| 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: |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| Deficit cut by 50% BS. | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Dec 30 2014, 04:20 PM (1,007 Views) | |
| RJD | Dec 30 2014, 04:20 PM Post #1 |
|
Prudence and Thrift
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Claim:
Now known as the "Ed Balls false proxy tactic. ![]() Looks like there is yet a long way to go. |
![]() |
|
| Affa | Dec 30 2014, 05:40 PM Post #2 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
OK; Who's masquerading as RJD? Just say that as far as I am concerned the only reliable/informative measure of the deficit is %age GDP. I also feel it necessary to reiterate that it is entirely possible to eliminate the defict in a year ......... through taxation. The restrictions being to what extent an increased tax burden would have that is detrimental to the size of the economy as a whole. Currently the tax burden is historically LOW. Much lower than it was when Mrs T was experiencing a deficit problem. Edited by Affa, Dec 30 2014, 05:48 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| RJD | Dec 31 2014, 08:40 AM Post #3 |
|
Prudence and Thrift
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Best if you put some numbers up. Try to prove your claims. Start with the one about raising enough tax to cover the deficit and tell us how you expect to do this on a sustainable basis. Once you have done that how about Brown's Burden, the mountain of debt? Are you going to raise taxes even further to pay this off or are you going to suggest that the Chancellor buys Premium Bonds or Lottery Tickets. As for taxes you always avoid absolutes and hide behind ratios. Just a tip wages are paid as absolute values. |
![]() |
|
| Steve K | Dec 31 2014, 01:37 PM Post #4 |
|
Once and future cynic
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I'd say that Deficit/GDP measure is at best the least worst. GDP is a very strange measure. If I sell you a cake for £1 and you sell it back to me for the same £1 then in GDP terms that's £2 but in reality no worth or value has been added. And you say taxation could have eliminated the deficit "in a year" How? Just about any proposal the left have suggested would eliminate the deficit FOR a year. The year it would take talent to flee the country leaving a god awful abyss. And your comment about Thatcher is highly misleading. She inherited a high tax burden from Callaghan's abyss and steadily reduced it. New Lab of course increased it. A good read here http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2010/apr/25/tax-receipts-1963 I would have increased VAT and taxes on static wealth (all in it together) but at best I'd get £50B a year out of that. The way to cut the deficit is to get people into worthwhile employment, that cuts benefits both now and pension credits in retirement. To do that we need to retain and attract top talent here - and we ain't going to do that with our current top income tax rate of 60% are we? |
![]() |
|
| Lewis | Dec 31 2014, 03:20 PM Post #5 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Wrong yet again Stevie Boy, for the top rate of income tax is 45% and not 60% as yo have stated. Your bias and credibility gap expands, no end! You must get lessons on hypocrisy from your boss, RJD. |
![]() |
|
| Affa | Dec 31 2014, 05:00 PM Post #6 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I did not say the deficit should be reduced in one year, I said it could be, and gave the caveat required ........ but it is true that the UK is able to withstand a higher burden of taxation than it currently does. If getting the deficit down, borrowing down, debt interest payments down, is the FIRST priority of this government, then it has ignored the most obvious method to do so. Which causes me to doubt the rhetoric ........ and see another priority they do not reveal. From your link > the tax BURDEN/revenue in 1979 when Mrs T took over was 32.8% GDP. It rose thereafter to a peek of 37.6% GDP in 1985 - six years in, six years of higher taxes. In fact it wasn't until 1994 (under John Major) that the tax burden returned to be below the level Mrs T inherited. Mrs T was gathering and spending more of the UK produced wealth than in any long term peace period ever! |
![]() |
|
| Lewis | Dec 31 2014, 07:49 PM Post #7 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Totally agree the Tory record is fundamentally abysmal. Steve K obviously can't read graphical information. He has truly shot himself in the foot over this. Must have been taking lessons in misreading information from his leader RJD. |
![]() |
|
| Nonsense | Jan 1 2015, 04:20 PM Post #8 |
|
Regular Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I may be wrong, but, to my knowledge, since taxation was first used(to fund war), no government in history has ever balanced the accounts, that is to match all annual spending by equal receipts of taxes,ALL have engaged in 'deficit' spending. Again, from that inability, to my knowledge, no government has ever brought the National Debt to balance, hence the formation\existence of the Bank of England. Were there a legal restraint on government(not much chance of that)against creating debt, the realities of life would, I'm sure, have a chilling effect on the political class of this country, particularly if there were sanctions arising on Ministers from such constraints. The more certain effects would arise from the reactions of the populace, who would certainly demand 100% openness in the administration of spending & tax policy. |
![]() |
|
| Steve K | Jan 1 2015, 04:37 PM Post #9 |
|
Once and future cynic
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Nope, for income between £100k and £120k it is 60%. It's not like that fact hasn't been posted up before but what was it I mentioned about reading and remembering? Go on have a free link or two: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/tax/10828657/Tax-system-flaws-leave-professionals-paying-60-per-cent.html http://everyinvestor.co.uk/2014/05/01/beware-marginal-income-tax-60/ and other links are available I await your apology |
![]() |
|
| Lewis | Jan 1 2015, 06:30 PM Post #10 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Nothing at all to apologise for as the references you have cited are either incorrect or at best misleading. I'll give an example: Income of £118,000 (based on 2013 - 2014 tax year) They'll pay tax of: Taxable income (no personal allowance) £118,000 Basic rate tax £32,010 @ 20% = £6,402 Higher rate tax £85,990 @ 40% = £34,396 Total tax payable = £40,798 Effective rate = 34.6% or 37.8% (allowing for the loss of £9,000 tax free allowance). Even less for this year as the loss of allowance is £10,000 for an income of £120,000. Source HMRC https://www.gov.uk/income-tax-rates Even if you were to argue differently, there are still three rates of income tax for the majority of people namely: 20%, 40% or 45% Edited by Lewis, Jan 1 2015, 06:44 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Lewis | Jan 1 2015, 07:48 PM Post #11 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
For the benefit of the numbskulls, this years figures based on an income of £118,000 are: Income of £118,000 (based on 2014 - 2015 tax year) They'll pay tax of: Taxable income (less personal allowance of £1,000) = £117,000 Basic rate tax £31,865 @ 20% = £6,373 Higher rate tax £85,135 @ 40% = £34,054 Total tax payable = £40,427 Effective rate = 34.3% Edited by Lewis, Jan 1 2015, 07:49 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Steve K | Jan 2 2015, 12:05 PM Post #12 |
|
Once and future cynic
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Well Lewis you have outed yourself as a shallow little **** The top rate of tax on income between £100k and £120k is 60% isn't it, just like I said and because you couldn't get your head round that you went all offensive with your insults rather than check the facts properly. And now you desperately twist and turn rather than fess up and apologise like a man would do. And now you'll have to wait a whole year to try and get a calendar year of credible posting. We can add 2015 to 2011, 12, 13 & 14 as a year tarnished with your inane tribal rants. |
![]() |
|
| Lewis | Jan 2 2015, 03:10 PM Post #13 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Firstly where have I personally insulted you to any great extent? On the contrary the tone of your recent postings towards me suggest that you are doing the most of the insulting anyway, not that this cuts any ice with me. Frankly I couldn't be bothered with that so your derogatory comments are largely ignored anyway. Perhaps you need anger management training? You refer to a tax rate of 60%, yet with a maximum rate of 40% for that level of income, even if we ignore the effects of the 20% rate, it can't be anything otherwise. You are not looking holistically obviously. As I have correctly stated there are only three main rates of income tax in the UK, namely 20, 40 and 45%. I therefore await your apology, but I won't be holding my breath for that! |
![]() |
|
| AndyK | Jan 2 2015, 03:22 PM Post #14 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
You can't win this one, you are just wrong. For every pound you receive over £100k and up to £120k, you will only get 40p in your pocket. That is 60% and there is no way you can spin it any other way. Edited by AndyK, Jan 2 2015, 03:23 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Lewis | Jan 2 2015, 03:27 PM Post #15 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Please demonstrate? I already have looked at this holistically and have provided the calculations above. The total tax payable on a income of that level is less than 35%, how can it be otherwise? Moreover Steve K stated that the tax rate is 60% yet the maximum tax rate published by HMRC is 40%, if anyone suggest otherwise for that level of income they are talking out of the areas where the sun doesn't shine! Edited by Lewis, Jan 2 2015, 03:30 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| AndyK | Jan 2 2015, 03:42 PM Post #16 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Do you know where the government gets its 40% tax rate from an why its different to your calculated rate? Figure that one out then you might figure out where you cocked up in your calculations. |
![]() |
|
| Lewis | Jan 2 2015, 03:48 PM Post #17 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Please demonstrate by calculation. Until you provide a full verifiable précis, how can we decide otherwise or not as the case is more likely to be? BTW these are not my calculations but those of HMRC and other reliable sources. Demonstrate how these are incorrect? Edited by Lewis, Jan 2 2015, 03:50 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| AndyK | Jan 2 2015, 03:55 PM Post #18 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Did you not read the links posted? For every £2 above £100K, you lose £1 of tax allowance, that moves the whole tax band downwards. So calculate the effect of that for an income of £100K, then do it again for £110K and you will find that £10K increase results in an additional £4K in your pay packet. So the tax rate from £100K to £121K is 60%. |
![]() |
|
| Lewis | Jan 2 2015, 04:17 PM Post #19 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Yes but you are not looking holistically (that is the whole tax take). It is quite incorrect to look solely at a narrow band of income, you need to look at the whole of the tax burden and consider it rather than a fraction in isolation. |
![]() |
|
| RJD | Jan 2 2015, 05:05 PM Post #20 |
|
Prudence and Thrift
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I do not think that individuals calculate their personal taxes on the basis of nation revenues. "Holistically" in this sense means the whole and complete taxes of the individual. What do they say about BS? Is it if it looks and smells like such then it likely is BS? |
![]() |
|
| Lewis | Jan 2 2015, 07:12 PM Post #21 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Well BS is in the nose of the beholder in this instance and not in an holistic sense. To settle this once and for all I quote directly from the following website: https://www.gov.uk/income-tax-rates Income tax rates Tax rate Taxable income above your Personal Allowance Basic rate 20% £0 to £31,865 Most people start paying basic rate tax on income over £10,000 Higher rate 40% £31,866 to £150,000 Most people start paying higher rate tax on income over £41,865 Additional rate 45% Over £150,000 Example You have £35,000 of taxable income and your Personal Allowance is £10,000. You pay basic rate tax at 20% on £25,000 (£35,000 minus £10,000). Edited by Lewis, Jan 2 2015, 07:13 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Steve K | Jan 2 2015, 08:41 PM Post #22 |
|
Once and future cynic
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
It doesn't settle it once and for all at all As Andy has demonstrated But to be clear If you earn £120k you will get £72742 as take home pay (£41,627 goes as tax and £5631 as NI) If you earn £100k you will get £65142 as take home pay (£29,627 goes as tax and £5231 as NI) Of that extra £20k in earnings the HMRC took £12,400 and that's a marginal rate of 62% * The effect on the UK retaining key job creating talent can be little short of disastrous. And Lewis you are always insulting me and indeed anyone that doesn't sing the Red Flag daily, seems you aren't man enough to take it back. If you want a truce just stop throwing the shite. * In addition to income tax, HMRC level 2% NI contributions on those earnings for which the payer gets absolutely nothing in return IE a tax |
![]() |
|
| krugerman | Jan 2 2015, 09:52 PM Post #23 |
|
Regular Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Both Cameron and Osborne are noted for making missleading statements, and if you dont believe me, as the boss of the ONS or the Office for Budget Responsibility, claims of increased spending in real terms on the NHS blasted apart comes to mind. Without going into lots of detail, or using statistics to veil truths, Cameron today told a lie (again), he claimed the deficit had halved, it hasent, and its really as simple as that. |
![]() |
|
| Steve K | Jan 2 2015, 10:10 PM Post #24 |
|
Once and future cynic
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
There you go again using that vile pejorative "lie" to ruin what had been until then a good post. Worth reading today's Guardian on the point http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jan/02/david-cameron-launch-election-campaign-deficit-claim-conservatives
Now if you see that as an appalling deception then why did you not go after Affa when he wrote this earlier in the thread? So is this Tory election poster kosher, misleading or a lie? ![]() I'll go with 'misleading' and that will hurt them. Dumb Edited by Steve K, Jan 2 2015, 10:12 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Lewis | Jan 2 2015, 10:43 PM Post #25 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Oh no it doesn't mean a thing. Your argument is that by looking at a small band of taxation means that for some miraculous reason the 40% tax rate becomes 60%. It is still 40% that is applied, but all can comprehend that the tax free allowance is gradually phased out for incomes between these two limits. However tHe rate at which taxation is applied is still 40%, no matter how you try to allege that it is different. Now you throw in an additional 2% to allow for NI, it gets even more comical! Anyway I would have thought that you would have approved for it adds some weight to one of your leaderships comical claim that "We are all in this together" and that the moderately well off are paying their fair share. As for insults Steve, you are always aiming them in my direction as the previous posts are testament. BTW I don't sing the Red Flag daily as I'm not a left winger, more an occupier of the central ground. Frankly the insults you throw are more indicative of your own character defects. Do you really think that I have taken any notice of them except that they are highly amusing. Keep it up if you wish, I'm not that bothered. Edited by Lewis, Jan 3 2015, 08:09 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Affa | Jan 2 2015, 11:50 PM Post #26 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Misleading, cautious, deceptive, all these and more ......... Cameron said “Yes, we have cut the deficit in half as a share of our economy but, in the next parliament – the next five years – I want that deficit eradicated completely.” So here it is again, the same escapism practiced when declaring he would reduce immigration to tens of thousands - it is a 'want', not a promise, not even an expectation, but a desire. Who doesn't desire the deficit to be eradicated? Cameron treats us as idiots, and deserves to be treated as the deceiver he is. Oh, and this is in France ........ Edited by Affa, Jan 3 2015, 12:07 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| johnofgwent | Jan 3 2015, 11:28 AM Post #27 |
|
It .. It is GREEN !!
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
SteveK: "I'll go with 'misleading'" Personally, and I think this is down to a matter of taste, I rather like the Independent's take on it. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/tories-accused-of-lying-in-campaign-poster-that-claims-deficit-has-halved-9954930.html If I understand this correctly, somehow, and god alone knows how the clown has managed it, Osborne has actually managed to milk us hard enough to pay off one third of what "the deficit" was in cash terms when he took the job, but differences in the economy between then and now (probably the addition of earnings from prostitution not declared to the EU into official figures?) mean that if you use this chalk and cheese set of figures, you can, misleadingly, make yoursefl out to be better than you are. What ANYONE would believe it, or why anyone would believe Milliband will not be equally inventive with their spin, beats me. Bonus Point: Is is me, or have we seen a return to "Airbrushed Dave" in that image of Cameron superimposed on the independent's rendition of the election poster Second Bonus Point: All I see on that tory poster is a winding road to nowhere |
![]() |
|
| Lewis | Jan 3 2015, 11:31 AM Post #28 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
As Paul McCartney said "It's a long and winding road". However for most people the Tory road is more akin to Chris Rea's "Road to Hell". |
![]() |
|
| Tigger | Jan 3 2015, 11:42 AM Post #29 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
The reality is rather different at this level and above, if you can talk your employer into just paying you your earnings in full and allowing you to sort out the tax yourself with the aid of a tax planner you will not pay anywhere near these sums. There was even a case in the Eye a couple of years ago that reported that several high ranking officials at HMRC had just such a set up and had "wages" paid into trusts and offshore accounts which they then brought back into the UK as dividends from "investments"! |
![]() |
|
| johnofgwent | Jan 3 2015, 12:22 PM Post #30 |
|
It .. It is GREEN !!
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
How EXACTLY does that work again ? There are all manner of schemes and scams that generally involve a run-in (which for anyone who ever sold anything to the arabs is a joke) with "North West 5 Trusts And Settlements" or whatever they morphed into after the DSS merged with the IR and H M Customs to be one big amorphous slab, but I'd like to hear more about how I can just "talk" my employer into "paying me in full and letting me sort it out" without said employer getting a slapping for "failing to make proper deductions". I can put you in touch with a few such if you like ... |
![]() |
|
| Steve K | Jan 3 2015, 02:26 PM Post #31 |
|
Once and future cynic
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Lewis you should find a copy of today's Times and their take on that poster - you will like it (sadly I'm not allowed to post it) |
![]() |
|
| johnofgwent | Jan 3 2015, 02:37 PM Post #32 |
|
It .. It is GREEN !!
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I found a copy of the HINDUSTAN times that seems worth a read http://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/cameron-launches-poll-campaign-poster-mocked/article1-1302964.aspx |
![]() |
|
| johnofgwent | Jan 3 2015, 02:46 PM Post #33 |
|
It .. It is GREEN !!
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
![]() I wonder how this is going now ? How are house prices today compared to 2010 and how many have been pushed into the IHT bracket by being fool enough to have bought one a while ago ?? |
![]() |
|
| krugerman | Jan 3 2015, 03:08 PM Post #34 |
|
Regular Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
What the Tories have done, is to start off the election campaign using dishonesty, rather than be open, transparent and honest with the public. In 2010 when the Conservative led coalition took over, the deficit was £134 billion, it is now £91 billion. If George and David think that half of 134 is 91, then there s little wonder that every forecast they have made since taking office has been blown way off course. |
![]() |
|
| Steve K | Jan 3 2015, 04:41 PM Post #35 |
|
Once and future cynic
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Ah stuff the rules, just to cheer Lewis up
|
![]() |
|
| Tigger | Jan 3 2015, 07:23 PM Post #36 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
IHT in it's present form was brought in after WW2, the nation could simply not afford the upkeep of vast estates that prior to the war existed mainly because much of the activity that went on in these little fiefdoms was exempt from tax, one exception was made though, agricultural land was free from inheritance tax so as to encourage essential food production. This worked as intended for at least three decades, the problems started in the late seventies as money was "stored" in farmland, and naturally rising housing costs caught more people in the net. The sensible thing to have done was to crack down on this obvious abuse and raise the IHT threshold to reflect it's original purpose. Of course it has deliberately not been changed because of the now unintended advantages in confers on the super rich and the disadvantages it imposes on social upstarts who have gained "wealth" simply because they have a home in a fashionable or desirable area. This is one of those self bullshitting British situations where apparently intelligent people sit around and scratch their heads in search of an answer. |
![]() |
|
| Lewis | Jan 3 2015, 07:48 PM Post #37 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I read the Times as it happens and yes I have seen it and had a chuckle. Odd thing is, that it is true. A truer thing said in jest. |
![]() |
|
| disgruntled porker | Jan 3 2015, 07:49 PM Post #38 |
|
Older than most people think I am.
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I don't think it can be called lying. What it can be called is "pissing up the electorates back." I think he will find that the electorate are not as daft as he would like them to be. |
![]() |
|
| Lewis | Jan 3 2015, 07:53 PM Post #39 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Simple arithmetic or economics were never Giddies strongest point. As for Scammers, we all know he is as shallow as that flattened hedgehog in the cartoon. |
![]() |
|
| Tigger | Jan 3 2015, 08:19 PM Post #40 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
You'll like this one, as did tax dodging pop group Take That! (tuneless twats) Use your income to set up a business because you get tax relief on business investment, a good idea because it promotes employment and jobs, however if you set up a business say as a talent agency with staff (mates and family members) you can then pump large amounts of money into the enterprise paying wages to those mates and of course make large profits which you then pay yourself, and all done with business rates of tax and not tax rates of tax! Fortunately a judge ruled it a scam and they had to pay their owed taxes...... |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Politics · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2




![]](http://z5.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)







2:33 PM Jul 11