Absolutely! I argued for that years ago. And not just income tax, btw, which admittedly is all over the place.The best thing Labour could do is scrap the whole mess and rebuild it. Ditch the broken bands, the arbitrary NI split (nobody is "paying into a pot" but half the country thinks they are), the frozen thresholds, and the cliff-edges. Just start again.
Here's my point that you spectacularly failed to grasp:
View attachment 164389
My assertion is that Distance B is smaller than distance A. You may disagree. I care not.
i.e. you do not have to be further right than the Tories, in order to be closer to EU countries than Corbyn. You can apologise for your misunderstaning and rudeness, at your leisure.
OK, I see what you were saying. I think it was ambiguous at best, and in fact downright misleading when you were asking me which EU countries are to the right of the Tories! Not to mention a pretty stupid thing to say because OF COURSE the EU countries are closer to Corbyn that we are. That is a given. They are all more socialist than we are.This is from my post :-
You can't be missing the irony that the vast majority of the 'doing better countries' in Europe are closer to Corbyn than we are politically.
The countries doing better in Europe are closer to Corbyn than we are, let me repeat - than we are. I never mentioned tte distance between us and those countries.
And again very slowly
The European countries are closer to Corbyn than we are, THAN WE ARE.
Your little chart actually shows it now let's see who is capable of apologising :-)
If in doubt have a look at your graph, you know the one that shows the EU closer to Corbyn than we are:-)
OK, I see what you were saying. I think it was ambiguous at best, and in fact downright misleading when you were asking me which EU countries are to the right of the Tories! Not to mention a pretty stupid thing to say because OF COURSE the EU countries are closer to Corbyn that we are. That is a given. They are all more socialist than we are.
It wasn’t an apology. I apologise readily when I get things wrong. Your opening post was ambiguous. I didn’t spot any, “sorry, I see what you are saying” on your side either.That is not an apology I can accept, its pretty shitty to try and put it hack on me, if you had read it properly you could have just disagreed with the premise.
Not a good look fella .
Just seen this. More misunderstandings.So let me get this right you think certain groups shouldn't have to pay the legally due tax because they took a risk? You think companies are getting fleeced but would turn into nice people if we didn't ask for as much tax? You also think that that higher rate tax payers shouldn't pay much more if any.
So who is actually gonna pay anymore ?and if I change my job tomorrow I presume I can pay no tax at my own whim if I think it's into a risky business coz I might lose my job.
Kinnell fella:-)
Just seen this. More misunderstandings.
I didn’t say my sister avoided paying the taxes due. Everyone should pay their taxes due. Merely that her rates and allowances reflect the risks that people setting up their own businesses take.
And regards tax on companies, big companies often choose where to pay their taxes. If the rate in country A is too high, they move profits to country B. It’s not difficult to grasp that if our rates are low and allowances are high, they don’t need to. Nor to imagine that some other companies might move their profits to the UK, not away from it. Like plenty of companies have done, only to other countries.
And if you change your job tomorrow, you should pay your taxes as we all do.
It's a drop in the ocean but a step in the right direction. Stricter laws on avoidance would also be a step in the right direction, but there's never an appetite for that. Strange.I agree with you but £10 a month is a drop in the ocean. Just 2p on the basic rate if income tax for someone on average wage is about £40.
Yeah never see any of them lot over here ;-)Don’t know what Jimmy Hill has to do with it, but there’s so many businesses that chose to base themselves not in the UK, and for which, tax efficiency was a big deal. The likes of Amazon, Microsoft, Apple, PayPal, eBay, Starbucks, Dell, Google. I can go on. Just imagine the boost to the UK economy if they were here. And people want to tax corporations more and make the UK less attractive still? Bonkers.
Not *quite* the point I was making ;-)Yeah never see any of them lot over here ;-)
Well, not a law change but HMRC are recruiting an extra 5,500 compliance officers. I don’t know how many they have in total but it seems like a substantial boost.It's a drop in the ocean but a step in the right direction. Stricter laws on avoidance would also be a step in the right direction, but there's never an appetite for that. Strange.
The risk / reward factor when setting a business up is you get to (potentially) earn more, have no boss, follow your passion and can fit around your lifestyle.Just seen this. More misunderstandings.
I didn’t say my sister avoided paying the taxes due. Everyone should pay their taxes due. Merely that her rates and allowances reflect the risks that people setting up their own businesses take.
And regards tax on companies, big companies often choose where to pay their taxes. If the rate in country A is too high, they move profits to country B. It’s not difficult to grasp that if our rates are low and allowances are high, they don’t need to. Nor to imagine that some other companies might move their profits to the UK, not away from it. Like plenty of companies have done, only to other countries.
And if you change your job tomorrow, you should pay your taxes as we all do.
Correct ish.
I don’t thing we should increase taxes in the poor and not in the rich. (Your 2nd option)
Also I am not rich. Any increase in the top rates of tax would have no effect on me.
Strange question. The two are different and my answer for both is different.So you want parity for all, which is fair.
Happy to give up the WFA and/or the Triple Lock then?
The big change to put Ireland up there for GDP per capita is Brexit.Per capita statistics get skewed anyway because of weird economic anomalies in that specific country.
Take Luxembourg for example, how is such a huge GDP generated from a small population? In reality it isn't and I'm pretty sure that the likes of Amazon can speak for this..
Ireland features highly too but I highly doubt that the Irish are all rich. It probably has more to do with the simple fact that a number of corporations put their books through Ireland to take advantage of the favourable corporation tax rate..
OK, I see what you were saying. I think it was ambiguous at best, and in fact downright misleading when you were asking me which EU countries are to the right of the Tories! Not to mention a pretty stupid thing to say because OF COURSE the EU countries are closer to Corbyn that we are. That is a given. They are all more socialist than we are.
Mr Predictable taking a predictable stance again, LOLAnd all because you asked AI the wrong question!
People underestimate this. Those in the 60% bracket are high earners, yes, but not necessarily wealthy. They're too small a group to effect political change, and no one feels sorry for them. But this isn't about sympathy, it's about what’s good for the country. The current tax setup entrenches the class system and ends up costing us more than a properly functioning system would. So why do we ignore it?
This is a serious drag on social mobility. A fiscal wall for working-class people trying to move up. And yet, it barely registers with the public, probably due to the UK’s fondness for cutting down tall poppies.
It’s only getting worse. Inflation is pulling more people into the bracket. And this doesn’t even account for massive student loans or the loss of child tax credits that hit people as soon as they break into this income level.
- Income tax: 40%
- PA clawback: 20%
- NI: 2%
- Undergrad loan: 9%
- Postgrad loan: 6%
That’s 77%. And if you’re not from wealth, your only relief is to overpay your pension - which doesn’t help the real economy and ties up money until you're 67. I’ve seen how this kills productivity: people stop pushing for promotions or bonuses because it’s not worth it.
Most people agree higher earners should contribute more and that progressive tax is sound. So why do we tolerate a system where the highest earners pay less?
The best thing Labour could do is scrap the whole mess and rebuild it. Ditch the broken bands, the arbitrary NI split (nobody is "paying into a pot" but half the country thinks they are), the frozen thresholds, and the cliff-edges. Just start again.
As the old saying goes, there are lies, damn lies and statistics.Reading Corbyn's opening sentence in his Your Party letter, he tries the usual trick of trying to con everyone how rich we are, and what a travesty it is therefore that we have 4.5m children, because that's more emotive than adults - living in poverty.
Well let's debunk this for a moment. What do the following countries have in common?
Singapore
Luxembourg
Ireland
Macao SAR
Qatar
Norway
Brunei Darussalam
Guyana
United States
Denmark
Switzerland
Netherlands
Iceland
Austria
Hong Kong SAR
Sweden
Germany
Belgium
Finland
France
Canada
Australia
Japan
New Zealand
Italy
Israel
Spain
Any idea? They are ALL better off than we are. In raw GDP terms we may be 6th but that's because we are a relatively populous country. But when to look at GDP per capita, we are 18th. Worse, goods and services are in the UK more expensive than elsewhere. So when you consider what the average person in the UK can actually afford, we are 28th. 28th not 6th.
(And we don't have 4.5m children living in poverty. Poverty is NOT earning less than a 60% a median. Or else someone on £1m a year in Monaco is living in poverty. And the numbers living in poverty DECREASE if median earnings decline... Which is plainly nonsense. The numbers in actual real poverty, like shortage of food or clothing, is between 1m and 2m. Still way too many but not as sensational an argument as claiming it's 4.5m)