What happens if an individual has interests above the state? Do you put them in prison or do you them shoot them? Stalin did both.The left has been infused with Liberalism, i am not a liberal, Starmer et al are Liberal left. The tories have banished their liberal right into obscurity. I am quite happy to state that i am on the authoritarian left, i believe in the state rather than liberal individualism. The new right like Reform etc are authoritarian as well, they are not statist though they are hyper individualists.
We are though as a nation a small "c" conservative electorate who believes in British values such as fairness, equality, family and community.
In my view rampant individualism "dog eats dog society" destroys the very fabric of our nation. That is what makes me a Socialist, I believe people are better when people work together, when communities stand together, when we have solidarity of class against the interests of those with wealth and as a nation we distribute the wealth of the nation in a more equitable manner.
Nobody should be homeless, no one should be hungry or afraid to put the heating on, everyone should have the very best education available and everyone should have cradle to grave healthcare for free at the point of use.
We need to find ourselves again, a country that does not look down on those less fortunate, but applauds those who have done well, the divisive rhetoric of the idiotic "culture" wars has to subside. We Brits are good people, I love my country, OK i might not have a bulldog avatar or call myself a patriot but I want the very best for every person in this country and only then can we be a better country.
I don't understand, if a UK citizen has interests above the state, what will happen?What happens if an individual has interests above the state? Do you put them in prison or do you them shoot them?
1. Not sure you can say that only earned money is used to buy shares, there’s plenty of untaxed or unearned income invested in sharesWell for 1 reason, money invested to buy the shares which bring the dividend has already being taxed, so taxing the dividend is in effect double taxation of the earned income.
I'm talking here about the working man (or woman for the PC brigade) using his earned money to build a better future for his family rather than pissing it all up the wall or on the latest iphone every 6 months.
1 - read my post, I'm talking about the working man, hence earned income1. Not sure you can say that only earned money is used to buy shares, there’s plenty of untaxed or unearned income invested in shares
2. ISAs allow you to invest £20k per annum into shares with absolutely no tax and most ordinary working people don’t have enough spare to fill their ISA allowance,
3.Dividends are unearned income taxed at a lower rate than normal PAYE earnings Most people unless they are already very wealthy would struggle to use theses allowances
I suspect your definition of working man is rather different to mine and to statistical mean income levels in this country.1 - read my post, I'm talking about the working man, hence earned income
2 - I'm aware, however that allowance hasn't increased in a number of years
3 - Again, I'm aware, but there are share categories (ie fractions of shares) which cannot be held in ISA's, and (I may be wrong here I'm no expert) provide access to blue chip shares at a lower cost, hence would be attractive to small investors. Your idea would penalise the "poorest" of investors using earned money to try and improve their lot, as well as those wealthy enough to be in a position to invest above the 20k annual limit.
Dividend income from shares can be compared to interest in that it's the way your money grows (along with share price obviously, which can go both ways) so at best I would agree such income should be taxed the same as bank interest with the same allowances, I would argue however that as investing is both more risky than savings, and more benefit to the economy, that taxation should be less onerous
I'm not sure if even Rascal fancies endorsement by the Chinese Communist Party.This is the most impressive post I have ever read in this forum so far.
My definition of a working man is someone who goes to work 40 hours a week give or take, from the age of 16. Whats your definition?I suspect your definition of working man is rather different to mine and to statistical mean income levels in this country.
The fact that the ISA allowance has not increased for a number of years does not concern most people.
why should it increrease when the PAYE personal allowance has not increased. Everyone who earns money is affected by this, only those who can afford an extra £20K spare cash per yer every year are affected by the ISA limit. And you presumably know that they have just been increased by 25% (an extra £5,000) if you are willing to invest in 'UK shares'.
So once again, unearned income and the rich get favourable treatment as against the working man
Why can't those who stay in full time education until 21 or over be considered as working men or women?My definition of a working man is someone who goes to work 40 hours a week give or take, from the age of 16. Whats your definition?
I agree that the PAYE limit should also increase, I don't recall saying otherwise?
The problem with human nature is when people have more, they usually want more.In simplistic terms, as my Dad said to me:-
When you have more, you should give more.