Has anyone ever changed who they vote for by debating on blue moon?

[The perfect fumble]

Len, Fumble and Bigga have further put me off voting Labour.

Yeah, you're right about Len, he's a work-shy, lesbian, Trot, who likes nothing more than breaking synagogue windows, when he's not urinating in beer barrels at the local conservative club.

 

[Ban-jani]

Yeah, you're right about Len, he's a work-shy, lesbian, Trot, who likes nothing more than breaking synagogue windows, when he's not urinating in beer barrels at the local conservative club.

What a fantastic description.

 

[Chippy_boy]

I don't think that includes social security tax rates where we have a much lower average than the EU so saying ours is 47% (including SS) while the EU's is 38% (excluding SS) is an unfair comparison.

Overall, the UK is a mid-tax country by EU and OECD terms. I doubt we're at the revenue maximising point with our upper tax band (and I think the IFS agree with that) and I think we could probably increase it to 50-55% without seeing a fall in tax take. Also, those on £100K in this country take home far more than most other OECD countries so I hardly think our current tax regime is punitive - maybe by global standards but not by the standards of the developed world.

One of the hallmarks and architects of a developed world is the fact that the rich do pay more than the poor otherwise there simply wouldn't be the money (taxing everyone at 25% for example) to have the basic infrastructure of a state where people have education, healthcare, and other welfare provisions to survive.

Three things:

1. OK, 45% vs 38% then.

2. The top rate of tax should not be determined by "revenue maximisation"! It should be determined by what is fair, which is a subjective point Would you advocate 99.9% if that proved to be the optimal rate for maximum revenue collection? I would hope not.

3. We already have a fair and progressive taxation system. The rich already pay VASTLY more than the poor. Not only do they have much more wealth to tax, we tax it at 45% already not at 20%. And they have no personal allowance either. Someone on £120,000 does not pay 6 times more tax than £20,000, they pay 26 times more! How much more progressive do you want???

I think it would be eminently fair if we want to drastically increase public spending, that we should increase all the rates of income tax, and protect those at the very bottom with an increased personal allowance. People on £30k, £40k, £50k, £60k, £70k - they should be asked to pay a bit more too. Since there are so many people on these middle incomes, raising the basic rate to 25p - still extremely low by more socialist states standards - it would generate a lot of tax as well.

Surely if raising standard of public services is the name of the game, then asking people on say £40k+ to pay 25% basic rate is something the left on here would support?

 

[hilts]

I'll tell you how it is in the politics forum.

You post a BBC link which highlights children going hungry in the UK....

https://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcthree/clip/aa33973e-a670-4fc7-91ed-cb10fad48382

And the usual arseholes immediately swerve to talk about the meaning of relative poverty.

Am I going to be convinced by them? Don't make me laugh! I would piss on them if they were on fire, but I have to admit, there would be a momentary hesitation.

With your old man dribble it would be kinder to shoot them:-)

 

[Saddleworth2]

I don't think that includes social security tax rates where we have a much lower average than the EU so saying ours is 47% (including SS) while the EU's is 38% (excluding SS) is an unfair comparison.

Overall, the UK is a mid-tax country by EU and OECD terms. I doubt we're at the revenue maximising point with our upper tax band (and I think the IFS agree with that) and I think we could probably increase it to 50-55% without seeing a fall in tax take. Also, those on £100K in this country take home far more than most other OECD countries so I hardly think our current tax regime is punitive - maybe by global standards but not by the standards of the developed world.

One of the hallmarks and architects of a developed world is the fact that the rich do pay more than the poor otherwise there simply wouldn't be the money (taxing everyone at 25% for example) to have the basic infrastructure of a state where people have education, healthcare, and other welfare provisions to survive.

The stuff I posted a couple of pages ago indicates we are in the lower band of overall tax contribution in the EU. So we now have a full set of high, medium and low!

 

[Saddleworth2]

Three things:

1. OK, 45% vs 38% then.

2. The top rate of tax should not be determined by "revenue maximisation"! It should be determined by what is fair, which is a subjective point Would you advocate 99.9% if that proved to be the optimal rate for maximum revenue collection? I would hope not.

3. We already have a fair and progressive taxation system. The rich already pay VASTLY more than the poor. Not only do they have much more wealth to tax, we tax it at 45% already not at 20%. And they have no personal allowance either. Someone on £120,000 does not pay 6 times more tax than £20,000, they pay 26 times more! How much more progressive do you want???

I think it would be eminently fair if we want to drastically increase public spending, that we should increase all the rates of income tax, and protect those at the very bottom with an increased personal allowance. People on £30k, £40k, £50k, £60k, £70k - they should be asked to pay a bit more too. Since there are so many people on these middle incomes, raising the basic rate to 25p - still extremely low by more socialist states standards - it would generate a lot of tax as well.

Surely if raising standard of public services is the name of the game, then asking people on say £40k+ to pay 25% basic rate is something the left on here would support?

I would support a bit more for everyone rather than the lowest paid, or even everyone over the average wage which is no fortune for sure. But then I’m more central than left. I would also suggest that the likes of Amazon etc should be paying a great deal more tax than they are just now.

 

[Saddleworth2]

And to answer the question, not directly no, but stuff on here does prompt me to read more and fact check so it does indirectly help me form opinions.

 

[mcfc1632]

The more i read from the lefty labour bunch the more I think Labour are in a mess.

But then a mere glimpse of the tory mindset and the calculation of the best of two bad options is an easy pick. In my constituency i have little choice but one of the big two. I have massive problems with both but there is zero chance that i would ever support a Tory/Brexit party.

I am quite similar to this - but fall on the other side - purely because a) I want to achieve Brexit and b) I could never support a McDonnell/Corbyn led party

But your first comment: "The more I read from the lefty labour bunch the more I think Labour are in a mess." I fully agree with.

Some of us more balanced/centrist types have tried to discuss with the hard-left members that unless Labour attract the likes of us back into the fold then Labour are destined to never be in power and will increasingly just be a protest group.

 

[PragueBlue]

Three things:

1. OK, 45% vs 38% then.

2. The top rate of tax should not be determined by "revenue maximisation"! It should be determined by what is fair, which is a subjective point Would you advocate 99.9% if that proved to be the optimal rate for maximum revenue collection? I would hope not.

3. We already have a fair and progressive taxation system. The rich already pay VASTLY more than the poor. Not only do they have much more wealth to tax, we tax it at 45% already not at 20%. And they have no personal allowance either. Someone on £120,000 does not pay 6 times more tax than £20,000, they pay 26 times more! How much more progressive do you want???

I think it would be eminently fair if we want to drastically increase public spending, that we should increase all the rates of income tax, and protect those at the very bottom with an increased personal allowance. People on £30k, £40k, £50k, £60k, £70k - they should be asked to pay a bit more too. Since there are so many people on these middle incomes, raising the basic rate to 25p - still extremely low by more socialist states standards - it would generate a lot of tax as well.

Surely if raising standard of public services is the name of the game, then asking people on say £40k+ to pay 25% basic rate is something the left on here would support?

I think if people see the Scandinavian model as the ideal, they should be willing to pay similar tax rates. I think it's somewhere between 32% and 57% in Sweden for example, depending on income level. VAT is also 25%. That would bring a lot more tax in to pay for massive increases in public spending and everybody would be contributing more towards the extra spending.

 

[Fame Monster]

Three things:

1. OK, 45% vs 38% then.

2. The top rate of tax should not be determined by "revenue maximisation"! It should be determined by what is fair, which is a subjective point Would you advocate 99.9% if that proved to be the optimal rate for maximum revenue collection? I would hope not.

3. We already have a fair and progressive taxation system. The rich already pay VASTLY more than the poor. Not only do they have much more wealth to tax, we tax it at 45% already not at 20%. And they have no personal allowance either. Someone on £120,000 does not pay 6 times more tax than £20,000, they pay 26 times more! How much more progressive do you want???

I think it would be eminently fair if we want to drastically increase public spending, that we should increase all the rates of income tax, and protect those at the very bottom with an increased personal allowance. People on £30k, £40k, £50k, £60k, £70k - they should be asked to pay a bit more too. Since there are so many people on these middle incomes, raising the basic rate to 25p - still extremely low by more socialist states standards - it would generate a lot of tax as well.

Surely if raising standard of public services is the name of the game, then asking people on say £40k+ to pay 25% basic rate is something the left on here would support?

1. Trading economics has the Eurozone average at 42.4% and the EU area average at 39.2% (weighed down by a lot of Eastern European nations) but if you include social security contributions (slightly lower than the EU average), our highest tax rate is probably very similar to the EU average and puts us in about 15th place (out of 28) overall in terms of highest rate of personal taxation (income tax + SS). So that's pretty mid-tax as it stands.

2. I don't think revenue maximisation should be the only factor no and if it was 99.9% then I'd say that was unfair but if you're earning £200K a year and lose 50-55% of your earnings, you're still going to be taking home huge sums of money per year. Of all the things to care about in society - and problems that could be righted with money from taxation, the wealthiest in society losing an extra couple of grand a year would be low down on my list of concerns.

3. I'm aware the rich already pay more, and I don't think they should entirely carry the burden, especially so if state spending is going to increase a lot so I'm not against increasing the basic rate either.

But coming back to your original point, I don't think taxing the wealthiest 5% more would put us out of line with the rest of the developed world nor would I consider it punitive given the vast amounts these people are already taking home.

 

[Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese]

I think if people see the Scandinavian model as the ideal, they should be willing to pay similar tax rates. I think it's somewhere between 32% and 57% in Sweden for example, depending on income level. VAT is also 25%. That would bring a lot more tax in to pay for massive increases in public spending and everybody would be contributing more towards the extra spending.

I have a good friend in Sweden and their lifestyle seems great with much less social inequality than here. As a single bloke he felt the pinch of their taxation policy, but as a married man with kids he now has a brilliant deal. Great paternity / maternity package, healthcare and real safety net if he loses his job. I'm not saying Sweden is perfect or without problems, but they are much nearer to getting things right than we are.

 

[lazerblue]

one of the best pieces of advice i ever had was on here,"torch his car and smash his wifes back doors in"

 

[Ohrodneyrodney]

Not me. Ive tried to listen to people opposing my opinions, but they just sound daft ;)

 

[remember arthur mann]

Don't be a silly billy.....

 

[Hart of the Matter]

Yes and no. Like most on here i know my own mind but i also feel currently disenfranchised. I have no positive options to vote for so therefore have to choose the least despicable option. Posters on here have helped me with that choice. I do not trust anyone who is an advocate, let alone an enthusiast of, of any of the parties. #wedeservebetter...

 

[Dave Ewing's Back 'eader]

I will start - no.

Although for 0.0001 second I was convinced once by one of fumbles arguments.

Are yer sure that was one of fumble's arguments and not one of argument's fumbles?

 

[Dave Ewing's Back 'eader]

Don't be a silly billy.....

Hadn't Dennis just been watching Leeds whip Stretford 2-0?

 

[blueinsa]

In a way, yes.

There are several posters on here i would never vote with.

If they and their attitudes represent what a party has now become then it is no longer for me and i will vote elsewhere.

 

[r.soleofsalford]

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.

Britain's worst tax Scrooges revealed: Almost 1 in 5 of biggest firms paid NOTHING last year - and some even got a handout from the taxman...

• Names such as BP, Royal Mail and British Gas owner Centrica are included
• Some firms are even paying their chief executives more than they pay in tax
• The Mail on Sunday's Fair Play on Tax campaign has called for a level playing field

By ALOYSIUS ATKINSON FOR THE FINANCIAL MAIL ON SUNDAY

PUBLISHED: 21:44, 22 December 2018 | UPDATED: 10:50, 24 December 2018


I`d be interested to know your thoughts

 

[Dave Ewing's Back 'eader]

Britain's worst tax Scrooges revealed: Almost 1 in 5 of biggest firms paid NOTHING last year - and some even got a handout from the taxman...

• Names such as BP, Royal Mail and British Gas owner Centrica are included
• Some firms are even paying their chief executives more than they pay in tax
• The Mail on Sunday's Fair Play on Tax campaign has called for a level playing field

By ALOYSIUS ATKINSON FOR THE FINANCIAL MAIL ON SUNDAY

PUBLISHED: 21:44, 22 December 2018 | UPDATED: 10:50, 24 December 2018


I`d be interested to know your thoughts

My thought, rsos - is Aloysius Atkinson his real name or a nom de plume? By the way, did yer get to see the game in Hampshire?