I'm not, the tax would rise incrementally not rocket up. Having a pro growth agenda can mean you can eventually cut taxes. The Tories could just as easily rise taxes at the next election because of a failing economy and Brexit. How far can public services be cut? That is a more pertinent question.
And yes we are all in it together, although there is a group who are doing significantly better and haven't really been in it with the rest of us. They are earning far more than £100k per anum of course.
It muddles it up a little bit, but I think there should be turnover tax applied to companies in the million + a year range. Say 5-10%. It would stop companies like Facebook and google and Apple being able to get away with paying corporation tax in the few thousands when they make millions from the U.K. every year, whilst simultaneously keeping Corp tax low for smaller businesses.
I also think the Lib Dem idea of merging capital gains and dividends tax (a pointlessly complicated tax) into income tax and shifting up the personal allowance even further. Gives working people a bit of a tax cut whilst also getting a little extra from dividends and capital gains.
Turnover tax would never work for many companies, a high turnover doesn't necessarily mean a profit. It would push them into loss (or a further loss), many companies can only dream of a 5-10% profit currently. How you'd levy it on only companies like tax avoiding Google I don't know.
I've long been an advocate of upping the personal allowance as the Tories have done since they came back to Government. It's an easy win, the vast majority of people will spend it, a lot on goods with VAT so the tax take remains almost the same but the individual feels much better off and stimulates the wider economy.
Well, VAT is already a sort of turnover tax, and that's priced at 20%, albeit the consumer ultimately pays that tax, perhaps a turnover tax for multinationals of that size would pass it on to the consumer as well, but this would only make smaller businesses more competitive, essentially diversifying the economy a bit more.
I'm not, the tax would rise incrementally not rocket up. Having a pro growth agenda can mean you can eventually cut taxes. The Tories could just as easily rise taxes at the next election because of a failing economy and Brexit. How far can public services be cut? That is a more pertinent question.
And yes we are all in it together, although there is a group who are doing significantly better and haven't really been in it with the rest of us. They are earning far more than £100k per anum of course.
I don’t see how increasing tax by between 5 & 10% on sums over 80k for <5% of the population is anywhere near all in it together, especially as it follows already increased taxation both direct and indirect for the majority of that group by the Tories the last 8 years.
Rightly someone on minimum wage pays far less % of their salary in taxation since 2008 than they used to and someone on over 100k pays a greater % - not sure who has and who hasn't been with the rest of us the past 10 years in that example.......
The problem is of course, Labour has started to make its tax plans much more transparent so people will know what to expect ( I can't believe the last election was the first time it has done this). The vast majority of voters will be no worse off, so those that will be (and some of those wont be much worse off) have a harder job scaring them that they will. But good luck trying to those that wish to.
I know it owning a printing company But I think 20% actually stifles growth and lowering it may increase revenues. Just putting the thought out there, not sure what the ideal level should be, but I think there may be a point below 20% and above 15% where that could be the case.
i could be wrong but there is no way the constant attacks on the pm would happen if it was a man, why was corbyn out meeting with the eu officials - nothing to do with him - his party wont be in charge anytime soon.
will also be interesting to see what coverage the conservative conference gets as last nights news consisted of the same 10 mins shown the previous night of jc jigging to children of the revolution ( cock ) and then 1 min of mays day, surely the news should be impartial?.
Well I get the sense from this that you are not a Corbynista.
As for your outrage at JC meeting with the EU as being none of his business. That’s a joke right ? Of course it’s his business. He’s leader of Her Majesty’s Opposition. It’s his duty and job to be involved. It would be a dereliction of responsibility if he wasn’t in close contact. As for his party not being in power any time soon. I suppose you try to keep up with events going on with Brexit ? As a brief recap. We have a Prime Minister clinging onto a deal (Chequers) that is unacceptable to her own party. Unacceptable to the EU and unacceptable to the House of Commons. Almost exactly six months to the Brexit date and not even remotely close to a deal being struck. Between now and then we either get a deal something other than Chequers. We can’t get a deal and crash out. Teresa May is teetering on the edge of a vote of no confidence. A leadership challenge and the bookies have a favourite date for General Election as 2019 if not before. Nobody knows what’s going to happen but one thing we can be certain of and that is nobody can say with certainty that Labour won’t be in power any time soon.
Regarding your assertion that the news should be impartial and wasn’t because it showed more minutes of JC than TM. Do you think there is a connection between the coverage of Corbyn this week because the Labour Party Conference has just ended and Corbyn made what was seen by many as a breakthrough speech ?
Just saying.
that's why i said it will be interesting to see next weeks news and whether it gets the same amount of minutes, as it hasnt happened yet and the news has not been broadcast yet i cannot answer that.
JC some of his ideas are great but they are not going to work everything for everyone does not happen if someone can actually fill me in as to where the money is going to come from to give free unis, renationalising the railways and services then i am all ears. like all ideas they sound great but putting them into practice is a different story regarding brexit the majority like it or not wanted to stop free movement between eu countries not factual but i would esimate 80% of leave voters this was there rational behind the vote, unless i am wrong the ideas jc is putting forward is that free movement will still be able to take place? correct me if im wrong.
and yes he is the opposition - i think he will be for a while
Read the Labour Party Manifesto.
basically raise taxes on the wealthy and corporations ( from 19 - 26% ) - which will obviously just make the wealthy move abroad and make large business move to lower tax regions ( dublin being one where a lot are based google/facebook etc ) and then it will be taxing the everyday working people to facilitate free education etc.
That isn't it basically - The last manifesto stated that nobody earning above £80k per anum would be worse off and rises above that would be incremental - so you have to be earning a lot for it to really affect you. There are other areas that can bring in revenue such as a bankers tax, putting Corporation tax up to the level it was before the Tories cut it, Taxing big corporations more fairly etc. Money from these areas.
The last Labour manifesto was lauded by many economists and was Keynesian in nature. Anybody who has studied Keynes will know that he advocated spending your way out of a recession and paying it back in when the economy is strong. Austerity works counter to Keynesian economics and stifles growth. Of course where you spend the money is important. Keynes advocated quantitative easing, but I don't think he was for giving it to banks to sit on - he favoured making money work so investing it in capital infrastucture projects.
Basically taxation should largely cover paying for services and borrowing should be used to create growth. This of course results in higher revenues and more money for services as well as creating more wealth to pay off deficits. If you stifle growth you end up not being able to pay off what you want to because the economy contracts. That is why Austerity didn't end when it was supposed to - it was simply shrinking the economy.
to summarise labour want to tax more, correct?
and what about these corporations moving to other areas of europe - like a lot already have done?.
nationalising railways - great if it keeps the costs down. free uni - dont agree with it, most graduates with a degree in something sensible will at entry level be earning more than a modern apprentice, if everyone goes to uni you will have a lot of graduates looking for jobs and will still have a shortage for more basic/manual jobs. improving the nhs - all for it if we keep health tourists out.
also on the point @ShootersHillGuru made i did not say ordinary i said everyday working class - how many on here would be happy to pay more in tax? i know i wouldn't any others?
I’m perfectly happy for my taxes to increase if it is done fairly and the outcome is a better country for us all to live in.
I return a question to @palarsehater : Would you not be prepared to pay more if it was to improve things like education, health etc. etc.
Hardly a ringing endorsement @Rob7Lee as I don’t claim to know much about the tax system, but of all the people that comment on tax matters, I believe yours are one of the most knowledgeable and make sense to me. I think I, like a lot of people have a misguided understanding that the more you earn, the more you should be taxed as a simple solution. However, as you point out it’s never that simple
For me the areas I would like to be cleaned up by any government are the tax schemes that enable those in the know to do all sorts of shit through their companies and only declare x of what they earn, because the system is so archaic. If you know, you know and can really benefit from exploiting the system (albeit legally)
Second to that, the piss takers that are the Googles of this world. They continue to rinse everyone and get away with it, and do it in such an elitist, Work porn like way, where they position themselves as great employers for the better people. Very vomit inducing
i could be wrong but there is no way the constant attacks on the pm would happen if it was a man, why was corbyn out meeting with the eu officials - nothing to do with him - his party wont be in charge anytime soon.
will also be interesting to see what coverage the conservative conference gets as last nights news consisted of the same 10 mins shown the previous night of jc jigging to children of the revolution ( cock ) and then 1 min of mays day, surely the news should be impartial?.
Well I get the sense from this that you are not a Corbynista.
As for your outrage at JC meeting with the EU as being none of his business. That’s a joke right ? Of course it’s his business. He’s leader of Her Majesty’s Opposition. It’s his duty and job to be involved. It would be a dereliction of responsibility if he wasn’t in close contact. As for his party not being in power any time soon. I suppose you try to keep up with events going on with Brexit ? As a brief recap. We have a Prime Minister clinging onto a deal (Chequers) that is unacceptable to her own party. Unacceptable to the EU and unacceptable to the House of Commons. Almost exactly six months to the Brexit date and not even remotely close to a deal being struck. Between now and then we either get a deal something other than Chequers. We can’t get a deal and crash out. Teresa May is teetering on the edge of a vote of no confidence. A leadership challenge and the bookies have a favourite date for General Election as 2019 if not before. Nobody knows what’s going to happen but one thing we can be certain of and that is nobody can say with certainty that Labour won’t be in power any time soon.
Regarding your assertion that the news should be impartial and wasn’t because it showed more minutes of JC than TM. Do you think there is a connection between the coverage of Corbyn this week because the Labour Party Conference has just ended and Corbyn made what was seen by many as a breakthrough speech ?
Just saying.
that's why i said it will be interesting to see next weeks news and whether it gets the same amount of minutes, as it hasnt happened yet and the news has not been broadcast yet i cannot answer that.
JC some of his ideas are great but they are not going to work everything for everyone does not happen if someone can actually fill me in as to where the money is going to come from to give free unis, renationalising the railways and services then i am all ears. like all ideas they sound great but putting them into practice is a different story regarding brexit the majority like it or not wanted to stop free movement between eu countries not factual but i would esimate 80% of leave voters this was there rational behind the vote, unless i am wrong the ideas jc is putting forward is that free movement will still be able to take place? correct me if im wrong.
and yes he is the opposition - i think he will be for a while
Read the Labour Party Manifesto.
basically raise taxes on the wealthy and corporations ( from 19 - 26% ) - which will obviously just make the wealthy move abroad and make large business move to lower tax regions ( dublin being one where a lot are based google/facebook etc ) and then it will be taxing the everyday working people to facilitate free education etc.
That isn't it basically - The last manifesto stated that nobody earning above £80k per anum would be worse off and rises above that would be incremental - so you have to be earning a lot for it to really affect you. There are other areas that can bring in revenue such as a bankers tax, putting Corporation tax up to the level it was before the Tories cut it, Taxing big corporations more fairly etc. Money from these areas.
The last Labour manifesto was lauded by many economists and was Keynesian in nature. Anybody who has studied Keynes will know that he advocated spending your way out of a recession and paying it back in when the economy is strong. Austerity works counter to Keynesian economics and stifles growth. Of course where you spend the money is important. Keynes advocated quantitative easing, but I don't think he was for giving it to banks to sit on - he favoured making money work so investing it in capital infrastucture projects.
Basically taxation should largely cover paying for services and borrowing should be used to create growth. This of course results in higher revenues and more money for services as well as creating more wealth to pay off deficits. If you stifle growth you end up not being able to pay off what you want to because the economy contracts. That is why Austerity didn't end when it was supposed to - it was simply shrinking the economy.
to summarise labour want to tax more, correct?
and what about these corporations moving to other areas of europe - like a lot already have done?.
nationalising railways - great if it keeps the costs down. free uni - dont agree with it, most graduates with a degree in something sensible will at entry level be earning more than a modern apprentice, if everyone goes to uni you will have a lot of graduates looking for jobs and will still have a shortage for more basic/manual jobs. improving the nhs - all for it if we keep health tourists out.
also on the point @ShootersHillGuru made i did not say ordinary i said everyday working class - how many on here would be happy to pay more in tax? i know i wouldn't any others?
I’m perfectly happy for my taxes to increase if it is done fairly and the outcome is a better country for us all to live in.
I return a question to @palarsehater : Would you not be prepared to pay more if it was to improve things like education, health etc. etc.
No I feel the taxes I pay now are more than ample what the government wastes them on is what I think most have a gripe with.
The problem is of course, Labour has started to make its tax plans much more transparent so people will know what to expect ( I can't believe the last election was the first time it has done this). The vast majority of voters will be no worse off, so those that will be (and some of those wont be much worse off) have a harder job scaring them that they will. But good luck trying to those that wish to.
So you agree now we’re not all in it together?
Your kidding yourself if you think just because someone earns less than £80k they won’t be effected by labours taxation plans indirectly, if a company pays more Corp tax they will make up as much of that additional cost from elsewhere as best they can, that may include amongst other things moving some work overseas thereby cutting UK staff or in Roland style cutting cleaners and the like as low hanging fruit, all of which is unlikely to mean the CEO gets laid off.
It wouldn’t have been huge numbers but I suspect we’d have laid off some people, all would have been at the sub £80k salaries I suspect.
I'm not, the tax would rise incrementally not rocket up. Having a pro growth agenda can mean you can eventually cut taxes. The Tories could just as easily rise taxes at the next election because of a failing economy and Brexit. How far can public services be cut? That is a more pertinent question.
And yes we are all in it together, although there is a group who are doing significantly better and haven't really been in it with the rest of us. They are earning far more than £100k per anum of course.
I don’t see how increasing tax by between 5 & 10% on sums over 80k for
Tax for higher earners gone up despite top rate cut from 50% to 45%? How does that work?
i could be wrong but there is no way the constant attacks on the pm would happen if it was a man, why was corbyn out meeting with the eu officials - nothing to do with him - his party wont be in charge anytime soon.
will also be interesting to see what coverage the conservative conference gets as last nights news consisted of the same 10 mins shown the previous night of jc jigging to children of the revolution ( cock ) and then 1 min of mays day, surely the news should be impartial?.
Well I get the sense from this that you are not a Corbynista.
As for your outrage at JC meeting with the EU as being none of his business. That’s a joke right ? Of course it’s his business. He’s leader of Her Majesty’s Opposition. It’s his duty and job to be involved. It would be a dereliction of responsibility if he wasn’t in close contact. As for his party not being in power any time soon. I suppose you try to keep up with events going on with Brexit ? As a brief recap. We have a Prime Minister clinging onto a deal (Chequers) that is unacceptable to her own party. Unacceptable to the EU and unacceptable to the House of Commons. Almost exactly six months to the Brexit date and not even remotely close to a deal being struck. Between now and then we either get a deal something other than Chequers. We can’t get a deal and crash out. Teresa May is teetering on the edge of a vote of no confidence. A leadership challenge and the bookies have a favourite date for General Election as 2019 if not before. Nobody knows what’s going to happen but one thing we can be certain of and that is nobody can say with certainty that Labour won’t be in power any time soon.
Regarding your assertion that the news should be impartial and wasn’t because it showed more minutes of JC than TM. Do you think there is a connection between the coverage of Corbyn this week because the Labour Party Conference has just ended and Corbyn made what was seen by many as a breakthrough speech ?
Just saying.
that's why i said it will be interesting to see next weeks news and whether it gets the same amount of minutes, as it hasnt happened yet and the news has not been broadcast yet i cannot answer that.
JC some of his ideas are great but they are not going to work everything for everyone does not happen if someone can actually fill me in as to where the money is going to come from to give free unis, renationalising the railways and services then i am all ears. like all ideas they sound great but putting them into practice is a different story regarding brexit the majority like it or not wanted to stop free movement between eu countries not factual but i would esimate 80% of leave voters this was there rational behind the vote, unless i am wrong the ideas jc is putting forward is that free movement will still be able to take place? correct me if im wrong.
and yes he is the opposition - i think he will be for a while
Read the Labour Party Manifesto.
basically raise taxes on the wealthy and corporations ( from 19 - 26% ) - which will obviously just make the wealthy move abroad and make large business move to lower tax regions ( dublin being one where a lot are based google/facebook etc ) and then it will be taxing the everyday working people to facilitate free education etc.
That isn't it basically - The last manifesto stated that nobody earning above £80k per anum would be worse off and rises above that would be incremental - so you have to be earning a lot for it to really affect you. There are other areas that can bring in revenue such as a bankers tax, putting Corporation tax up to the level it was before the Tories cut it, Taxing big corporations more fairly etc. Money from these areas.
Your making the broad, and in my view, wrong assumption that the more you earn the more spare you have. In my experience the difference between someone on £50k and someone on £100k is just a bigger mortgage, more council tax, less state benefit, more they have to pay into pension etc. It also doesn't take into account a single earner in a family compared to dual earners in a family. Already two single earners of £50k each are considerably better off than a sole earner in a family on £100k and Labours plans would make that divide even greater.
My question would be, if we need to raise more tax why aren't we all to pay, proportionately more? Why cut it at a level and make it a 'them and us'? Aren't we all in it together?
If you are quoting Cameron can I remind you of "Those with the broadest shoulders should bear the heaviest load".
The problem is of course, Labour has started to make its tax plans much more transparent so people will know what to expect ( I can't believe the last election was the first time it has done this). The vast majority of voters will be no worse off, so those that will be (and some of those wont be much worse off) have a harder job scaring them that they will. But good luck trying to those that wish to.
So you agree now we’re not all in it together?
Your kidding yourself if you think just because someone earns less than £80k they won’t be effected by labours taxation plans indirectly, if a company pays more Corp tax they will make up as much of that additional cost from elsewhere as best they can, that may include amongst other things moving some work overseas thereby cutting UK staff or in Roland style cutting cleaners and the like as low hanging fruit, all of which is unlikely to mean the CEO gets laid off.
It wouldn’t have been huge numbers but I suspect we’d have laid off some people, all would have been at the sub £80k salaries I suspect.
Maybe you are kidding yourself, or is that not possible?
I'm not, the tax would rise incrementally not rocket up. Having a pro growth agenda can mean you can eventually cut taxes. The Tories could just as easily rise taxes at the next election because of a failing economy and Brexit. How far can public services be cut? That is a more pertinent question.
And yes we are all in it together, although there is a group who are doing significantly better and haven't really been in it with the rest of us. They are earning far more than £100k per anum of course.
I don’t see how increasing tax by between 5 & 10% on sums over 80k for
Tax for higher earners gone up despite top rate cut from 50% to 45%? How does that work?
It depends on your timeline and if you are only looking at the headline rate;
The 50% band came in on the 6th April 2010 a month before Labour lost the election. From recollection it had been at 40% for as long as I can remember before that. It then reduced to 45% in around 2013. However by then they had been reducing the point at which the 40% band started from 37,400 to 32,100. Add to that the loss of personal allowance (meaning the 60% tax between 100k and 123k as at now) and some other things like the loss of child allowance.
You also have the increase in NI in that period. In 2010 it was 11% between the LEL and UEL and 1% above. It's now 12% between the LEL and UEL and 2% above.
Purely on Income tax and NI, someone earning 125k now takes home 75,776. In 2009/10 tax year they would have taken home 80,062, even in 2010/11 year they would have taken home 77,470. For some you can deduct Child allowance as well, less allowance for pension contribution tax relief etc etc.
Conversely someone on 25k would now take home 20,383 v's 19,175 in 2010/11. Tax up for the wealthier, tax down for the lower earners, and quite right to at that stage of the game.
i could be wrong but there is no way the constant attacks on the pm would happen if it was a man, why was corbyn out meeting with the eu officials - nothing to do with him - his party wont be in charge anytime soon.
will also be interesting to see what coverage the conservative conference gets as last nights news consisted of the same 10 mins shown the previous night of jc jigging to children of the revolution ( cock ) and then 1 min of mays day, surely the news should be impartial?.
Well I get the sense from this that you are not a Corbynista.
........
Just saying.
that's why i said it will be interesting to see next weeks news and whether it gets the same amount of minutes, as it hasnt happened yet and the news has not been broadcast yet i cannot answer that.
JC some of his ideas are great but they are not going to work everything for everyone does not happen if someone can actually fill me in as to where the money is going to come from to give free unis, renationalising the railways and services then i am all ears. like all ideas they sound great but putting them into practice is a different story regarding brexit the majority like it or not wanted to stop free movement between eu countries not factual but i would esimate 80% of leave voters this was there rational behind the vote, unless i am wrong the ideas jc is putting forward is that free movement will still be able to take place? correct me if im wrong.
and yes he is the opposition - i think he will be for a while
Read the Labour Party Manifesto.
basically raise taxes on the wealthy and corporations ( from 19 - 26% ) - which will obviously just make the wealthy move abroad and make large business move to lower tax regions ( dublin being one where a lot are based google/facebook etc ) and then it will be taxing the everyday working people to facilitate free education etc.
That isn't it basically - The last manifesto stated that nobody earning above £80k per anum would be worse off and rises above that would be incremental - so you have to be earning a lot for it to really affect you. There are other areas that can bring in revenue such as a bankers tax, putting Corporation tax up to the level it was before the Tories cut it, Taxing big corporations more fairly etc. Money from these areas.
Your making the broad, and in my view, wrong assumption that the more you earn the more spare you have. In my experience the difference between someone on £50k and someone on £100k is just a bigger mortgage, more council tax, less state benefit, more they have to p.........
If you are quoting Cameron can I remind you of "Those with the broadest shoulders should bear the heaviest load".
I'm not quoting that idiot, but see above for facts and figures, he was right.
The problem is of course, Labour has started to make its tax plans much more transparent so people will know what to expect ( I can't believe the last election was the first time it has done this). The vast majority of voters will be no worse off, so those that will be (and some of those wont be much worse off) have a harder job scaring them that they will. But good luck trying to those that wish to.
So you agree now we’re not all in it together?
Your kidding yourself if you think just because someone earns less than £80k they won’t be effected by labours taxation plans indirectly, if a company pays more Corp tax they will make up as much of that additional cost from elsewhere as best they can, that may include amongst other things moving some work overseas thereby cutting UK staff or in Roland style cutting cleaners and the like as low hanging fruit, all of which is unlikely to mean the CEO gets laid off.
It wouldn’t have been huge numbers but I suspect we’d have laid off some people, all would have been at the sub £80k salaries I suspect.
Maybe you are kidding yourself, or is that not possible?
Any comment on what I actually wrote? Probably not, would you like the names of the 4 PA's and 3 Underwriting Assistants that had been identified as redundant when the 5 guys named mo went to Bermuda?
@cabbles in essence you are right, and I agree the more you earn the more you pay, but we have the most complicated tax system known to man. Tax bands go 20%, 40%, 60%, 45%. Under Labour you'd have I think 20%, 40%, 45%, 60%, 50% and at differing levels to now. NI is similarly unnecessary complex with LEL/UEL, weekly calculated etc etc.
Savings allowances, the crazy calculation for tax relief on pensions for higher earners, the 60% band sitting between the 40% and 45%, you can get child allowance if as a couple you earn 50k each, but not if one earns 60k and the other 40k despite the one's on 50k each already being better off.
i could be wrong but there is no way the constant attacks on the pm would happen if it was a man, why was corbyn out meeting with the eu officials - nothing to do with him - his party wont be in charge anytime soon.
will also be interesting to see what coverage the conservative conference gets as last nights news consisted of the same 10 mins shown the previous night of jc jigging to children of the revolution ( cock ) and then 1 min of mays day, surely the news should be impartial?.
Well I get the sense from this that you are not a Corbynista.
As for your outrage at JC meeting with the EU as being none of his business. That’s a joke right ? Of course it’s his business. He’s leader of Her Majesty’s Opposition. It’s his duty and job to be involved. It would be a dereliction of responsibility if he wasn’t in close contact. As for his party not being in power any time soon. I suppose you try to keep up with events going on with Brexit ? As a brief recap. We have a Prime Minister clinging onto a deal (Chequers) that is unacceptable to her own party. Unacceptable to the EU and unacceptable to the House of Commons. Almost exactly six months to the Brexit date and not even remotely close to a deal being struck. Between now and then we either get a deal something other than Chequers. We can’t get a deal and crash out. Teresa May is teetering on the edge of a vote of no confidence. A leadership challenge and the bookies have a favourite date for General Election as 2019 if not before. Nobody knows what’s going to happen but one thing we can be certain of and that is nobody can say with certainty that Labour won’t be in power any time soon.
Regarding your assertion that the news should be impartial and wasn’t because it showed more minutes of JC than TM. Do you think there is a connection between the coverage of Corbyn this week because the Labour Party Conference has just ended and Corbyn made what was seen by many as a breakthrough speech ?
Just saying.
that's why i said it will be interesting to see next weeks news and whether it gets the same amount of minutes, as it hasnt happened yet and the news has not been broadcast yet i cannot answer that.
JC some of his ideas are great but they are not going to work everything for everyone does not happen if someone can actually fill me in as to where the money is going to come from to give free unis, renationalising the railways and services then i am all ears. like all ideas they sound great but putting them into practice is a different story regarding brexit the majority like it or not wanted to stop free movement between eu countries not factual but i would esimate 80% of leave voters this was there rational behind the vote, unless i am wrong the ideas jc is putting forward is that free movement will still be able to take place? correct me if im wrong.
and yes he is the opposition - i think he will be for a while
Read the Labour Party Manifesto.
basically raise taxes on the wealthy and corporations ( from 19 - 26% ) - which will obviously just make the wealthy move abroad and make large business move to lower tax regions ( dublin being one where a lot are based google/facebook etc ) and then it will be taxing the everyday working people to facilitate free education etc.
That isn't it basically - The last manifesto stated that nobody earning above £80k per anum would be worse off and rises above that would be incremental - so you have to be earning a lot for it to really affect you. There are other areas that can bring in revenue such as a bankers tax, putting Corporation tax up to the level it was before the Tories cut it, Taxing big corporations more fairly etc. Money from these areas.
Your making the broad, and in my view, wrong assumption that the more you earn the more spare you have. In my experience the difference between someone on £50k and someone on £100k is just a bigger mortgage, more council tax, less state benefit, more they have to pay into pension etc. It also doesn't take into account a single earner in a family compared to dual earners in a family. Already two single earners of £50k each are considerably better off than a sole earner in a family on £100k and Labours plans would make that divide even greater.
My question would be, if we need to raise more tax why aren't we all to pay, proportionately more? Why cut it at a level and make it a 'them and us'? Aren't we all in it together?
If you are quoting Cameron can I remind you of "Those with the broadest shoulders should bear the heaviest load".
Lets trade quotes.
New Labour was “intensely relaxed about people getting filthy rich”, in the famous words of Peter Mandelson,
You can go on all you like - It is a wonder you are not prime minister. What does what you have written prove outside of a limited sphere?
I only turned YOUR words back on you. I believe Corbyn can change the country for the better. You don't. Fair enough. I support Corbyn - you say you support neither the government nor Corbyn but seem to defend the government a lot and are rarely critical whilst always digging at Corbyn. Fair enough again, but don't pretend to be something you are not.
It muddles it up a little bit, but I think there should be turnover tax applied to companies in the million + a year range. Say 5-10%. It would stop companies like Facebook and google and Apple being able to get away with paying corporation tax in the few thousands when they make millions from the U.K. every year, whilst simultaneously keeping Corp tax low for smaller businesses.
I also think the Lib Dem idea of merging capital gains and dividends tax (a pointlessly complicated tax) into income tax and shifting up the personal allowance even further. Gives working people a bit of a tax cut whilst also getting a little extra from dividends and capital gains.
Turnover tax would never work for many companies, a high turnover doesn't necessarily mean a profit. It would push them into loss (or a further loss), many companies can only dream of a 5-10% profit currently. How you'd levy it on only companies like tax avoiding Google I don't know.
I've long been an advocate of upping the personal allowance as the Tories have done since they came back to Government. It's an easy win, the vast majority of people will spend it, a lot on goods with VAT so the tax take remains almost the same but the individual feels much better off and stimulates the wider economy.
It wasn't their policy, it was the lib-dems. I thought the Tories only contribution was to delay the implementation.
You can go on all you like - It is a wonder you are not prime minister. What does what you have written prove outside of a limited sphere?
I gave an example as to how the increased taxation would have effected people on under 80k that you said wouldn't;
"The vast majority of voters will be no worse off, so those that will be (and some of those wont be much worse off) have a harder job scaring them that they will. But good luck trying to those that wish to"
It muddles it up a little bit, but I think there should be turnover tax applied to companies in the million + a year range. Say 5-10%. It would stop companies like Facebook and google and Apple being able to get away with paying corporation tax in the few thousands when they make millions from the U.K. every year, whilst simultaneously keeping Corp tax low for smaller businesses.
I also think the Lib Dem idea of merging capital gains and dividends tax (a pointlessly complicated tax) into income tax and shifting up the personal allowance even further. Gives working people a bit of a tax cut whilst also getting a little extra from dividends and capital gains.
Turnover tax would never work for many companies, a high turnover doesn't necessarily mean a profit. It would push them into loss (or a further loss), many companies can only dream of a 5-10% profit currently. How you'd levy it on only companies like tax avoiding Google I don't know.
I've long been an advocate of upping the personal allowance as the Tories have done since they came back to Government. It's an easy win, the vast majority of people will spend it, a lot on goods with VAT so the tax take remains almost the same but the individual feels much better off and stimulates the wider economy.
It wasn't their policy, it was the lib-dems. I thought the Tories only contribution was to delay the implementation.
Which one, the increased tax allowance? I don't know whose policy it was, but it's gone up every year since the coalition formed and every year since the coalition ended and the government was just the tories. Getting towards double what it was in 09/10
Look vote for Rob Lee - he is the only person who knows what he is talking about - he has the figures to prove everybody else wrong. He can accuse you of kidding yourself but do not be rude enough to ask the same question of him back. look it is obvious, why bother debating he knows it. I'm off to play some old arcade games!
Look vote for Rob Lee - he is the only person who knows what he is talking about - he has the figures to prove everybody else wrong. He can accuse you of kidding yourself but do not be rude enough to ask the same question of him back. look it is obvious, why bother debating he knows it. I'm off to play some old arcade games!
Do pop back when you've got something to add to the topic or can actually raise an alternative argument to anything I or others have said rather than just throw around insults, enjoy your donkey kong.
You can go on all you like - It is a wonder you are not prime minister. What does what you have written prove outside of a limited sphere?
I gave an example as to how the increased taxation would have effected people on under 80k that you said wouldn't;
"The vast majority of voters will be no worse off, so those that will be (and some of those wont be much worse off) have a harder job scaring them that they will. But good luck trying to those that wish to"
It muddles it up a little bit, but I think there should be turnover tax applied to companies in the million + a year range. Say 5-10%. It would stop companies like Facebook and google and Apple being able to get away with paying corporation tax in the few thousands when they make millions from the U.K. every year, whilst simultaneously keeping Corp tax low for smaller businesses.
I also think the Lib Dem idea of merging capital gains and dividends tax (a pointlessly complicated tax) into income tax and shifting up the personal allowance even further. Gives working people a bit of a tax cut whilst also getting a little extra from dividends and capital gains.
Turnover tax would never work for many companies, a high turnover doesn't necessarily mean a profit. It would push them into loss (or a further loss), many companies can only dream of a 5-10% profit currently. How you'd levy it on only companies like tax avoiding Google I don't know.
I've long been an advocate of upping the personal allowance as the Tories have done since they came back to Government. It's an easy win, the vast majority of people will spend it, a lot on goods with VAT so the tax take remains almost the same but the individual feels much better off and stimulates the wider economy.
It wasn't their policy, it was the lib-dems. I thought the Tories only contribution was to delay the implementation.
Which one, the increased tax allowance? I don't know whose policy it was, but it's gone up every year since the coalition formed and every year since the coalition ended and the government was just the tories. Getting towards double what it was in 09/10
It was meant to be that level at the end of the coalition. So the previous government, made up of tories, only delayed it.
I don't like giving the lib dems much credit as I feel they betrayed my vote but it was about the only thing they achieved. But when you try to portray the conservatives as for the low earners it is quite important which party had the idea.
You can go on all you like - It is a wonder you are not prime minister. What does what you have written prove outside of a limited sphere?
I gave an example as to how the increased taxation would have effected people on under 80k that you said wouldn't;
"The vast majority of voters will be no worse off, so those that will be (and some of those wont be much worse off) have a harder job scaring them that they will. But good luck trying to those that wish to"
It muddles it up a little bit, but I think there should be turnover tax applied to companies in the million + a year range. Say 5-10%. It would stop companies like Facebook and google and Apple being able to get away with paying corporation tax in the few thousands when they make millions from the U.K. every year, whilst simultaneously keeping Corp tax low for smaller businesses.
I also think the Lib Dem idea of merging capital gains and dividends tax (a pointlessly complicated tax) into income tax and shifting up the personal allowance even further. Gives working people a bit of a tax cut whilst also getting a little extra from dividends and capital gains.
Turnover tax would never work for many companies, a high turnover doesn't necessarily mean a profit. It would push them into loss (or a further loss), many companies can only dream of a 5-10% profit currently. How you'd levy it on only companies like tax avoiding Google I don't know.
I've long been an advocate of upping the personal allowance as the Tories have done since they came back to Government. It's an easy win, the vast majority of people will spend it, a lot on goods with VAT so the tax take remains almost the same but the individual feels much better off and stimulates the wider economy.
It wasn't their policy, it was the lib-dems. I thought the Tories only contribution was to delay the implementation.
Which one, the increased tax allowance? I don't know whose policy it was, but it's gone up every year since the coalition formed and every year since the coalition ended and the government was just the tories. Getting towards double what it was in 09/10
It was meant to be that level at the end of the coalition. So the previous government, made up of tories, only delayed it.
I don't like giving the lib dems much credit as I feel they betrayed my vote but it was about the only thing they achieved. But when you try to portray the conservatives as for the low earners it is quite important which party had the idea.
Sure, at least with the lib dems idea and pushing them on and since they've continued to keep raising it. I'd like to see it at least at a level where no one on minimum wage which is about 14,250 and probably a % above it pays any tax (inc NI).
I don't think the Tories are 'for the low earners', but on taxation they have it broadly right, just needs to start a bit higher and everyone pay a little more (proportionately before I get jumped on ) - lib dems again - 1p on all bands.
Look vote for Rob Lee - he is the only person who knows what he is talking about - he has the figures to prove everybody else wrong. He can accuse you of kidding yourself but do not be rude enough to ask the same question of him back. look it is obvious, why bother debating he knows it. I'm off to play some old arcade games!
Do pop back when you've got something to add to the topic or can actually raise an alternative argument to anything I or others have said rather than just throw around insults, enjoy your donkey kong.
Here we go again .. it’s like watching a replay of past events
i could be wrong but there is no way the constant attacks on the pm would happen if it was a man, why was corbyn out meeting with the eu officials - nothing to do with him - his party wont be in charge anytime soon.
will also be interesting to see what coverage the conservative conference gets as last nights news consisted of the same 10 mins shown the previous night of jc jigging to children of the revolution ( cock ) and then 1 min of mays day, surely the news should be impartial?.
Well I get the sense from this that you are not a Corbynista.
As for your outrage at JC meeting with the EU as being none of his business. That’s a joke right ? Of course it’s his business. He’s leader of Her Majesty’s Opposition. It’s his duty and job to be involved. It would be a dereliction of responsibility if he wasn’t in close contact. As for his party not being in power any time soon. I suppose you try to keep up with events going on with Brexit ? As a brief recap. We have a Prime Minister clinging onto a deal (Chequers) that is unacceptable to her own party. Unacceptable to the EU and unacceptable to the House of Commons. Almost exactly six months to the Brexit date and not even remotely close to a deal being struck. Between now and then we either get a deal something other than Chequers. We can’t get a deal and crash out. Teresa May is teetering on the edge of a vote of no confidence. A leadership challenge and the bookies have a favourite date for General Election as 2019 if not before. Nobody knows what’s going to happen but one thing we can be certain of and that is nobody can say with certainty that Labour won’t be in power any time soon.
Regarding your assertion that the news should be impartial and wasn’t because it showed more minutes of JC than TM. Do you think there is a connection between the coverage of Corbyn this week because the Labour Party Conference has just ended and Corbyn made what was seen by many as a breakthrough speech ?
Just saying.
that's why i said it will be interesting to see next weeks news and whether it gets the same amount of minutes, as it hasnt happened yet and the news has not been broadcast yet i cannot answer that.
JC some of his ideas are great but they are not going to work everything for everyone does not happen if someone can actually fill me in as to where the money is going to come from to give free unis, renationalising the railways and services then i am all ears. like all ideas they sound great but putting them into practice is a different story regarding brexit the majority like it or not wanted to stop free movement between eu countries not factual but i would esimate 80% of leave voters this was there rational behind the vote, unless i am wrong the ideas jc is putting forward is that free movement will still be able to take place? correct me if im wrong.
and yes he is the opposition - i think he will be for a while
Read the Labour Party Manifesto.
basically raise taxes on the wealthy and corporations ( from 19 - 26% ) - which will obviously just make the wealthy move abroad and make large business move to lower tax regions ( dublin being one where a lot are based google/facebook etc ) and then it will be taxing the everyday working people to facilitate free education etc.
That isn't it basically - The last manifesto stated that nobody earning above £80k per anum would be worse off and rises above that would be incremental - so you have to be earning a lot for it to really affect you. There are other areas that can bring in revenue such as a bankers tax, putting Corporation tax up to the level it was before the Tories cut it, Taxing big corporations more fairly etc. Money from these areas.
Your making the broad, and in my view, wrong assumption that the more you earn the more spare you have. In my experience the difference between someone on £50k and someone on £100k is just a bigger mortgage, more council tax, less state benefit, more they have to pay into pension etc. It also doesn't take into account a single earner in a family compared to dual earners in a family. Already two single earners of £50k each are considerably better off than a sole earner in a family on £100k and Labours plans would make that divide even greater.
My question would be, if we need to raise more tax why aren't we all to pay, proportionately more? Why cut it at a level and make it a 'them and us'? Aren't we all in it together?
If you are quoting Cameron can I remind you of "Those with the broadest shoulders should bear the heaviest load".
Lets trade quotes.
New Labour was “intensely relaxed about people getting filthy rich”, in the famous words of Peter Mandelson,
Most of the time I really miss the point you are trying make. But then if I am honest I never really understood passive aggressive point scoring.
You can go on all you like - It is a wonder you are not prime minister. What does what you have written prove outside of a limited sphere?
I gave an example as to how the increased taxation would have effected people on under 80k that you said wouldn't;
"The vast majority of voters will be no worse off, so those that will be (and some of those wont be much worse off) have a harder job scaring them that they will. But good luck trying to those that wish to"
It muddles it up a little bit, but I think there should be turnover tax applied to companies in the million + a year range. Say 5-10%. It would stop companies like Facebook and google and Apple being able to get away with paying corporation tax in the few thousands when they make millions from the U.K. every year, whilst simultaneously keeping Corp tax low for smaller businesses.
I also think the Lib Dem idea of merging capital gains and dividends tax (a pointlessly complicated tax) into income tax and shifting up the personal allowance even further. Gives working people a bit of a tax cut whilst also getting a little extra from dividends and capital gains.
Turnover tax would never work for many companies, a high turnover doesn't necessarily mean a profit. It would push them into loss (or a further loss), many companies can only dream of a 5-10% profit currently. How you'd levy it on only companies like tax avoiding Google I don't know.
I've long been an advocate of upping the personal allowance as the Tories have done since they came back to Government. It's an easy win, the vast majority of people will spend it, a lot on goods with VAT so the tax take remains almost the same but the individual feels much better off and stimulates the wider economy.
It wasn't their policy, it was the lib-dems. I thought the Tories only contribution was to delay the implementation.
Which one, the increased tax allowance? I don't know whose policy it was, but it's gone up every year since the coalition formed and every year since the coalition ended and the government was just the tories. Getting towards double what it was in 09/10
It was meant to be that level at the end of the coalition. So the previous government, made up of tories, only delayed it.
I don't like giving the lib dems much credit as I feel they betrayed my vote but it was about the only thing they achieved. But when you try to portray the conservatives as for the low earners it is quite important which party had the idea.
Sure, at least with the lib dems idea and pushing them on and since they've continued to keep raising it. I'd like to see it at least at a level where no one on minimum wage which is about 14,250 and probably a % above it pays any tax (inc NI).
I don't think the Tories are 'for the low earners', but on taxation they have it broadly right, just needs to start a bit higher and everyone pay a little more (proportionately before I get jumped on ) - lib dems again - 1p on all bands.
Look vote for Rob Lee - he is the only person who knows what he is talking about - he has the figures to prove everybody else wrong. He can accuse you of kidding yourself but do not be rude enough to ask the same question of him back. look it is obvious, why bother debating he knows it. I'm off to play some old arcade games!
I pretty much agree, but I'm being serious. Rob undoubtedly knows what he's talking about, when it comes to finance.
i could be wrong but there is no way the constant attacks on the pm would happen if it was a man, why was corbyn out meeting with the eu officials - nothing to do with him - his party wont be in charge anytime soon.
will also be interesting to see what coverage the conservative conference gets as last nights news consisted of the same 10 mins shown the previous night of jc jigging to children of the revolution ( cock ) and then 1 min of mays day, surely the news should be impartial?.
Well I get the sense from this that you are not a Corbynista.
As for your outrage at JC meeting with the EU as being none of his business. That’s a joke right ? Of course it’s his business. He’s leader of Her Majesty’s Opposition. It’s his duty and job to be involved. It would be a dereliction of responsibility if he wasn’t in close contact. As for his party not being in power any time soon. I suppose you try to keep up with events going on with Brexit ? As a brief recap. We have a Prime Minister clinging onto a deal (Chequers) that is unacceptable to her own party. Unacceptable to the EU and unacceptable to the House of Commons. Almost exactly six months to the Brexit date and not even remotely close to a deal being struck. Between now and then we either get a deal something other than Chequers. We can’t get a deal and crash out. Teresa May is teetering on the edge of a vote of no confidence. A leadership challenge and the bookies have a favourite date for General Election as 2019 if not before. Nobody knows what’s going to happen but one thing we can be certain of and that is nobody can say with certainty that Labour won’t be in power any time soon.
Regarding your assertion that the news should be impartial and wasn’t because it showed more minutes of JC than TM. Do you think there is a connection between the coverage of Corbyn this week because the Labour Party Conference has just ended and Corbyn made what was seen by many as a breakthrough speech ?
Just saying.
that's why i said it will be interesting to see next weeks news and whether it gets the same amount of minutes, as it hasnt happened yet and the news has not been broadcast yet i cannot answer that.
JC some of his ideas are great but they are not going to work everything for everyone does not happen if someone can actually fill me in as to where the money is going to come from to give free unis, renationalising the railways and services then i am all ears. like all ideas they sound great but putting them into practice is a different story regarding brexit the majority like it or not wanted to stop free movement between eu countries not factual but i would esimate 80% of leave voters this was there rational behind the vote, unless i am wrong the ideas jc is putting forward is that free movement will still be able to take place? correct me if im wrong.
and yes he is the opposition - i think he will be for a while
Read the Labour Party Manifesto.
basically raise taxes on the wealthy and corporations ( from 19 - 26% ) - which will obviously just make the wealthy move abroad and make large business move to lower tax regions ( dublin being one where a lot are based google/facebook etc ) and then it will be taxing the everyday working people to facilitate free education etc.
That isn't it basically - The last manifesto stated that nobody earning above £80k per anum would be worse off and rises above that would be incremental - so you have to be earning a lot for it to really affect you. There are other areas that can bring in revenue such as a bankers tax, putting Corporation tax up to the level it was before the Tories cut it, Taxing big corporations more fairly etc. Money from these areas.
Your making the broad, and in my view, wrong assumption that the more you earn the more spare you have. In my experience the difference between someone on £50k and someone on £100k is just a bigger mortgage, more council tax, less state benefit, more they have to pay into pension etc. It also doesn't take into account a single earner in a family compared to dual earners in a family. Already two single earners of £50k each are considerably better off than a sole earner in a family on £100k and Labours plans would make that divide even greater.
My question would be, if we need to raise more tax why aren't we all to pay, proportionately more? Why cut it at a level and make it a 'them and us'? Aren't we all in it together?
If you are quoting Cameron can I remind you of "Those with the broadest shoulders should bear the heaviest load".
Lets trade quotes.
New Labour was “intensely relaxed about people getting filthy rich”, in the famous words of Peter Mandelson,
Most of the time I really miss the point you are trying make. But then if I am honest I never really understood passive aggressive point scoring.
Comments
And yes we are all in it together, although there is a group who are doing significantly better and haven't really been in it with the rest of us. They are earning far more than £100k per anum of course.
Rightly someone on minimum wage pays far less % of their salary in taxation since 2008 than they used to and someone on over 100k pays a greater % - not sure who has and who hasn't been with the rest of us the past 10 years in that example.......
I return a question to @palarsehater : Would you not be prepared to pay more if it was to improve things like education, health etc. etc.
For me the areas I would like to be cleaned up by any government are the tax schemes that enable those in the know to do all sorts of shit through their companies and only declare x of what they earn, because the system is so archaic. If you know, you know and can really benefit from exploiting the system (albeit legally)
Second to that, the piss takers that are the Googles of this world. They continue to rinse everyone and get away with it, and do it in such an elitist, Work porn like way, where they position themselves as great employers for the better people. Very vomit inducing
Your kidding yourself if you think just because someone earns less than £80k they won’t be effected by labours taxation plans indirectly, if a company pays more Corp tax they will make up as much of that additional cost from elsewhere as best they can, that may include amongst other things moving some work overseas thereby cutting UK staff or in Roland style cutting cleaners and the like as low hanging fruit, all of which is unlikely to mean the CEO gets laid off.
It wouldn’t have been huge numbers but I suspect we’d have laid off some people, all would have been at the sub £80k salaries I suspect.
The 50% band came in on the 6th April 2010 a month before Labour lost the election. From recollection it had been at 40% for as long as I can remember before that. It then reduced to 45% in around 2013. However by then they had been reducing the point at which the 40% band started from 37,400 to 32,100. Add to that the loss of personal allowance (meaning the 60% tax between 100k and 123k as at now) and some other things like the loss of child allowance.
You also have the increase in NI in that period. In 2010 it was 11% between the LEL and UEL and 1% above. It's now 12% between the LEL and UEL and 2% above.
Purely on Income tax and NI, someone earning 125k now takes home 75,776. In 2009/10 tax year they would have taken home 80,062, even in 2010/11 year they would have taken home 77,470. For some you can deduct Child allowance as well, less allowance for pension contribution tax relief etc etc.
Conversely someone on 25k would now take home 20,383 v's 19,175 in 2010/11. Tax up for the wealthier, tax down for the lower earners, and quite right to at that stage of the game.
I'm not quoting that idiot, but see above for facts and figures, he was right. Any comment on what I actually wrote? Probably not, would you like the names of the 4 PA's and 3 Underwriting Assistants that had been identified as redundant when the 5 guys named mo went to Bermuda?
@cabbles in essence you are right, and I agree the more you earn the more you pay, but we have the most complicated tax system known to man. Tax bands go 20%, 40%, 60%, 45%. Under Labour you'd have I think 20%, 40%, 45%, 60%, 50% and at differing levels to now. NI is similarly unnecessary complex with LEL/UEL, weekly calculated etc etc.
Savings allowances, the crazy calculation for tax relief on pensions for higher earners, the 60% band sitting between the 40% and 45%, you can get child allowance if as a couple you earn 50k each, but not if one earns 60k and the other 40k despite the one's on 50k each already being better off.
I could go on, but hopefully you get the gist.
New Labour was “intensely relaxed about people getting filthy rich”, in the famous words of Peter Mandelson,
I only turned YOUR words back on you. I believe Corbyn can change the country for the better. You don't. Fair enough. I support Corbyn - you say you support neither the government nor Corbyn but seem to defend the government a lot and are rarely critical whilst always digging at Corbyn. Fair enough again, but don't pretend to be something you are not.
"The vast majority of voters will be no worse off, so those that will be (and some of those wont be much worse off) have a harder job scaring them that they will. But good luck trying to those that wish to"
Now it's only a limited sphere
2010-11 6,475
2011-12 7,475
2012-13 8,105
2013-14 9,440
2014-15 10,000
2015-16 10,600
2016-17 11,000
2017-18 11,500
2018-19 11,850
I don't like giving the lib dems much credit as I feel they betrayed my vote but it was about the only thing they achieved. But when you try to portray the conservatives as for the low earners it is quite important which party had the idea.
I don't think the Tories are 'for the low earners', but on taxation they have it broadly right, just needs to start a bit higher and everyone pay a little more (proportionately before I get jumped on
In your opinion.
Rob undoubtedly knows what he's talking about, when it comes to finance.