Just an aside mate, I don't enthuse for low taxation in particular.
I just don't want punitively high levels, and I want the burden to be more evenly spread, not very disproportionately loaded onto people who happen to have been successful. I resent this Labour line of "the rich must pay their fare share", with the implication that they are not. The top rate (inc NI) is 47% already, and anyone on PAYE has no choice other than to pay it. How Labour can argue that this is not a fare share, I do not understand.
Out of the top 150 countries, our top rate is already 16th highest. The EU average is 38%. Europe average 31%. US 37%. We are 47% already. Pushing it to 52% would put us to 6th out of the 150, with only Sweden, Japan, Denmark, Austria and Finland with higher rates.
In corporate tax, our rates are currently low(ish) but the scope of what is taxed is much broader than elsewhere. In France for example, although the headline rate is much higher (28% vs our 19%) they get a rebate of 7% of their payroll cost. And they get exceptions for R&D expenditure and more generous capital allowances. The net effect is that the amount of tax we collect, is mid-table compared to other EU countries, even though our rate is lower. Labour's changes would put the UK at the top. Combine that with our lower productivity than other EU countries, and that slaps a dirty great big "Investors Not Welcome Here" sign right across the UK.
Moreover, our bottom rate of tax (20%) is extremely low compared to other EU countries, especially those which are more "socialist" and the sorts of economies which we are repeatedly reminded by Labour we should aspire to me more like - for example in the Nordics. (I exclude Norway because of their enormous oil and gas revenues - more per capita than Saudi Arabia). The lowest tax rate in Denmark is 36%. The lowest rate in Sweden is 32%. etc.
Nowhere else is the government trying to impose 50%+ taxes on the better off, whilst taxing the less well off at only 20%. Labour is seeking to make the UK more punitive against the better off than any other state. It is that principally which I object to. If we want much more money spent on public services then people - most people, not a select few - must pay more money. Let's just be honest about it and see if people want to vote for that.
Exactly how I would describe my leanings and my feelingsI'm slightly left of centre socially and slightly right of centre economically.... and most of the arguments on here from the socialist brigade convince me that austerity will be back with a bang within 2 years if Labour get anywhere near power.
There is no such thing as a free lunch.
Who you calling a nutter?Most of us seem to come to the political threads with already formed opinions seeking either an echo chamber for our views or a fight. I'd imagine those with an open mind and genuinely open to changing their views do not read or contribute to the political threads which generally attract the nutters at the extremes of any debate.
Its meant as a collective term of endearment ;-)Who you calling a nutter?
Just an aside mate, I don't enthuse for low taxation in particular.
I just don't want punitively high levels, and I want the burden to be more evenly spread, not very disproportionately loaded onto people who happen to have been successful. I resent this Labour line of "the rich must pay their fare share", with the implication that they are not. The top rate (inc NI) is 47% already, and anyone on PAYE has no choice other than to pay it. How Labour can argue that this is not a fare share, I do not understand.
Out of the top 150 countries, our top rate is already 16th highest. The EU average is 38%. Europe average 31%. US 37%. We are 47% already. Pushing it to 52% would put us to 6th out of the 150, with only Sweden, Japan, Denmark, Austria and Finland with higher rates.
In corporate tax, our rates are currently low(ish) but the scope of what is taxed is much broader than elsewhere. In France for example, although the headline rate is much higher (28% vs our 19%) they get a rebate of 7% of their payroll cost. And they get exceptions for R&D expenditure and more generous capital allowances. The net effect is that the amount of tax we collect, is mid-table compared to other EU countries, even though our rate is lower. Labour's changes would put the UK at the top. Combine that with our lower productivity than other EU countries, and that slaps a dirty great big "Investors Not Welcome Here" sign right across the UK.
Moreover, our bottom rate of tax (20%) is extremely low compared to other EU countries, especially those which are more "socialist" and the sorts of economies which we are repeatedly reminded by Labour we should aspire to me more like - for example in the Nordics. (I exclude Norway because of their enormous oil and gas revenues - more per capita than Saudi Arabia). The lowest tax rate in Denmark is 36%. The lowest rate in Sweden is 32%. etc.
Nowhere else is the government trying to impose 50%+ taxes on the better off, whilst taxing the less well off at only 20%. Labour is seeking to make the UK more punitive against the better off than any other state. It is that principally which I object to. If we want much more money spent on public services then people - most people, not a select few - must pay more money. Let's just be honest about it and see if people want to vote for that.
Its a difficult thing to compare as tax thresholds are just as important as rates in terms of how much tax you pay. Total revenue from taxes and social contributions in the EU Member States as % of GDP which is a reasonable indicator shows us 16th out of the 27.Just an aside mate, I don't enthuse for low taxation in particular.
I just don't want punitively high levels, and I want the burden to be more evenly spread, not very disproportionately loaded onto people who happen to have been successful. I resent this Labour line of "the rich must pay their fare share", with the implication that they are not. The top rate (inc NI) is 47% already, and anyone on PAYE has no choice other than to pay it. How Labour can argue that this is not a fare share, I do not understand.
Out of the top 150 countries, our top rate is already 16th highest. The EU average is 38%. Europe average 31%. US 37%. We are 47% already. Pushing it to 52% would put us to 6th out of the 150, with only Sweden, Japan, Denmark, Austria and Finland with higher rates.
In corporate tax, our rates are currently low(ish) but the scope of what is taxed is much broader than elsewhere. In France for example, although the headline rate is much higher (28% vs our 19%) they get a rebate of 7% of their payroll cost. And they get exceptions for R&D expenditure and more generous capital allowances. The net effect is that the amount of tax we collect, is mid-table compared to other EU countries, even though our rate is lower. Labour's changes would put the UK at the top. Combine that with our lower productivity than other EU countries, and that slaps a dirty great big "Investors Not Welcome Here" sign right across the UK.
Moreover, our bottom rate of tax (20%) is extremely low compared to other EU countries, especially those which are more "socialist" and the sorts of economies which we are repeatedly reminded by Labour we should aspire to me more like - for example in the Nordics. (I exclude Norway because of their enormous oil and gas revenues - more per capita than Saudi Arabia). The lowest tax rate in Denmark is 36%. The lowest rate in Sweden is 32%. etc.
Nowhere else is the government trying to impose 50%+ taxes on the better off, whilst taxing the less well off at only 20%. Labour is seeking to make the UK more punitive against the better off than any other state. It is that principally which I object to. If we want much more money spent on public services then people - most people, not a select few - must pay more money. Let's just be honest about it and see if people want to vote for that.
KPMG for the tax data.Have you got a source for them figures?
I struggle to believe that the European average is 31% but even if it is, all of the highest taxing countries in the world tend to score the highest in levels of happiness, prosperity and social mobility inter alia.
It's called pointing out the truth and needs to be aired everywhere so people are not conned into voting for a lieHaha. So this has turned into ANOTHER platform for the usual suspects to offer their wisdom. I think there’s another thread for that ;)
My answer to the actual OP question ..... er..... no
Back on your lead.
My god!!!!! Have a break mate.It's called pointing out the truth and needs to be aired everywhere so people are not conned into voting for a lie
The thing is, I know what I think and believe, and you know what you think and believe, but there’s no way in a million years that someone is going to be influenced by a stranger on a forum - no matter how much of a top bloke they might be - so there’s a lot of hot air, anger and self knowing folk’s arguments being spouted for absolutely no purpose apart from having an argument. Fair play if that’s your thing though. Both main parties are lying through their arses and are embarrassing so no point in any blues falling out over it.It's called pointing out the truth and needs to be aired everywhere so people are not conned into voting for a lie
Fair point mate and frankly I agree. I get drawn into these pointless arguments, even why in calmer moments thinking it's a complete waste of time and that I will not. Some of the claims made are just so utterly infuriating, it's hard not to respond to them sometimes.The thing is, I know what I think and believe, and you know what you think and believe, but there’s no way in a million years that someone is going to be influenced by a stranger on a forum - no matter how much of a top bloke they might be - so there’s a lot of hot air, anger and self knowing folk’s arguments being spouted for absolutely no purpose apart from having an argument. Fair play if that’s your thing though. Both main parties are lying through their arses and are embarrassing so no point in any blues falling out over it.
Len, Fumble and Bigga have further put me off voting Labour.
KPMG for the tax data.
We're already near the top. If you want more spent on services then raise all the tax rates. Let's have a 30% basic rate.
Labour will not propose it because few turkeys would vote for it
So they persist with their contemptible lie: "We'll give you much better services and YOU won't have to pay for them". It's disgusting they are being allowed to say it and get away with it.
Let me give be you an example, just one: Their latest lie (bribe) is 33% off train fares. But train companies only make 3% profit, even after subsidies. So any such fare reduction MUST come straight out of taxation. So McDonnell admitted they would have to increase road tax to pay for it. I barely use the trains, but I own a car. Do you? Fancy an extra couple if hundred quid on you road tax every year?