Ge 2017

FairwayDodger said:
Taxation is the price we pay to live in a civilised society. Progressive taxation based on the ability to pay seems perfectly fair to me.
Click to expand...

..and with taxation the old saying applies - many a mickle makes a muckle. And that would not apply if we all chose how much to give to the cause of our own choice at a frequency of our own choosing missing giving payments whenever it didn't suit. That's why charities are so keen to encourage DD regular giving, it enables them to budget and plan significant projects.
 
I am guessing those earning 90k would pay up, and many of them are paye and would have no choice. The tax avoiders are the people on many times this sum, where it becomes worthwhile.

It still misses the point though. Why are a couple earning 70k each less rich than an individual earning 80k?
 
Let's face it. Both main party's will only put up taxes if they have to . No matter how fair or unfair those who aren't going to be affected by it think it, it's a guaranteed vote loser. As for the great speeches on closing tax loop holes, both main party's have had the opportunity in the past and done nothing.
 
I actually think Labour are quite happy on this occasion to be putting up taxes as they are looking to clearly differentiate between themselves and the Conservatives. They are making a clear play for a particular voter and they think that by raising taxes on the rest it will appeal to that first bunch of voters. They have written off the rich as potential Labour voters and so are making no attempt to attract them. That is my reading of the Corbyn era. A very different approach to the Blair era which realised you need to attract all groups in the country. He won 3 elections, mmmmmmmmmmmmmm
 
murphthemog said:
I am guessing those earning 90k would pay up, and many of them are paye and would have no choice. The tax avoiders are the people on many times this sum, where it becomes worthwhile.

It still misses the point though. Why are a couple earning 70k each less rich than an individual earning 80k?
Click to expand...

Fairly obviously because we are quite rightly taxed on an individual basis.
 
And so Phillip Hammond rubbishing the Labour Party manifesto: the figures don't add up, uncosted promises; reckless borrowing; Labour putting at risk the success of the last 7 years growth in the economy, employment at record high, unemployment low.

Now...

> The economy and all it delivers is so fabulous - is that not a keystone of the case for Remaining in the EU as this successful economy has been built in the context of the EU and trade with the EU?

> The Labour Party proposals putting everything at risk? Well as nobody can tell us the outcome of the EU leave negotiations and what the economy will look like post-Brexit, with such uncertainly that in itself by definition puts our economic position at significant risk.

> Labour's uncosted proposals? See above. We don't know how much leaving will cost us. We don't know what leaving will mean as we don't know the terms of re-engagement with the EU; nor do we know the nature of any deals we will seek to strike with the wider world.

But putting all that aside. What is the cost or benefit to the UK of No Deal. No Deal is clearly independent of any deal with the EU. So what will No Deal mean. I'll be looking for a costing in the Supreme Leader's Manifesto. I note that this is a differentiator between Labour and the Supreme Leader, with Labour No Deal is not an option.

> Borrowing. Well let's look at the performance of the Tory Government over the last 7 yrs. Let's look at some FACTS. In 2007 the UK National Debt was £767bn. And we were told that we need austerity to reduce and eventually pay that off and balance the books by 2020 the Tories told us. And we have had those painful austerity measures - and who has felt the pain? Well the poorest of course. Meanwhile the 2020 target has been kicked into the long grass.

Anyway - and so to today - after 7 years of a growing and successful economy and all the austerity measures, what is the UK National Debt. Well knock me down with a feather Clever Trevor. It's £1,730bn - yes, in 7 years and despite everything, the UK National Debt has more than doubled - in FACT it's gone up by nearly £1,000bn. That's £143bn a year. Rather makes the Labour Party borrowing intentions, even when inflated by the acolytes of the SLP (Supreme Leader Party), seem a rather good idea and quite affordable.

And we'll be looking at the vacuity and hollowness of the SLP's 'I am the party of working people' boast later in the week when we see what her manifesto has to offer.
 
Last edited:
murphthemog said:
I am guessing those earning 90k would pay up, and many of them are paye and would have no choice. The tax avoiders are the people on many times this sum, where it becomes worthwhile.

It still misses the point though. Why are a couple earning 70k each less rich than an individual earning 80k?
Click to expand...

They are £10k less rich in income as they don't earn as much. At £70k joint, neither will pay additional IT under the Labour Party proposals. That at couple jointly earning £90K will not be impacted whilst an individual earning £90K will pay about £10/week more in IT is simply a fact of Income Tax life. Lines have to be drawn somewhere. If the £90K is the total income for a couple or family I suggest that paying an additional £10/week in IT isn't going to significantly impact their lives - at £90K a family income is about 4x the national individual average. So doing OK - not 'just managing'.
 
Old Skier said:
But is it fair?
Click to expand...

By asking 'is it fair' you imply that there is an aspect of 'unfairness'. But if I as an individual earn £90k I should be grateful and happy to be able to pay a little more (£10/week) into the common pot for the good of others and not just for the good of myself. Because that's the way a civilised, compassionate, caring and mature society works. It works for the many and not just for the self and the few.

On a bit of a tangent but nonetheless related, later this week I shall be knocking on the doors of my street collecting for Christian Aid. I wonder how many - in my relatively extremely well-off part of the UK - will pop £10 in the little red envelope. After all - I ask for this on behalf of others only once a year. I suspect I will find quite a lot of closed doors and 'no thanks'. I shall report back...:)
 
Last edited:
SwingsitlikeHogan said:
By asking 'is it fair' you imply that there is an aspect of 'unfairness'. But if I as an individual earn £90k I should be grateful and happy to be able to pay a little more (£100/week) into the common pot for the good of others and not just for the good of myself. Because that's the way a civilised, compassionate, caring and mature society works. It works for the many and not just for the self and the few.
Click to expand...

I'm implying nothing. I asked a question and if you for 1 minute could take your blinkers off you my have noticed. You can answer it then.

If couple A earn £80K (in total) and are taxed at a higher rate,
Should couple B who earn £70K each be taxed on the £140K that they can earn?

my thoughts are, - is it fair.
 
Old Skier said:
I'm implying nothing. I asked a question and if you for 1 minute could take your blinkers off you my have noticed. You can answer it then.

If couple A earn £80K (in total) and are taxed at a higher rate,
Should couple B who earn £70K each be taxed on the £140K that they can earn?

my thoughts are, - is it fair.
Click to expand...

Your question is about how Income Tax is applied and does not seem to relate to the Labour Party proposals. But since you asked.

As far as I am concerned I do not care how much my neighbour pays or does not pay in IT. If I can afford to pay what I am asked to pay then I happily pay, if I feel it is a struggle to pay I accept that I have to pay and so will happily pay. If I do not care what my neighbour pays then the notion of fairness/unfairness does not come into it. These things only really come into play if I look at my neighbour with envy or resentment.

I note that the couple on joint £80k could both be earning £40K and so neither would be paying IT at the current 40% higher rate. Couple B would both be taxed at 40%
 
SwingsitlikeHogan said:
Your question is about how Income Tax is applied and does not seem to relate to the Labour Party proposals. But since you asked.

As far as I am concerned I do not care how much my neighbour pays or does not pay in IT. If I can afford to pay what I am asked to pay then I happily pay, if I feel it is a struggle to pay I accept that I have to pay and so will happily pay. If I do not care what my neighbour pays then the notion of fairness/unfairness does not come into it. These things only really come into play if I look at my neighbour with envy or resentment.

I note that the couple on joint £80k could both be earning £40K and so neither would be paying IT at the current 40% higher rate. Couple B would both be taxed at 40%
Click to expand...

The answer was yes or no. See FD respons. I personally don't care either way and as you are someone that insists on fairness I was only after your take on it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

C
Surrey Golf Course Membership
2 3
Replies
50
Views
3K
Doon frae Troon
D
R
motocaddy s1 pro doesn't stop
Replies
1
Views
718
Ridger
R
Klimski
Honma TW XP-1 driver
Replies
7
Views
860
Orikoru
Orikoru
Crazyface
Competition Secretary
2
Replies
23
Views
2K
irip
I
G
Powakaddy CT6 intermittent problem
Replies
0
Views
1K
Grimmett
G
Top