rich, to the taxpayers.
The runaway profits of the utilities.
I don't like tax any more than you, but it's unfair to let the working man carry the entire load,
They will simply vote you out.
Paul Watkins- Location: Dover
- Registered: 9 Nov 2011
- Posts: 2,225
Sorry Keith top rate tax under Lawson/Thatcher was 40%.
Brown/ Darling put it up to 50%
Under Healey it was 98%.
Watty
Guest 745- Registered: 27 Mar 2012
- Posts: 3,370
[4] Margaret Thatcher, who favoured indirect taxation, reduced personal income tax rates during the 1980s.[5] In the first budget after her election victory in 1979, the top rate was reduced from 83% to 60% and the basic rate from 33% to 30%.[6] The basic rate was also cut for three successive budgets - to 29% in the 1986 budget, 27% in 1987 and to 25% in 1988.[7] The top rate of income tax was cut to 40% in the 1988 budget.The investment income surcharge was abolished in 1985.
And what happened to the conservative government ,the voters associated them as the party of the rich and voted them out.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
KeithB - the history that you correctly recite was incomplete. When the higher rate tax rates were reduced the amount of tax collected from the highest earners actually went up. That is why for 13 years Labour never raised the rates and only did so as a political gimmick and trap by Brown in the dog days of his government to give Osborne a problem.
As I have said before. In the last year of the 40% tax the top 1% of earners contributed 27% of the total income tax collected and the top 10% contributed 55%.
People commonly confuse tax rates with what is paid. Higher tax rates do not necessarily lead to more tax being paid.
If you want rich people to pay more tax then we need to reduce rates. It was recently calculated that the optimum highest rate of tax that would raise the highest amount of revenue for the Treasury from the high earners is 37%. The current rate is 52% falling to 47% next year (allowing for NI of 2% which is an income tax).
Both Ross and I have pointed out that we need to simplify taxes and to reduce them to a flat tax to make them fairer, improve collection and get rid of loopholes.
Guest 745- Registered: 27 Mar 2012
- Posts: 3,370
So if the 1% paid 27% what was there total earnings and haw did they come by it ?
And what was the earrings of the top 10% if they contributed 55%
And do you think they need so much money?
I am not agent's wealth, I am against greed, and most of the electorate are to.
They don't want to see public sector workers getting £600'000 for 20 months work
And they don't won't to see the owner of top shop declaring his wife as the owner of the business to avoided, UK taxes.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,573
some fair comments keith b
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
KeithB - roughly speaking the top 1% are those earning over £150,000 and the top 10% over about £50,000 - these are very approximate. How they come by their earning is as varied as they are individuals and it is none of our business any more than your income is theirs.
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
Going back to post 12, last paragraph- Alex, Robert Mugabe tried that one. It turned his country from being the bread-basket of Southern Africa into a basket case and dust bowl.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,573
if they take legal routes it may have less to do with us
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 745- Registered: 27 Mar 2012
- Posts: 3,370
What difference is 5% when you have an income like that?
To have kept it at 45% would have been symbolic, of where all in it together
A cut in VAT would have been more politically wise.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Not at all true, Peter!
Robert Mugabe took land from farmers in Zimbabwe who wanted to stay in that country.
I was referring to the idea that Vic mentioned, and that Barry W has previously mentioned, that the rich (here we are talking of the super rich), would leave Britain and take the financial wealth with them.
So, I wrote that if they emigrate from our Country with, say, 50% of our wealth in paper assets, they cannot take physically the Country with them (just their paper rubbish). And once they have left us of their own free will with half our financial assets, we can move into their mansions and farm their aristocratic estates.
And declare their paper assets null and void!
There is absolutely NO comparison whatsoever with farmers in Zimbabwe, who neither owned financial wealth in private assets anywhere even remotely comparable to what the super rich in the UK own, nor ever threatened to leave Zimbabwe.
Here we are talking of people saying that "the rich will leave Britain and take half our economy's assets with them" if we dare increase their tax!
Quitre a massive difference there Peter, to Zimbabwe, Robert Mugabe and the British farmers living there.
Poor shot, sorry mate, try another funny one!
Guest 703- Registered: 30 Jul 2010
- Posts: 2,096
More like Cloud cuckoo land than Zimbabwe.
Getting back to a serious point, in today's world the problem wouldn't be the 'rich' taking their money with them, it would be taking their entrepreneurial skills that have made them rich with them, to the detriment of this country and the workforce, something that is beginning to happen in France since Hollande came to power.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
The other thing is, Peter, the super-rich in UK speculation.com have already turned our State bankrupt, and are already making it become "a basket case and dust bowl", to use your words.
The threat of using the "nuclear option" to up and go taking all the wealth with them doesn't even come from these very rich people. I think it came from BarryW
I can't see the Government and the banks ever allowing these individuals to simply "take all their wealth with them" to other countries. It will never happen! The Government is not stupid!
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Entrepreneurial skills! Our entrepreneurial skills, Ray, have been exported to China and India
This is becoming more hilarious! We import almost everything from socks to trousers to computers.
Thanks to the "entrepreneurial skills" of those who have devastated our economy, and got rich doing so, throwing millions of people out of work, closing down the factories and transporting all the skills abroad to cheap-labour countries, we risk becoming a Stone-Age country!
If world trade suddenly collapsed for some reason, we'll be running around barefoot, without trousers, and would be reverting to scribbling words on old shoe-cartons!
And all these skills that have been taken away from our economy and transferred abroad, were NEVER invented by these super-rich. They just came along and took OTHER PEOPLE'S inventions away that were the result of studying in British universities, closed down our factories, and handed it all over to the East.
And now they want to sit there with their hundreds of billions of pounds, after transferring over half our Country's wealth into their own private accounts, and watch us suffer as a result of their greed and destructive interference in our economy!
These people aren't going anywhere with "all the assets". The Government won't let them!
Be sure of that, Ray!
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,573
RAY;
Your a nice chap(when i'v spoke with you) and i realise your support for such a party, but hey come on.
The experts as you wish to call them that are our saviours are not showing there colours at this time.
What we do see is rich giving themselves big pay rises, earning a lot of dosh whether or not they fail or do well.
whilst others look to see where the next meal comes from.
do you think this is fair?, or right?
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS