Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Uk Debate Mk 2, the UK's liveliest political and social debate site.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Ed Miliband will destroy Britain; David Cameron warns the electorate of Labour danger
Topic Started: Oct 18 2014, 11:37 PM (2,551 Views)
Heinrich
Member Avatar
Regular Guy
[ *  *  *  * ]
Writing in The Sunday Telegraph, David Cameron, flushed with his success at scaring the Scottish about Alex Salmond, declares that Britain’s prosperity is at stake in the most important election “for a generation”. He warns today that "Mortgages will rise, businesses will be crushed and the international markets will take fright if Ed Miliband wins power in the general election in 200 days’ time."
The Sunday Telegraph
Readers of The Sunday Telegraph might be frightened away from supporting New Labour after reading this.
Edited by Heinrich, Oct 18 2014, 11:38 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Replies:
johnofgwent
Member Avatar
It .. It is GREEN !!
[ *  *  *  * ]
Stan Still
Oct 25 2014, 04:11 PM
No argument on that one Ty working hard to earn more and being prudent in this country is punished not rewarded, as usual the cart before the horse I will be paying income tax on my pensions income until the day I die.
Which is why - until Gordon Brown came along and screwed it up for all of us first by refusing to refund all the tax paid on dividends and later with other more blatant smash and grab raids - every penny you paid in, every penny your employer paid in and every penny the pot earned for you was entirely free of tax, for the simple reason that every penny you received from the pot was taxed (but not NI'd) income and anything you were foolish enough - or unfortunate enough - to oversubscribe was taxed at a rate not seen since the days of Dennis Healey versus Max Bygraves.

Brown well and truly queered that pitch and raked in the loot to fill his boots at everyone;s expense.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
johnofgwent
Member Avatar
It .. It is GREEN !!
[ *  *  *  * ]
Tigger
Oct 25 2014, 05:29 PM
NOBODY on the top rate of tax pays the headline amount the newspapers claim.

Anyone who does should sack their accountant immediately.
Which Dawn Primarolo tacitly admitted when she created that bastard IR35 back in 1999, for in her RIA she openly admits the people at the top will have sharp suited accountants paid handsomely from the loot they save their clients ....
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
johnofgwent
Member Avatar
It .. It is GREEN !!
[ *  *  *  * ]
Affa
Oct 25 2014, 10:03 PM
Income taxes were introduced to keep the 'well healed' well healed.
Income Tax was introduced to pay for the f*cking Napoleonic Wars ....
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Malum Unus
Member Avatar
Hater of Political Correctness and Legalese
[ *  *  * ]
johnofgwent
Oct 26 2014, 05:18 PM
Brown well and truly queered that pitch and raked in the loot to fill his boots at everyone;s expense.


Everyone else's expense, he made quite sure that MPs pensions are safe.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tytoalba
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Tigger
Oct 26 2014, 05:17 PM
CharlieandRufus
Oct 26 2014, 05:05 PM
Tigger
Oct 26 2014, 04:51 PM
CharlieandRufus
Oct 26 2014, 04:20 PM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deepbusiness now pays the least (once near all taxation was from business), and employees pay near all (>90%)

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/history/taxhis1.htm
One way to make this tax fair would be to link it to inflation, it's almost as if politicians overlooked this incredibly obvious flaw............

The nation simply could not afford the county estates of the post WW2 era hence the punitive taxes which were primarily designed to make these bastions of privilege actually pay for themselves, the deliberate act of the political classes in not upping the threshold is entirely deliberate, a country estate valued at a million in 1945 would not buy you a flat in central London these days.
I agree - but originally inheritance tax was linked to the housing market until the level was pegged at £325,000.

Inheritance tax is a fairer way of taxing wealth held in property than the mansion tax, which doesn't take into account ability to pay. If levied as proposed ( and the details are very sketchy ) the loss to the revenue in Stamp Duty and the fact that payment could be deferred until death, reducing further the tax take from IT, could well mean there is no overall gain in revenue to HMRC.
We need to discourage storing wealth in property it is economically damaging, a house just sits there looking pretty but does absolutely nothing economically worthwhile. I think I'm right in saying that two thirds of the money lent by British banks is secured against land or property, this starves productive areas of the economy of investment, most continental banks have very little by comparison backed by these two asset classes.

Take steps to lower property values and the problem solves itself, btw I have a six bedroomed house......

Eligible for the Mansion tax when Labour or the Liberals comes to power? ;D
Your not going to alter market forces. and no one likes to have the value of their properties reduced by outside forces. I expect you have drawn up a will for tax avoidance reasons?
If you have, very sensible of you, and welcome to the club. !clp!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Malum Unus
Oct 26 2014, 05:23 PM
johnofgwent
Oct 26 2014, 05:18 PM
Brown well and truly queered that pitch and raked in the loot to fill his boots at everyone;s expense.


Everyone else's expense, he made quite sure that MPs pensions are safe.

Boots that remain being filled ........ there never has been an intention to reverse that decision. >affa
Edited by Affa, Oct 26 2014, 05:59 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
johnofgwent
Oct 26 2014, 05:22 PM
Affa
Oct 25 2014, 10:03 PM
Income taxes were introduced to keep the 'well healed' well healed.
Income Tax was introduced to pay for the f*cking Napoleonic Wars ....

Same thing!
It was mentioned in the original reference

Quote:
 

Income taxes were introduced to keep the 'well healed' well healed.
Not enough that their livelihood was protected by the sacrifices of the commoner (his life) fighting the invader, but the money needed to feed and equip this cobbled army.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tigger
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Tytoalba
Oct 26 2014, 05:28 PM
Tigger
Oct 26 2014, 05:17 PM
CharlieandRufus
Oct 26 2014, 05:05 PM
Tigger
Oct 26 2014, 04:51 PM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deepbusiness now pays the least (once near all taxation was from business), and employees pay near all (>90%)

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/history/taxhis1.htm
I agree - but originally inheritance tax was linked to the housing market until the level was pegged at £325,000.

Inheritance tax is a fairer way of taxing wealth held in property than the mansion tax, which doesn't take into account ability to pay. If levied as proposed ( and the details are very sketchy ) the loss to the revenue in Stamp Duty and the fact that payment could be deferred until death, reducing further the tax take from IT, could well mean there is no overall gain in revenue to HMRC.
We need to discourage storing wealth in property it is economically damaging, a house just sits there looking pretty but does absolutely nothing economically worthwhile. I think I'm right in saying that two thirds of the money lent by British banks is secured against land or property, this starves productive areas of the economy of investment, most continental banks have very little by comparison backed by these two asset classes.

Take steps to lower property values and the problem solves itself, btw I have a six bedroomed house......

Eligible for the Mansion tax when Labour or the Liberals comes to power? ;D
Your not going to alter market forces. and no one likes to have the value of their properties reduced by outside forces. I expect you have drawn up a will for tax avoidance reasons?
If you have, very sensible of you, and welcome to the club. !clp!
As dim as ditch water yet again.

I know this is incredibly hard for you to understand but the current policy of mortgaging future generations up to the hilt so people like you can live your final years in relative prosperity is going to either bankrupt the country or lead to civil disorder.

Say this to yourself and see if it sinks in. It's not just about me but the whole country. :)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tigger
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
johnofgwent
Oct 26 2014, 05:21 PM
Tigger
Oct 25 2014, 05:29 PM
NOBODY on the top rate of tax pays the headline amount the newspapers claim.

Anyone who does should sack their accountant immediately.
Which Dawn Primarolo tacitly admitted when she created that bastard IR35 back in 1999, for in her RIA she openly admits the people at the top will have sharp suited accountants paid handsomely from the loot they save their clients ....
If you currently earn in excess of circa £70K pa you can employ the services of a tax planner and avoid much of the stuff newspapers dishonestly say you must pay.

I believe even high ranking civil servants are eligible. :'(
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Tigger
Oct 26 2014, 06:18 PM


I believe even high ranking civil servants are eligible. :'(

What can be expected when those formulating the rules, administering the rules, and are answerable to when rules are broken?

Tax avoidance goes on because these loopholes are permitted by the rules. The system is designed to encourage it.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Tytoalba
Oct 25 2014, 03:56 PM
C-too
Oct 24 2014, 08:34 AM
johnofgwent
Oct 24 2014, 08:31 AM
C-too
Oct 23 2014, 07:05 PM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deep
Labour said pensioners would be protected - but Ed Balls admitted this week that pensioners will have to pay the tax after they die.


I know everybody SAYS Mandelson is the Prince of Darkness but I take my hat off to Ed if he's got him roped in to levy a poll tax for the cooler seats ...
How does one pay a tax if they are dead?
Try death duties,.
Thats a tax on a residue of ones estate over £325 000 The ballance is taxed at 40% That is £675,000 tax which should please you enourmously.
So all those people in London with a so called mansion, eligable for a mansion tax due to the surge in London house prices that have turned many a home bought for £10 000 on a modest income, into a million pounds property through no fault of their own, are to be screwed with a mansion tax of £3000 a year on their pensions , and death duties they would never have dreamed of. Screwed twice for being prudent.
A dead person cannot pay tax, the tax is on the unearned income enjoyed by those who inherit the wealth.

As I posted earlier do you have the same defensive feelings for those forced by the 'Bedroom Tax' to either pay more rent or to move into a smaller property? Or are you only defensive of those sitting on a £2m pound jackpot?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

Tigger
Oct 26 2014, 06:18 PM
johnofgwent
Oct 26 2014, 05:21 PM
Tigger
Oct 25 2014, 05:29 PM
NOBODY on the top rate of tax pays the headline amount the newspapers claim.

Anyone who does should sack their accountant immediately.[/quote
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

Major Sinic
Oct 26 2014, 11:45 PM
Tigger
Oct 26 2014, 06:18 PM
johnofgwent
Oct 26 2014, 05:21 PM
Tigger
Oct 25 2014, 05:29 PM
NOBODY on the top rate of tax pays the headline amount the newspapers claim.

Anyone who does should sack their accountant immediately.
Which Dawn Primarolo tacitly admitted when she created that bastard IR35 back in 1999, for in her RIA she openly admits the people at the top will have sharp suited accountants paid handsomely from the loot they save their clients ....
If you currently earn in excess of circa £70K pa you can employ the services of a tax planner and avoid much of the stuff newspapers dishonestly say you must pay.

I believe even high ranking civil servants are eligible. :'(
If you have managed your affairs sensibly, used the tax concessions available and are approaching or beyond your mid fifties you could comfortably enjoy an income exceeding £50k per annum, or £100k if you are married, without paying a single penny in income or capital taxes. Admittedly you had to make enough to have the excess available to invest as you progressed through your working life, and for those investments to be moderately successful, but many successful middle income earners, miles from being truly wealthy or even being in danger of paying a mansion tax (family home tax in London), have put themselves into this situation.

First of all you will have taken maximum advantage of equity PEPs/ISAs and now NISAs. Invested in a FTSE tracker this will have, with capital growth, given a couple around £700k. With a higher risk profile this would be over £1m. Reinvested in equity income funds, direct dividend paying shares or investment trusts this would yield around £40k pa tax free. If you had also been able to accumulate further savings over a working life similarly invested these might possibly be worth a further £500k. Yield alone at around 4% will provide husband and wife with another £20k pa which just about equates to the joint tax free allowance. On £500k if you should be able to realise your capital gains tax free allowance each year as a minimum on average, which is currently £11k each so we are up to £82k. Another £400k invested in Venture Capital Trusts or Enterprise Investment Schemes should yield your final £18k tax free of course, because all dividends as well as capital growth from VCTs and EISs are free from income and capital taxes, and you even get an income tax rebate in the year you make the investment.

The above are all entirely legitimate, main stream tax avoidance measures. Not evasion, not aggressive avoidance! The only catch is that you have to earn and pay tax on the seed capital yourself to enjoy the fruits of your labours. What an incentive for some!

Now I realise Tigger that you don't like the concept of your money working for you, rather than you working for your money, but some of us think it is a fine concept.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tytoalba
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
C-too
Oct 26 2014, 10:19 PM
Tytoalba
Oct 25 2014, 03:56 PM
C-too
Oct 24 2014, 08:34 AM
johnofgwent
Oct 24 2014, 08:31 AM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deepLabour said pensioners would be protected - but Ed Balls admitted this week that pensioners will have to pay the tax after they die.


I know everybody SAYS Mandelson is the Prince of Darkness but I take my hat off to Ed if he's got him roped in to levy a poll tax for the cooler seats ...
How does one pay a tax if they are dead?
Try death duties,.
Thats a tax on a residue of ones estate over £325 000 The ballance is taxed at 40% That is £675,000 tax which should please you enourmously.
So all those people in London with a so called mansion, eligable for a mansion tax due to the surge in London house prices that have turned many a home bought for £10 000 on a modest income, into a million pounds property through no fault of their own, are to be screwed with a mansion tax of £3000 a year on their pensions , and death duties they would never have dreamed of. Screwed twice for being prudent.
A dead person cannot pay tax, the tax is on the unearned income enjoyed by those who inherit the wealth.

As I posted earlier do you have the same defensive feelings for those forced by the 'Bedroom Tax' to either pay more rent or to move into a smaller property? Or are you only defensive of those sitting on a £2m pound jackpot?
Many retired older people do just that C too. to make their ends meet and without the assistance of the council. Thy have to find their own new homes, ans py for their needs in care homes until th emoney nearly runs out. Their rates and taxes will be used tohelp those downsizing in council accomodation
Everyone adjusts to their circumstances over time, and I dont doubt that many will be pleased at the outcome, just as there will be for those that do not.
To answer your question, yes I do feel for those discomforted by the decision, just as I do for anyone else who has difficulties in their lives, but bad things happen to people every day, and in all walks of life, but we have to be pragmatic about them., and they have to move on, just s we all do.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Stan Still
Member Avatar
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
johnofgwent
Oct 26 2014, 05:22 PM
Affa
Oct 25 2014, 10:03 PM
Income taxes were introduced to keep the 'well healed' well healed.
Income Tax was introduced to pay for the f*cking Napoleonic Wars ....
Yes and still with us
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tytoalba
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Stan Still
Oct 27 2014, 10:57 AM
johnofgwent
Oct 26 2014, 05:22 PM
Affa
Oct 25 2014, 10:03 PM
Income taxes were introduced to keep the 'well healed' well healed.
Income Tax was introduced to pay for the f*cking Napoleonic Wars ....
Yes and still with us
All taxes are iniquitous, but the left just love them, especially if they don't have to pay them or the biggest proportion of them,
They see them as robbing Peter to pay Paul , especially if Peter is richer than them.
Where they are necessery for the common good and dealt with in a fair manner and essential needs, then they are seen as a necessery evil, but they are used so frequently to fight a class war, not just for the intended necessery purposes.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Stan Still
Member Avatar
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
Yes first port of call for the Class Warriors is always taxes
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Tytoalba
Oct 27 2014, 10:50 AM
C-too
Oct 26 2014, 10:19 PM
Tytoalba
Oct 25 2014, 03:56 PM
C-too
Oct 24 2014, 08:34 AM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deepLabour said pensioners would be protected - but Ed Balls admitted this week that pensioners will have to pay the tax after they die.
Try death duties,.
Thats a tax on a residue of ones estate over £325 000 The ballance is taxed at 40% That is £675,000 tax which should please you enourmously.
So all those people in London with a so called mansion, eligable for a mansion tax due to the surge in London house prices that have turned many a home bought for £10 000 on a modest income, into a million pounds property through no fault of their own, are to be screwed with a mansion tax of £3000 a year on their pensions , and death duties they would never have dreamed of. Screwed twice for being prudent.
A dead person cannot pay tax, the tax is on the unearned income enjoyed by those who inherit the wealth.

As I posted earlier do you have the same defensive feelings for those forced by the 'Bedroom Tax' to either pay more rent or to move into a smaller property? Or are you only defensive of those sitting on a £2m pound jackpot?
Many retired older people do just that C too. to make their ends meet and without the assistance of the council. Thy have to find their own new homes, ans py for their needs in care homes until th emoney nearly runs out. Their rates and taxes will be used tohelp those downsizing in council accomodation
Everyone adjusts to their circumstances over time, and I dont doubt that many will be pleased at the outcome, just as there will be for those that do not.
To answer your question, yes I do feel for those discomforted by the decision, just as I do for anyone else who has difficulties in their lives, but bad things happen to people every day, and in all walks of life, but we have to be pragmatic about them., and they have to move on, just s we all do.
Can I take it that you are therefore not against the rich being equally discommoded as are the poor?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Stan Still
Oct 27 2014, 11:21 AM
Yes first port of call for the Class Warriors is always taxes
And the first port of call for many monied people is to hang onto their own personal wealth and let the poor suffer more than they already do.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]

"No Man is an Island", and that goes for business, "No Business is an Island".
I can't imagine there is anyone that is against being rich, everybody probably aspires towards it.

But if we use the analogy of a there being a cake ...... why is it not right that those taking the biggest slice to pay the baker the bigger cost? ......... just so that he can continue to keep baking.






Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
Tigger
Oct 26 2014, 05:17 PM
CharlieandRufus
Oct 26 2014, 05:05 PM
Tigger
Oct 26 2014, 04:51 PM
CharlieandRufus
Oct 26 2014, 04:20 PM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deepbusiness now pays the least (once near all taxation was from business), and employees pay near all (>90%)

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/history/taxhis1.htm
One way to make this tax fair would be to link it to inflation, it's almost as if politicians overlooked this incredibly obvious flaw............

The nation simply could not afford the county estates of the post WW2 era hence the punitive taxes which were primarily designed to make these bastions of privilege actually pay for themselves, the deliberate act of the political classes in not upping the threshold is entirely deliberate, a country estate valued at a million in 1945 would not buy you a flat in central London these days.
I agree - but originally inheritance tax was linked to the housing market until the level was pegged at £325,000.

Inheritance tax is a fairer way of taxing wealth held in property than the mansion tax, which doesn't take into account ability to pay. If levied as proposed ( and the details are very sketchy ) the loss to the revenue in Stamp Duty and the fact that payment could be deferred until death, reducing further the tax take from IT, could well mean there is no overall gain in revenue to HMRC.
We need to discourage storing wealth in property it is economically damaging, a house just sits there looking pretty but does absolutely nothing economically worthwhile. I think I'm right in saying that two thirds of the money lent by British banks is secured against land or property, this starves productive areas of the economy of investment, most continental banks have very little by comparison backed by these two asset classes.

Take steps to lower property values and the problem solves itself, btw I have a six bedroomed house......

Absolute twaddle. There is no information that the purchasing of property is starving any other sector of funds. Borrowing costs are at an all time low and there is oodles of money looking for a good investment. Bricks and mortar are seen as a safe store of wealth and a place to keep the rain off your garage full of sports cars. As for taxing savings in preference to incomes well that will have a great effect, it will kill off savings and boost the "live now and let someone else pay later". Not only that your statement demonstrates a complete ignorance of the magnitude of taxes derived from income and no calculation to show plausibility that these can be replaced by hammering assets. Stupid ignorant Red Nag drivel.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
C-too
Oct 27 2014, 11:27 AM
Stan Still
Oct 27 2014, 11:21 AM
Yes first port of call for the Class Warriors is always taxes
And the first port of call for many monied people is to hang onto their own personal wealth and let the poor suffer more than they already do.
But that is the usual Red Nag twaddle without reference to who actually is paying the Lion's Share and actually are the largest givers to charity. The envy and spite oozes out of every vein. Get real the Poor are not supporting Britain. The Poor are being supported by those that earn the most and it is quite right that they should do so, but to castigate them in such a generalised way is not only ignorant it is positively vulgar.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tytoalba
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
C-too
Oct 27 2014, 11:25 AM
Tytoalba
Oct 27 2014, 10:50 AM
C-too
Oct 26 2014, 10:19 PM
Tytoalba
Oct 25 2014, 03:56 PM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deepLabour said pensioners would be protected - but Ed Balls admitted this week that pensioners will have to pay the tax after they die.
A dead person cannot pay tax, the tax is on the unearned income enjoyed by those who inherit the wealth.

As I posted earlier do you have the same defensive feelings for those forced by the 'Bedroom Tax' to either pay more rent or to move into a smaller property? Or are you only defensive of those sitting on a £2m pound jackpot?
Many retired older people do just that C too. to make their ends meet and without the assistance of the council. Thy have to find their own new homes, ans py for their needs in care homes until th emoney nearly runs out. Their rates and taxes will be used tohelp those downsizing in council accomodation
Everyone adjusts to their circumstances over time, and I dont doubt that many will be pleased at the outcome, just as there will be for those that do not.
To answer your question, yes I do feel for those discomforted by the decision, just as I do for anyone else who has difficulties in their lives, but bad things happen to people every day, and in all walks of life, but we have to be pragmatic about them., and they have to move on, just s we all do.
Can I take it that you are therefore not against the rich being equally discommoded as are the poor?
No problem at all, but the better off , the more enterprising. and the more forward looking , takje care of their own affairs and build up a cusion against unforseen eventualities.
I expect that your in that catergory and well protected, even one of the well off.

Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

C-too
Oct 27 2014, 11:27 AM
Stan Still
Oct 27 2014, 11:21 AM
Yes first port of call for the Class Warriors is always taxes
And the first port of call for many monied people is to hang onto their own personal wealth and let the poor suffer more than they already do.
Do you really believe that there is any obligation to pay more in taxes than the laws of our land demand?

When people earning over £100k taxable income are paying an effective marginal rate of income tax of over 60% you seriously expect them to willingly throw even more of their own money into a bottomless pit?

I have always fulfilled my legal obligations in paying my taxes, both income and capital and both corporate and personal. However our legal obligations to society are to an extent balanced by our legal rights and I also exercise my right to ensure that I pay no more in taxes than I am legally obliged to. I am still paying far more than my 'fair share'.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
Major Sinic
Oct 28 2014, 11:04 AM
C-too
Oct 27 2014, 11:27 AM
Stan Still
Oct 27 2014, 11:21 AM
Yes first port of call for the Class Warriors is always taxes
And the first port of call for many monied people is to hang onto their own personal wealth and let the poor suffer more than they already do.
Do you really believe that there is any obligation to pay more in taxes than the laws of our land demand?

When people earning over £100k taxable income are paying an effective marginal rate of income tax of over 60% you seriously expect them to willingly throw even more of their own money into a bottomless pit?

I have always fulfilled my legal obligations in paying my taxes, both income and capital and both corporate and personal. However our legal obligations to society are to an extent balanced by our legal rights and I also exercise my right to ensure that I pay no more in taxes than I am legally obliged to. I am still paying far more than my 'fair share'.
We know exactly who is paying the Lion's Share and increasingly so. We also know exactly who is bleating and demanding more, however, when challenged as to where they would cap their demands they are either coy at declaring or see no limit. You are correct it is a balance of acceptability which if tipped too far will be counterproductive. Just take a long look at France a country we should definitely not attempt to emulate. Unfortunately Milliband seems to have taken Hollande as a plausible role model.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Stan Still
Member Avatar
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
Major Sinic
Oct 28 2014, 11:04 AM
C-too
Oct 27 2014, 11:27 AM
Stan Still
Oct 27 2014, 11:21 AM
Yes first port of call for the Class Warriors is always taxes
And the first port of call for many monied people is to hang onto their own personal wealth and let the poor suffer more than they already do.
Do you really believe that there is any obligation to pay more in taxes than the laws of our land demand?

When people earning over £100k taxable income are paying an effective marginal rate of income tax of over 60% you seriously expect them to willingly throw even more of their own money into a bottomless pit?

I have always fulfilled my legal obligations in paying my taxes, both income and capital and both corporate and personal. However our legal obligations to society are to an extent balanced by our legal rights and I also exercise my right to ensure that I pay no more in taxes than I am legally obliged to. I am still paying far more than my 'fair share'.
Hear Hear well said !clp!

If I worked hard and was able to earn 1 million this year which I cannot achieve but just say that I could, after tax and NI had been deducted I would be left with £563,873, how many years would a person on the average pay have to work to match that.?.

The usual by the usual class war suspects will be trotted out to the above,

Anyone earning that is not really working, you have to wear overalls and get dirty to really know what hard work is.

If they are earning a million it can't be honest work they are at it on the fiddle

Ah they can move it off shore and pay bugger all, HMRC may have something to say about that if the money is earned here.

They must be evading tax, must be?? no more accurate is may be, or not sure but I suspect they are guilty of something.

Ah but they can afford clever accountants to avoid pay that much, yes they can so can anyone else plus however its not unlawful to take advantage of what one is permitted by law to avoid.

But nobody needs to earn that much !!!, really don't you try to earn as much as you can for your family?

Yes but I can't besides I don't need that much why should they, why can't they be like me, well if they were like you and did not earn a million, where would you get the nearly half a million in stoppages those who earn a million in a year pay into the kitty. !dvl!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
I wonder how many if any of the Usuals have put their assets, their homes up as collateral to finance a business which provides jobs for others? Without the hard graft and the risk taken by a few then there would be a lot fewer jobs. Without the likes of Gates and Jobs and many others where would these industries and jobs be? Certainly not in the imagination of any left leaning Aperatchik. If we stamp on the rewards including the outward demonstrations of success where will we be? Queuing for bread no doubt and hoping that they remembered to order the flour. If the UK was a lightly taxed country that did not already have the highest property taxes in the western World then they might be some justification, but it isn't and we have. If Gov. did not already waste a high portion of the wedge that is the Lion's Share of taxes received then yes they might have a claim, but it does it wastes and none more than the last lot. The last lot confused the Public Sector with the State and thought that there was nothing else.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
gee4444
Member Avatar
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
Oh those poor, poor rich folk, they must lie awake at night wondering how they are to pay their next tax bill. You really are a very curious case RJD. Has it escaped you that the top 10% have had their tax reduced progressively since the 70s, under both hues of political parties? Although the current shower of shite have dramatically increased the gap yet further. Yet the lowest 10% have seen their tax contribution increased. You need to consider VAT, council tax and other non direct taxes and not just your beloved (yet quite deceiving) income tax threshold figures to understand the true picture - but inconvenient facts never were your forte, were they.

A recent report suggests 96% of UK people want a more progressive tax system. You not surprisingly are clearly in the minority 4%.

And how many have the opportunity to put their house up for collateral? Maybe you should ask yourself that before predictably subjecting us all to another one of your hard boiled headed neo fascist rhetorical tirades.

Stamping on the rewards does not constitute tax reductions for the obscenely wealthy - at least not in those who possess even a modicum of a what is right and just. Greed is blatantly obvious when you open your eyes and look for it, but your types prefer to weave a myth that those at the bottom of the pile have only themselves to blame, garnished with the envy and spite BS of course, and it, like your views, stink.

Edited by gee4444, Oct 28 2014, 08:36 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
GE4444: Oh those poor, poor rich folk, they must lie awake at night wondering how they are to pay their next tax bill.

Stinks of envy and spite. Of course rich people do not lose one wink of sleep even if you would love it if they did.

GE4444: You really are a very curious case RJD. Has it escaped you that the top 10% have had their tax reduced progressively since the 70s, under both hues of political parties?

No. But I also noted that Lawson's reforms were coupled with increases in revenues. I am, unlike yourself totally disinterested in punishing people for perceived success and am only interested in optimising revenues and ensuring these are sensibly spent to the benefit of us all.

GE4444: Although the current shower of shite have dramatically increased the gap yet further.

No it has not and you offer no proof that it has. Best not take all you hear at the Red Nag as gospel. You are free to put up your evidence, you must have some otherwise it would normally be irrational to form such strong views.

GE4444: Yet the lowest 10% have seen their tax contribution increased. You need to consider VAT, council tax and other non direct taxes and not just your beloved (yet quite deceiving) income tax threshold figures to understand the true picture - but inconvenient facts never were your forte, were they.

Again where is your evidence?

GE4444: A recent report suggests 96% of UK people want a more progressive tax system. You not surprisingly are clearly in the minority 4%.

Possibly so, but 99.7% of German voters thought Hitler was a good chappy. Being in a minority is not proof of anything other than being in a smaller group.

GE4444: And how many have the opportunity to put their house up for collateral? Maybe you should ask yourself that before predictably subjecting us all to another one of your hard boiled headed neo fascist rhetorical tirades.

No idea. But the claim stands and you have not offered any evidence to refute it. As for my claim being fascistic neo or otherwise well lets just file that with the rest of your extreme left wing neo-Marxist garbage shall we? You are losing your grip GE4444 and such claims demean you and this debate.

GE4444: Stamping on the rewards does not constitute tax reductions for the obscenely wealthy - at least not in those who possess even a modicum of a what is right and just.

Please explain what is right and just and who is the Arbiter? Without such your words are just hot air.

GE4444: Greed is blatantly obvious when you open your eyes and look for it, but your types prefer to weave a myth that those at the bottom of the pile have only themselves to blame, garnished with the envy and spite BS of course, and it, like your views, stink.

Spite and envy is also very ugly and vulgar. Avarice is not to be condoned, neither is the lie that I claim that the poor, those you conclude are at the bottom of the pile, only have themselves to blame. GE4444 best you stick to facts and leave the emotional diatribe in the Tap Room. If you are not prepared to substantiate any of your increasingly emotional claims and debate in a sensible manner then please do not pretend that you are. Just say "another load of yellow bile" and I will file accordingly.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
gee4444
Member Avatar
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
More of the same old tired rhetoric, insinuations and insults from you RJD. You're probably too old to change your views on anything so it's to be expected.

I did enjoy your reference to the majority supporting Hitler being in the wrong as justification you're correct to be in the minority who think progressive tax reforms are unjustified. Quite a compelling comparison!

I'm quite aware you are totally disinterested in punishing people for perceived success (although that description is conveniently deceptive, designed to overlook their greed), for you as a Tory supporter of this Bullingdon club oligarchy are interested only in punishing the poorest and vulnerable.

You claimed risking your house as collateral should be rewarded, and to some extent I agree. So the responsibility is on you, not me, to back up your claim with figures.

Are you seriously suggesting the wealth gap hasn't widened in recent years? I do hope so, for it shows you for the bigot you clearly are.

VAT, council tax and other non direct taxes need to be considered. You want me to spoon feed you the stats? Just ask and I will.

Those with the means to pay more should pay more. That's what is just and right.
Edited by gee4444, Oct 29 2014, 05:44 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

I do agree with you RJD that the last two posts from gee4444 smack of rank envy, jealousy and are based on negative emotion rather than reason and for that reason are best ignored.

But the 'usuals' do have a valid point when they talk of the aggressive tax avoidance by large multinationals and the super rich. Unfortunately individual governments are virtually powerless to combat such aggressive avoidance because so much is outside their authority. One would have thought that the seeming all powerful undemocratic and unaccountable European Commission would have at least managed to implement some form pan-european anti tax avoidance strategy by now.

The problem is that , in Britain at least, the vast sums of tax avoided by these global operators is made up in part by onerous taxes on the professional middle classes and the 'poor rich', simply because they are an easy target. I challenged one such 'usual' to justify why a marginal tax rate of over 60% on a taxable income of just £100,000 was acceptable. Not surprisingly I did not get a reply.

The fact is that if any future government increases an already onerous tax burden on the 'entry point to the higher paid' (over a £100,000 pa) those wealth creators, entrepreneurs, inventors, investors all of whom who create jobs for others either directly or indirectly, will simply take their skills to somewhere where they are better valued, or if obliged to stay will work harder to reduce the tax they pay by fair means or foul. We are witnessing this in France at the moment. I will never agree with a system which leaves with you less than half of your income after tax.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
johnofgwent
Member Avatar
It .. It is GREEN !!
[ *  *  *  * ]
Stan Still
Oct 28 2014, 06:16 PM
But nobody needs to earn that much !!!,

Have you seen what ed is going to charge you for your gas when he gets back in ? He may say he wants to reduce bills but it was he who as bloody energy secretary landed us with the bloody green levies
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
johnofgwent
Oct 29 2014, 03:04 PM
Stan Still
Oct 28 2014, 06:16 PM
But nobody needs to earn that much !!!,

Have you seen what ed is going to charge you for your gas when he gets back in ? He may say he wants to reduce bills but it was he who as bloody energy secretary landed us with the bloody green levies

Ah; somebody has been paying attention after all.

Green taxes ....... still got them.

When wholesale prices went through the roof retail prices did rise, but the energy giants did take the bigger hit to their profits - they did absorb a lot of those increases.
Which they recovered when wholesale prices stabilised at a much lower rate ...... and have kept on reaping more since Ed M was put out of government.

I know Labour are not a favourite, nor of mine, but I'll be damned if they were not a lot more public spirited than these in government today.



Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ACH1967
Member Avatar
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
RJD
Oct 27 2014, 11:46 AM
Tigger
Oct 26 2014, 05:17 PM
CharlieandRufus
Oct 26 2014, 05:05 PM
Tigger
Oct 26 2014, 04:51 PM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deepbusiness now pays the least (once near all taxation was from business), and employees pay near all (>90%)

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/history/taxhis1.htm
I agree - but originally inheritance tax was linked to the housing market until the level was pegged at £325,000.

Inheritance tax is a fairer way of taxing wealth held in property than the mansion tax, which doesn't take into account ability to pay. If levied as proposed ( and the details are very sketchy ) the loss to the revenue in Stamp Duty and the fact that payment could be deferred until death, reducing further the tax take from IT, could well mean there is no overall gain in revenue to HMRC.
We need to discourage storing wealth in property it is economically damaging, a house just sits there looking pretty but does absolutely nothing economically worthwhile. I think I'm right in saying that two thirds of the money lent by British banks is secured against land or property, this starves productive areas of the economy of investment, most continental banks have very little by comparison backed by these two asset classes.

Take steps to lower property values and the problem solves itself, btw I have a six bedroomed house......

Absolute twaddle. There is no information that the purchasing of property is starving any other sector of funds. Borrowing costs are at an all time low and there is oodles of money looking for a good investment. Bricks and mortar are seen as a safe store of wealth and a place to keep the rain off your garage full of sports cars. As for taxing savings in preference to incomes well that will have a great effect, it will kill off savings and boost the "live now and let someone else pay later". Not only that your statement demonstrates a complete ignorance of the magnitude of taxes derived from income and no calculation to show plausibility that these can be replaced by hammering assets. Stupid ignorant Red Nag drivel.
I am going to go out on a limb here and suggest RJD doens't like the idea of having his assets taxed, it does sound painful mind.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
gee4444
Member Avatar
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
Major Sickness: I do agree with you RJD that the last two posts from gee4444 smack of rank envy, jealousy and are based on negative emotion rather than reason and for that reason are best ignored.


Well of course you do, you share his politics. It's a standard response when your hackneyed views are questioned. To claim envy and jealousy (aren't they the really the same?) and spite (surprised you omitted that one, have you lost your manual?) allows you and your types to avoid the issues raised.

I'll ask you the same questions, maybe I'll have more luck obtaining a reasonable reply:

Are you seriously suggesting the wealth gap hasn't widened in recent years?
VAT, council tax and other non direct taxes need to be considered when evaluating which groups pay the most taxes. Is that not true?

Edited by gee4444, Oct 29 2014, 05:40 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
gee4444
Member Avatar
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
johnofgwent
Oct 29 2014, 03:04 PM
Stan Still
Oct 28 2014, 06:16 PM
But nobody needs to earn that much !!!,

Have you seen what ed is going to charge you for your gas when he gets back in ? He may say he wants to reduce bills but it was he who as bloody energy secretary landed us with the bloody green levies
The solution is simple. Renationalise.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
gee4444
Oct 29 2014, 05:42 PM
johnofgwent
Oct 29 2014, 03:04 PM
Stan Still
Oct 28 2014, 06:16 PM
But nobody needs to earn that much !!!,

Have you seen what ed is going to charge you for your gas when he gets back in ? He may say he wants to reduce bills but it was he who as bloody energy secretary landed us with the bloody green levies
The solution is simple. Renationalise.
yes of course the list of successes of nationalised industries is so long isn't it  ::)



Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
gee4444
Member Avatar
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
Steve K
Oct 29 2014, 06:28 PM
gee4444
Oct 29 2014, 05:42 PM
johnofgwent
Oct 29 2014, 03:04 PM
Stan Still
Oct 28 2014, 06:16 PM
But nobody needs to earn that much !!!,

Have you seen what ed is going to charge you for your gas when he gets back in ? He may say he wants to reduce bills but it was he who as bloody energy secretary landed us with the bloody green levies
The solution is simple. Renationalise.
yes of course the list of successes of nationalised industries is so long isn't it  ::)



But not nearly as long as the list of privatised disasters eh? Disasters for the UK general population that is, and not the greedy minority.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
Yes I will bear that in mind every time I use the telephone system, the one the nationalised idiocy would have denied me.

Nationalisation has been a stream of disasters. A triumph of dogma over practicality. It is the right solution in a very few cases as it denies the competition to keep the efficiency improving.

Lets just focus on the Gas industry you wanted renationalised. Any nationalised gas industries in other countries you would say work well?
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Oct 29 2014, 06:28 PM
gee4444
Oct 29 2014, 05:42 PM
johnofgwent
Oct 29 2014, 03:04 PM
Stan Still
Oct 28 2014, 06:16 PM
But nobody needs to earn that much !!!,

Have you seen what ed is going to charge you for your gas when he gets back in ? He may say he wants to reduce bills but it was he who as bloody energy secretary landed us with the bloody green levies
The solution is simple. Renationalise.
yes of course the list of successes of nationalised industries is so long isn't it  ::)




Nationalisation is not a failed concept!

The failures were all a consequence of Tory governments having no desire for Nationalisation to succeed.

I ask that instead of judging the practice, judge those in charge of it - harshly.
There can be no reason at all for any Nationalised industry/service provider not to be able to compete and beat those that are privatised - it all boils down to how they are managed, how they are made to perform, the level of investment, and the commitment to succeed.






Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Enjoy forums? Start your own community for free.
Learn More · Register for Free
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics · Next Topic »
Add Reply