Politics of envy or good sense?

26 Jan 2012

This bit makes good sense to me
At the last election, the Lib Dems pledged to raise the income tax threshold to £10,000 a year and the coalition agreed to implement this policy over the course of this Parliament.
The income tax threshold was raised by £1,000 to £7,475 in the 2010 Budget, and the government plans to increase it further to £8,105 this year.
Mr Clegg said he was proud of these measures, as "cutting income tax is one of the most direct tools we have to ease the burden on low and middle earners".
And he added: "Today I want to make clear that I want the coalition to go further and faster in delivering the full £10,000 allowance, because bluntly the pressure on family finances is reaching boiling point.
However this bit, I do not like. This for me is the politics of envy. Leaves a very nasty taste!
He also said he would "stick to his guns" in arguing the case for a "mansion" tax on property - aimed at properties worth more than £2m - as part of his plans to tackle "serious, unearned" wealth.

26 Jan 2012

the policies are non sensical at best and down right stupid.
I would like to see the tax changes done in different bands, say 10k at a time. Starting at 25% then DROPPING by 10% each threshold you attain. So the harder you work the more you earn....
Think about it before I get shot down....the ones who earn the most spend the most thereby keeping people employed!
The country would be better off and you (Joe public) wouldn't get unfairly penalized for being a high earner!
In fact it would attract more businessmen to the ...creating more jobs and more wealth....everyone ones a winner baby!!
Now vote for me instead of that idiot clegg!

26 Jan 2012

Quote by Rogue_trader
the policies are non sensical at best and down right stupid.
I would like to see the tax changes done in different bands, say 10k at a time. Starting at 25% then DROPPING by 10% each threshold you attain. So the harder you work the more you earn....
Think about it before I get shot down....the ones who earn the most spend the most thereby keeping people employed!
The country would be better off and you (Joe public) wouldn't get unfairly penalized for being a high earner!
In fact it would attract more businessmen to the ...creating more jobs and more wealth....everyone ones a winner baby!!
Now vote for me instead of that idiot clegg!

Interesting, and thought provoking

26 Jan 2012

If the supposed mansion tax was levied on £5m plus properties it would ensure only the true super wealthy were involved but the main problem is that once it is introduced just like every other tax it will eventually tax us all. It might start at £2m but then it will be £1m then £0.5 until anyone who owns any property will be hit.
Income tax was introdced on the wealthy to pay for beating Napoleon look where we are now banghead

26 Jan 2012

Quote by Rogue_trader
the policies are non sensical at best and down right stupid.
I would like to see the tax changes done in different bands, say 10k at a time. Starting at 25% then DROPPING by 10% each threshold you attain. So the harder you work the more you earn....
Think about it before I get shot down....the ones who earn the most spend the most thereby keeping people employed!
The country would be better off and you (Joe public) wouldn't get unfairly penalized for being a high earner!
In fact it would attract more businessmen to the ...creating more jobs and more wealth....everyone ones a winner baby!!
Now vote for me instead of that idiot clegg!

There is an assumption here that working hard=earning a lot. I would like you to sit down with minx some time and have a chat about how lazy she must be to only earn 10 grand a year.

26 Jan 2012

the scary thing is, an Nick Clegg already knows this, there is a growing trend for those with properties over £1m for them to be 'owned' by an overseas property company or trust, that way they escape an awful lot of tax.
so anyone with a 'mansion' likely to be impacted already has sufficient tax awareness to also go down this route, therefore it's likely to be another tax that costs more than it actually collects

26 Jan 2012

Quote by Ben_Minx
the policies are non sensical at best and down right stupid.
I would like to see the tax changes done in different bands, say 10k at a time. Starting at 25% then DROPPING by 10% each threshold you attain. So the harder you work the more you earn....
Think about it before I get shot down....the ones who earn the most spend the most thereby keeping people employed!
The country would be better off and you (Joe public) wouldn't get unfairly penalized for being a high earner!
In fact it would attract more businessmen to the ...creating more jobs and more wealth....everyone ones a winner baby!!
Now vote for me instead of that idiot clegg!

There is an assumption here that working hard=earning a lot. I would like you to sit down with minx some time and have a chat about how lazy she must be to only earn 10 grand a year.
You don't know the half of it, my idle misses is on

26 Jan 2012

We should start a group "MEn with lazy wives". You set it up I promise to join later.

27 Jan 2012

Quote by Bluefish2009
....................
He also said he would "stick to his guns" in arguing the case for a "mansion" tax on property - aimed at properties worth more than £2m - as part of his plans to tackle "serious, unearned" wealth.

A good tax target would be non resident property tax. Other European countries are introducing "wealth" taxes aimed at targetting the very wealthy non resident property owners. Resident property owners will be paying a huge tax burden anyway by just living in the country - why squeeze them even more when there are juicy, non voting purses with properties across the UK but mainly in London. A large number of £1,000,000+ residential sales in London since 2008 have been to foreign non residents.

27 Jan 2012

Quote by Ben_Minx
the policies are non sensical at best and down right stupid.
I would like to see the tax changes done in different bands, say 10k at a time. Starting at 25% then DROPPING by 10% each threshold you attain. So the harder you work the more you earn....
Think about it before I get shot down....the ones who earn the most spend the most thereby keeping people employed!
The country would be better off and you (Joe public) wouldn't get unfairly penalized for being a high earner!
In fact it would attract more businessmen to the ...creating more jobs and more wealth....everyone ones a winner baby!!
Now vote for me instead of that idiot clegg!

There is an assumption here that working hard=earning a lot. I would like you to sit down with minx some time and have a chat about how lazy she must be to only earn 10 grand a year.
In general the harder you work the more you get paid...majority of jobs work like this with some sort of incentive scheme like productivity bonus or overtime payments. But usually by the tax man has had his cut you're not that much better off! All I am suggesting is about more wealth distribution. Whether you are a hospital cleaner/car assembly line worker or telephone salesman...all would benefit.
It had F*** all about being lazy...and how you deduced that I perceive all those who earn less than 10k a year to be lazy beggars belief.

27 Jan 2012

Quote by Rogue_trader
In general the harder you work the more you get paid...majority of jobs work like this with some sort of incentive scheme like productivity bonus or overtime payments. But usually by the tax man has had his cut you're not that much better off! All I am suggesting is about more wealth distribution. Whether you are a hospital cleaner/car assembly line worker or telephone salesman...all would benefit.
It had F*** all about being lazy...and how you deduced that I perceive all those who earn less than 10k a year to be lazy beggars belief.

I see where you are coming from now. My tongue was wedged firmly in cheek. I am sure you can appreciate that people like minx who receive a fixed wage with no incentives nor opportunity for overtime (hardly a unique position) would be poorer under the taxation system you describe. Making a relatively bad position worse.
I have never understood why a family earning less than the sum necessary to keep them out of poverty should pay tax at all. Seems simple enough to me and a nil rate tax band for everyone seems the simplest way to avoid that. Mind you I often like the LiIbDem policies I just wish they had the bollocks to fight for their beliefs when they get the chance,

27 Jan 2012

Quote by Ben_Minx
I have never understood why a family earning less than the sum necessary to keep them out of poverty should pay tax at all.

what is that sum for poverty ben? as far as i am aware those that are on low wages get working tax credits as well. is that not correct? also peeple on low wages with children get childrens tax credits?
i am interested to know if the person you stated above only gets a wage of 10 grand a year, why they do not get working tax credits as well? unless the other half earns over 33 grand a year she would get at least working tax credits. does the other half earn 33 grand a yeer? as the entitlement to those benefits stops if a family earn over 43 grand a yeer.
also if a person was on the minumum wage of £ an hour and worked the national average of a 37 and a half hour week that would equate over a yeer to £ a yeer.
I am not digging here but am confused as to how someone can only earn 10 grand a yeer on my figures above. of course someone could earn 6 grand a yeer if they were a part time employee earning 11 quid a hour and only does 3 hours a day. but the minumum wage coupled with a average working week works out at neerly 2 grand over the ten. also that person would still be entitled to the tax credits I have mentioned above.
so 10 grand does not always tell the whole story.
also i wonder how much some would earn without the minimum wage ever being brought in? governments state that anyone on low wages can get it topped up with other benefits. it is an incentive for employers to take staff on where they can only pay the minimum wage. if that was taken away then employers that would have taken staff on, would not. just in case anyone on here would like any imformation on those tax credits and if they apply to them, here is a good link.

Quote by Ben_Minx
Seems simple enough to me and a nil rate tax band for everyone seems the simplest way to avoid that.

that is why we have experts ben to work out the tax systems. if that was to happen, where exactly would that short fall in tax come from? oh yes tax the rich higher i heer some peeple scream. is that not just as unfair?

27 Jan 2012

that is why we have experts Ben to work out the tax systems. if that was to happen, where exactly would that short fall in tax come from? oh yes tax the rich higher i heer some peeple scream. is that not just as unfair?
I remember discussing this with the then Tory chancellor. He held views similar to your own. Nice fella mind. He also didn't like the idea of removing income tax altogether in favour of purchase taxes.
I fundamentally believe that the burden of taxes should fall fairly. I think it is fair that those with the most to spend on anything other than the necessities of life pay the most tax.

27 Jan 2012

Quote by Ben_Minx
I think it is fair that those with the most to spend on anything other than the necessities of life pay the most tax.

Why do you think that? Do they use more resources than anyone else?
The taxation system is unfair and outmoded and that is for all tax whether it is CGT or personal tax allowances.

27 Jan 2012

I think a lot of people work very hard for relatively little reward.
I think those who can afford luxuries can by definition afford to pay more in tax.

27 Jan 2012

Quote by Ben_Minx
I think those who can afford luxuries can by definition afford to pay more in tax .

and in your political world ben, what are these luxuries you mention?
i see you failed to mention previously what a sum for poverty is, so i hope that i can get an answer this time. blink

in fact you failed to answer any of them.:notes:
are luxuries a fitted kitchen? or a car? a new set of windows for the house a person lives in? perish the thought of it being a house that person had actually brought. that would make them up for paying more taxes being householders. a holiday ben perhaps? i want to hear what you think is a luxury that would make peeple pay more in tax, in your political world ben dunno

thankfully that social experiment will never be brought in. where is the incentive for anyone to work, if any luxuries they might buy would lead them to pay more in tax? loon

:loon:
sorry i did too of those loons but reely. :doh:
so i will wait and see if indeed ben you will answer any of the questions.
shall i ask them again confused

:

27 Jan 2012

Quote by Ben_Minx
I think a lot of people work very hard for relatively little reward.
I think those who can afford luxuries can by definition afford to pay more in tax.

:thumbup:

27 Jan 2012

Quote by starlightcouple

I think those who can afford luxuries can by definition afford to pay more in tax .

and in your political world ben, what are these luxuries you mention?
i see you failed to mention previously what a sum for poverty is, so i hope that i can get an answer this time. blink

in fact you failed to answer any of them.:notes:
are luxuries a fitted kitchen? or a car? a new set of windows for the house a person lives in? perish the thought of it being a house that person had actually brought. that would make them up for paying more taxes being householders. a holiday ben perhaps? i want to hear what you think is a luxury that would make peeple pay more in tax, in your political world ben dunno

thankfully that social experiment will never be brought in. where is the incentive for anyone to work, if any luxuries they might buy would lead them to pay more in tax? loon

:loon:
sorry i did too of those loons but reely. :doh:
so i will wait and see if indeed ben you will answer any of the questions.
shall i ask them again confused

:
Of course I wont, you seem incapable of polite rational debate.

27 Jan 2012

Quote by Rogue_trader
the policies are non sensical at best and down right stupid.
I would like to see the tax changes done in different bands, say 10k at a time. Starting at 25% then DROPPING by 10% each threshold you attain. So the harder you work the more you earn....
Think about it before I get shot down....the ones who earn the most spend the most thereby keeping people employed!
The country would be better off and you (Joe public) wouldn't get unfairly penalized for being a high earner!
In fact it would attract more businessmen to the ...creating more jobs and more wealth....everyone ones a winner baby!!
Now vote for me instead of that idiot clegg!

:shakes head more in sorrow than anger:
Can I humbly suggest that you climb down from your ivory tower and visit the real world for a short time....this post is riddled with erroneous assumptions

27 Jan 2012

Quote by Ben_Minx

I think those who can afford luxuries can by definition afford to pay more in tax .

and in your political world ben, what are these luxuries you mention?
i see you failed to mention previously what a sum for poverty is, so i hope that i can get an answer this time. blink

in fact you failed to answer any of them.:notes:
are luxuries a fitted kitchen? or a car? a new set of windows for the house a person lives in? perish the thought of it being a house that person had actually brought. that would make them up for paying more taxes being householders. a holiday ben perhaps? i want to hear what you think is a luxury that would make peeple pay more in tax, in your political world ben dunno

thankfully that social experiment will never be brought in. where is the incentive for anyone to work, if any luxuries they might buy would lead them to pay more in tax? loon

:loon:
sorry i did too of those loons but reely. :doh:
so i will wait and see if indeed ben you will answer any of the questions.
shall i ask them again confused

:
Of course I wont, you seem incapable of polite rational debate.
Luxury's; electric lighting, hot and cold water on tap :dunno:

27 Jan 2012

Quote by Ben_Minx
I remember discussing this with the then Tory chancellor. He held views similar to your own. Nice fella mind. He also didn't like the idea of removing income tax altogether in favour of purchase taxes.
I fundamentally believe that the burden of taxes should fall fairly. I think it is fair that those with the most to spend on anything other than the necessities of life pay the most tax.

That's probably because he knew it wouldn't work Ben. We already have a sales tax and any increase in its rate is always met with the argument that it has a more detrimental affect on the poorer in society.
What would the rate of VAT have to be to fully replace Income Tax?

27 Jan 2012

i thought vat covered more expensive the luxury goods the more tax you pay on them dunno

27 Jan 2012

Quote by i
so i will wait and see if indeed ben you will answer any of the questions.

Quote by Ben_Minx
Of course I wont, you seem incapable of polite rational debate.

i think i have been more than polite and certainly rational ben.
i am sorry but once again you give an opinion and when questioned you refuse to answer, and then :upset:
i asked you to give me an example of your " facts " and you will not, but more importantly to even answer the questions.
you cannot have a decent reasoned debate if you only ever give opinions ben.:thumbup:
back up what you write or otherwise you will look a bit silly. blink

27 Jan 2012

No ta, I am quite happy challenging nonsense and discussing issues with the more polite.

27 Jan 2012

Quote by Staggerlee_BB
:shakes head more in sorrow than anger:
Can I humbly suggest that you climb down from your ivory tower and visit the real world for a short time....this post is riddled with erroneous assumptions

nope, the views great baby!

27 Jan 2012

Quote by Rogue_trader
:shakes head more in sorrow than anger:
Can I humbly suggest that you climb down from your ivory tower and visit the real world for a short time....this post is riddled with erroneous assumptions

nope, the views great baby!
That's 'view's' B.T.W. ..... I seem to remember that a symptom of altitude sickness is impairment of mental function .... you should, perhaps, seek help

27 Jan 2012

Quote by Staggerlee_BB
:shakes head more in sorrow than anger:
Can I humbly suggest that you climb down from your ivory tower and visit the real world for a short time....this post is riddled with erroneous assumptions

nope, the views great baby!
That's 'view's' B.T.W. ..... I seem to remember that a symptom of altitude sickness is impairment of mental function .... you should, perhaps, seek help
nope..."views" as in more than one...plural...

27 Jan 2012

Quote by Rogue_trader
:shakes head more in sorrow than anger:
Can I humbly suggest that you climb down from your ivory tower and visit the real world for a short time....this post is riddled with erroneous assumptions

nope, the views great baby!
That's 'view's' B.T.W. ..... I seem to remember that a symptom of altitude sickness is impairment of mental function .... you should, perhaps, seek help
nope..."views" as in more than one...plural...
duel

27 Jan 2012

I don't fight Bluefish...I'm a lover not a fighter
But I'll exchange a bit of banter now and then if the opponent is worthy of such...
I did notice how quickly the banter became personal...with suggestions of having to seek help due to alleged mental impairment, lol.
If that's the best that ones opponents can come up with then, the worthiness of any retort is sadly lost.
I shall continue to sit up this here hill and survey my land below and the fluffy bunnies in the field...

27 Jan 2012

Quote by Rogue_trader
I don't fight Bluefish...I'm a lover not a fighter
But I'll exchange a bit of banter now and then if the opponent is worthy of such...
I did notice how quickly the banter became personal...with suggestions of having to seek help due to alleged mental impairment, lol.
If that's the best that ones opponents can come up with then, the worthiness of any retort is sadly lost.
I shall continue to sit up this here hill and survey my land below and the fluffy bunnies in the field...

My meaning was; Touche lol