The Conservative Party

Octavian said:
Even if that were the case, but as the article says the pandemic has escalated things, surely the government now needs to act?

As stated, it’s 1% across everyone, which means someone on 100,000 a year is paying £1000 more annually and someone on £15,000 is paying £150. As per the situation with income tax, the richest in society will pay a lot more.
Click to expand...
The problem is that £150 to someone on £15k is almost certainly a significantly higher percentage of their available spare funds than £1000 is for someone on £100k. This is why flat taxes that affect everyone similarly are in fact regressive in nature.

The answer to this should be a massive one off wealth tax on the super rich, but it won't happen.
 
bluejon said:
The problem is that £150 to someone on £15k is almost certainly a significantly higher percentage of their available spare funds than £1000 is for someone on £100k. This is why flat taxes that affect everyone similarly are in fact regressive in nature.

The answer to this should be a massive one off wealth tax on the super rich, but it won't happen.
Click to expand...
I’ve never earned £100k+ but I know someone close to me who has and the amount they already pay in tax is astonishing to me.

The amount they keep on earnings above £100k isn’t to be sniffed at.

1% across the board for most income groups is manageable but as the other poster above stated, it’s looking like those earning above the national average of £27k will be paying it, not those sub £20k.
 
Octavian said:
I’ve never earned £100k+ but I know someone close to me who has and the amount they already pay in tax is astonishing to me.

The amount they keep on earnings above £100k isn’t to be sniffed at.

1% across the board for most income groups is manageable but as the other poster above stated, it’s looking like those earning above the national average of £27k will be paying it, not those sub £20k.
Click to expand...
Nope, the middle band starts at £9564 pa.

Only people earning less than £184 per week don’t currently pay NI and wouldn’t have the 1% applied unless the government decide to start it at zero or at the lowest band starting threshold of £120 pw.
 
Last edited:
Octavian said:
I’ve never earned £100k+ but I know someone close to me who has and the amount they already pay in tax is astonishing to me.

The amount they keep on earnings above £100k isn’t to be sniffed at.

1% across the board for most income groups is manageable but as the other poster above stated, it’s looking like those earning above the national average of £27k will be paying it, not those sub £20k.
Click to expand...
Income tax achieves nothing, there's some formula somewhere which shows that any income tax rise will eventually result in diminishing returns. No general taxation rise will solve any problem overnight.

As for the wealthy well they are best resourced to find ways to avoid taxes, certainly by putting the majority of their wealth offshore which is something to look at.

Trevor Hemmings used to live up my way but he now lives in the Isle of Man. He sold his house in Euxton and they've built a load of £500k+ houses on the land. I wonder where the money from his profits went and how much tax did he pay on the sales? My guess is not a penny.
 
inbetween said:
Trevor Hemming used to live up my way but he now lives in the Isle of Man. He sold his house in Euxton and they've built a load of £500k+ houses on the land. I wonder where the money from his profits went and how much tax he paid on the sales? My guess is not a penny.
Click to expand...
I don't think it was spent on Preston North End players!
 
west didsblue said:
Nope, the middle band starts at £9564 pa.

Only people earning less than £184 per week don’t currently pay NI and wouldn’t have the 1% applied unless the government decide to start it at zero or at the lowest band starting threshold of £120 pw.
Click to expand...
Fair enough, I wouldn’t anticipate they would start to include those in the lower banding, if they did I would be against it.
 
As someone said earlier - a 1% increase in NI for someone on £15 000 a year will be more seriously effected than someone earning £150 000 a year. But, hey, it’s the poor that will need it the most so they should pay!! The Nasty Party rules.
 
west didsblue said:
So, just to be clear, you support an effective 1% tax rise on every pound earned above £9564 pa?
Click to expand...
I haven’t decided yet to be honest and I’ll wait for to see the actual policy in more detail first.

I definitely don’t support them introducing it into a bracket that don’t currently pay NI.
 
So - The Commons gets real - its ok to tell lies but against the rules to call out the lies - you will see Johnson attempt a masterclass in lies today

And whilst you are about telling lies make sure you wear a suit and tie and polish your shoes - combing your hair is optional

www.bbc.co.uk

MPs told to smarten up their clothing ahead of Commons return

Jeans and chinos are banned in a toughening of post-Zoom Commons rules set by the Speaker.
www.bbc.co.uk www.bbc.co.uk
 
Probably the fairest would be a 1% increase in VAT ring fenced for social care.
You are taxing consumption rather than income which can be avoided or wealth which is very difficult to measure; it’s also the most green. The wealthy spend more on eating out, designer goods, cars, holidays etc. As long as you ensure that food and items such as children’s clothing remain tax free it would raise much more revenue than other methods of taxation and impact those with the most disposable income.
 
Kompany Car said:
Probably the fairest would be a 1% increase in VAT ring fenced for social care.
You are taxing consumption rather than income which can be avoided or wealth which is very difficult to measure; it’s also the most green. The wealthy spend more on eating out, designer goods, cars, holidays etc. As long as you ensure that food and items such as children’s clothing remain tax free it would raise much more revenue than other methods of taxation and impact those with the most disposable income.
Click to expand...

This. There is something to be said for a wider move away from income based to consumption based taxes because income based taxes do hit the poorest disproportionately hard. Moreover, those who are able to do so often structure their affairs in a way that means they pay a disproportionately low amount of tax. One example is the small business owner who pays himself a low basic salary which is below the tax/NIC Threshold and whose ‘real’ income is from dividends declared out of the company’s profits. (Yes I know those profits are taxable and there is nothing illegal about structuring your affairs this way but the result is that you pay less tax. That’s why people do it.) Under the government’s proposals these people would not be contributing towards social care costs. Sort of ironic, given that these people also got zero help from the government’s furlough schemes.

If I had my way I would shift much more of the overall tax burden away from income taxes, which can often be avoided by the wealthiest in society, and onto consumption taxes, which cannot.
 
Kompany Car said:
Probably the fairest would be a 1% increase in VAT ring fenced for social care.
You are taxing consumption rather than income which can be avoided or wealth which is very difficult to measure; it’s also the most green. The wealthy spend more on eating out, designer goods, cars, holidays etc. As long as you ensure that food and items such as children’s clothing remain tax free it would raise much more revenue than other methods of taxation and impact those with the most disposable income.
Click to expand...

It won't be ring fenced. It will just get swallowed up.

The German system levies 2.5% tax on the over 40’s which goes onto a strict ring fenced pot to pay for social care. It's basically an insurance scheme.

Long term social care should be separate from the NHS with its own funding model.
 
Chris in London said:
This. There is something to be said for a wider move away from income based to consumption based taxes because income based taxes do hit the poorest disproportionately hard. Moreover, those who are able to do so often structure their affairs in a way that means they pay a disproportionately low amount of tax. One example is the small business owner who pays himself a low basic salary which is below the tax/NIC Threshold and whose ‘real’ income is from dividends declared out of the company’s profits. (Yes I know those profits are taxable and there is nothing illegal about structuring your affairs this way but the result is that you pay less tax. That’s why people do it.) Under the government’s proposals these people would not be contributing towards social care costs. Sort of ironic, given that these people also got zero help from the government’s furlough schemes.

If I had my way I would shift much more of the overall tax burden away from income taxes, which can often be avoided by the wealthiest in society, and onto consumption taxes, which cannot.
Click to expand...
How would that work with the Amazons of this world though I wonder?
 
oldius said:
This is a party more than a decade into its reign that has doubled the national debt (pre-pandemic); given a vast increase in homelessness; the lowest state pension in Europe; the collapse of social care; soaring violence on our streets; the highest death toll in Europe, despite being an island; broken promises on housebuilding; 29m views of its leader's lies; cash for lobbying; unlawfully awarded contracts; peerages for donations and now the debacle of Afghanistan and empty supermarket shelves. When will the nation wake up?
Click to expand...

when labour supporters stop being dicks and just all get behind their party leader.
 
BlueHammer85 said:
when labour supporters stop being dicks and just all get behind their party leader.
Click to expand...
I don’t even think that will do it.

England as a nation has a centre right view outside of Manchester and London.

Scotland is centre left but they have turned against Labour and support the SNP.

NI is obviously an entirely different kettle of fish.

Which leaves Wales as the only viable home nation where Labour can win.

Of course who wins what country doesn’t matter in Westminster as it’s number of seats but Labour aren’t going to win enough seats in the vast majority of the UK to form a government.

The next election will likely be the same outcome as the last.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top