What, that there are more unemployed now that at any point during the last Labour Government?

Hey - look I used google! Amazing!

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/unit...mployment-rate

Simply change the starting date to 1997 (let me know if you need a hand)

SOmeone that has assets, or access to multiples of a million pounds. Any other general knowledge questions you need answered , give me a shout
Ummm, no, that would be ridiculous. They are quite well off though in comaprative terms to the national average.

Oh stop with the emotive claptrap. Its quite simple. I beleive that if you are going to change the tax rules, then it shouldn't be to make the lowest paid pay more tax, so the highest paid can pay less. Are you grasping it yet?
So that people that works their butt off, gives up their evenings and weekends to make extra money just so they can feed their family don't have to pay more tax.
Yes.. yes you're right. There is no way I would strive to earn lots of money, just because over a certain threshold I only get to keep half of it. I mean If I was on £30K, no ****ing way would I want to be on £400K. I would rather go without.

Jesus wept.

 

If it could be worked so that the thresholds would mean those on less that average wage pay less tax, then I'm not fundamentally opposed to a flat tax.
The problem is, finding out what is actually viable is difficult. UKIP proposed merging NI and have a flat 31.5% with a LEL of £11.5K. Which would mean someone on £26K would actually pay £700 per annum less than they do now. Trouble is, I would want to see workings, can it actually be done?

 

PB, what does this graph say to you with regards to unemployment?


And just for clarification, what do you mean when you say that lowest paid pay more tax so that that a higher paid are paying less. For instance, as an individual, the tax I pay on my income is a lot more than some one on the national average, plus a proportion my income is further taxed at 40% where as an individual at the national average is not levied with this extra tax. Not having a pop at you, just trying to to have a reasoned debate as this is interesting.

 

I mean that the tax rules should not be changed to make it so that someone on the national average is paying more tax than they currently are, whilst someone on , say, £150K pays less than they currently are.

 

So what has actually changed that resulted in those on the national average paying more income tax? When the coalition came into office in 2010, the tax cuts and changes in national insurance meant that those on £10k were £254 better off while those on £20k were £154 better off. Labour's 50% tax raised only a third of what we were told it would raise in tax revenue and was introduced in last days of office for Brown/Darling probably costing the tax payer more in implementing and administering this tax.

 

lets be clear most of these newly created jobs are low skill, part time, short term ones

we are trying to build a modern economy/society based on employing dinner ladies and office cleaners

where is the demand going to come from?

probably debt

 

Yes Jesus wept at your ridiculous logic. This is the statement that I said you made up, not that unemployment hasn't risen.



QUOTE; PETE BRANT
So the top earners are paying more tax now, when the rate is 45%, than they were when it was 50%? Interesting.

Also, I would suggest that since there are more people out of work than there ever were under Labour, the proportion gets skewed as you can guarantee its not the top earners on the dole queue.

I.e. since there are less lower paid people in work than at any point under Labour, of course the top earners are going to be paying a higher proportion by default.


That is all your conjecture BASED on unemployment going up. Also the rate only falls to 45% from April, so nobody is paying that yet, so what are you talking about. Give me a shout if you need further help with what the current tax regime is




As for this statement

QUOTE; PETE BRANT

Yes.. yes you're right. There is no way I would strive to earn lots of money, just because over a certain threshold I only get to keep half of it. I mean If I was on £30K, no ****ing way would I want to be on £400K. I would rather go without.





Seriously, are you that dense? Nobody on £30k a year can suddenly work harder and earn £400k can they? It's the person on say £120k who could push that bit harder and get to over £150k and then suddenly find hmrc wants over 50% of what he makes over that.

Why? How is it just to hand over more than half of the extra you have earned? How encouraged do you think they feel to achieve more??

Don't forget these are also the people who take least from the system. They probably send their kids to private school, have private health insurance and are unlikely to require social services. So they pay for you/subsidise you to enjoy these facilities.

You should be saying thank you to these people for funding facilities through their income for your family that you could never otherwise afford.

Instead you and the loony left vilify them

 

No, no, listen, you still aren't getting it.

The statement that unemployment has risen is not conjecture. it is fact. Mos tof those job losses have come from the public sector, but alot of private sector ones have gone too. If you reduce the number of workers on or around the average wage , then by definition, the rich will be paying ahigher proportion of the total tax bill. Ie their number have not been diluted, but the average workers has. Its pretty simple maths. In times of recession and high unemployment, it stands to reason, the very rich will pay a higher proportion of the total tax take.

Good grief. So, from what you are saying, if you earnt £120K, you would not have incentive to earn £150+ becuase of the 50% tax band? Do you not want more money?

50&% of something is 50%. 100% of nothing, is nothing.

Is that not incentive?
They contribute to the common good. As do lots of people. Poor people pay tax too!

We all contribute. We all pay a percentage. I should be thanking rich people for deigning to pay tax? **** off.

I;m not vilifying anyone. I am simply stating, and you still refuse to understand, that the rich should not be expected to pay less tax at the expense of the poor

 

Nothing. the debate was on people arguing for a flat rate.

Although you could argue that the rise on VAT hit those on lower incomes hardest. Why not fund that through a higher tax on high earners? Or through clamping down on tax evasion?

 

Nope, it's not. Giving back 50% of what you earn when you are probably, on balance, a very light user of publicly funded services/benefits, becomes severely irritating. No other way of saying it.

 

We could all take that attitude, no matter what wage bracket we fall into.

Where is the incentive for me to go to work at all? I get to take home well below the national average, whilst both next door neighbours haven't worked a day in at least the time they have lived beside me. They have no stress, certainly appear to be living a comfortable lifestyle (not on the bones of their ****) whilst some of my tax (and that of the rest of the working population) is spent paying for them to live that way. That is irritating when it is on your own doorstep.

Just because some people have more taken (in tax) from them, doesn't mean that those lower down the ladder don't have exactly the same feelings of 'what's the point?' The point is, I have some little amount of pride in myself and no matter how irritated I might get, I will get on with it. Also, just because somebody earns less, doesn't always mean they are a drain on services and benefits either.

For what it's worth, I do appreciate where you are coming from but don't think feelings of frustration are only reserved for those getting hit by a higher tax take.

 

What you fail to understand you prize plum is that THE RICH DO NOT PAY LESS TAX THAN THE POOR. THEY PAY MORE ie the top 1% pay 27% of the total tax take. Whether this is due to unemployment (this part is the conjecture by the way, I'm not arguing that unemployment hasn't risen)

So, you have got your wish, the 'rich' pay far more tax than the 'poor' that is fact, look it up. But they would continue to pay more tax even if the highest rate was 40%, and that's the very highest I think it should be.

And no, if the rate of tax is 50% there is very little incentive to push from close under the threshold to over it. To achieve this often requires massive sacrifice and graft, having over half of it taken away deters people. I know plenty of people in this situation and it is not only how they feel but I've seen them put it into practice and 'slow down' a little.

I take it you don't know people in this situation otherwise you'd understand

 

**** me, that's one of the most digustingly selfish comments I have ever seen on here and thats sayign something.

So, just so I have this straight. If you were on £149K, and you were told if you did xyz and would get a £20K payrise, you would turn down £10K of money in your own pocket because it would be "irritating" to see the other 10K be put to public services you might not use and therefore you would not be incentivised?

I'm a higher rate tax payer, and guess what, I still want a nice big pay rise next year. You would have to be some sort of special reserve idiot not to.

Like I said, a percentage of something is better than 100% of nothing. Every single day of the week.

Do you know how many people out there would jump at a chance to earn an extra £20K even if it meant they would only see £10K of it?? Do you know anyone that actually struggles day to day?

 

The discussion was proportion of total tax take. ie the 27%. No wonder you aren't getting it. Go back and read the thread again. That percentage will adjust with unemployment figures. When more people are in work, the 27% number will reduce.
Then they are prize ****ing idiots.

If I offered you £20K on the proviso you had to give £10K of it away, you wouldnt take it?

 

This notion that life's goal should be the accumulation of wealth is unthinkably superficial. The idea that the wealthy have worked hard and that the poor need to work harder and aspire to be like them is absurd. Some 'rich' people I know are rich because they're savage, selfish, narcissistic and corrupt and some 'poor' people I know are poor because they chose to commit their lives to a higher and more noble cause. Often the latter preserved their soul while the former put theirs' up for sale. Robin Hood, Robin Hood, riding though the glen...

 

To be fair, I think the point he is making is, is it really worth it, depending upon the impact on life.

If the work/life balance is massively disrupted to earn more, then half of that is taken away, I can see where he is coming from to some extent.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2012...-dutton-review

 

yep, it's a similar cost/benefit argument dole scroungers use

just at the other end of the pay scale

 

I have to agree with this.

 

Of course each has to make their own judgement on that.

But I'm going to reserve my sympathy for those that dont have a choice and have to work every hour god sends to make ends meet, rather than some bloke that decides he can afford to turn down an extra £10K a year on the basis he doesn't want to pay 50% tax.

 

I don't disagree with that, I was just trying to see the other side.

 

It's not the Tax Rate which stops people from striving for more - it's the possible sacrifice to their home/life/work balance that stops them.

Of course, we all would take a £20k rise ..... yes, it means giving £10k to Tax maybe - it's the cost to yourself of taking that £20k extra which is the barrier ..... the Employer would naturally want something for the extra money, maybe weekend working - is it worth it? Not if you receive more than you spend anyway.

 

So how are you proposing to do that? Reduce VAT for those on a lower income through means testing? or introduce a lower flat rate VAT for everyone and collect an extra additional tax/increase income tax for those already paying 40% and how much extra should they pay? I don't see how it could work and I imagine the cost of doing this would far outweigh the taxes collected from the higher rate payers.

Just so you know the current government are doing more in closing tax avoidance loopholes and tackling tax evasion than the previous government. None of this would address the shortfall from VAT restructuring sufficiently to make it cost effective. Not only that, you run the risk of making this country less attractive to foreign investment.

 

You sound almost apologetic, Lisa.

 

In my experience, as I have got higher and higher up the ladder, the lielyhood of weekend working is zero. Yes of course there are some late nights - But generally you are paid as your responsilibities increase. I.e the you carry the can for more and more people. My General manager doesn't work all weekends, he just has huge responsbility and that's what you are paid for.To ensure work gets done on time. Not to actually do it all yourself.


As I said before though, some people don't have the luxury of being able to "choose" not to have an £10K pay rise. It those that should be the primary concern. Not people earning £150K and considering not taking a pay rise because they dont want to give up 50%

 

Simple:

if you took 0.25% off each of the top tier politicians salaries, then worked your way down the sewage system to the local councils and took off 1% off the salary of the fat nobbles who sit in the office you would recover huge amounts of money.

For example, my local council makes a staggering amount of money in parking revenue (well into the millions).

 

Nothing so complex. Reduce VAT, increase to top rate of tax to pay for it. 2 or 3 % should do it.
In what way?

 

You're just being paranoid

 

This is true to a certain extent, however, we still need the rich, even if they are savage, selfish, etc etc it's the drive to accumulate wealth that drives our economy. Whilst it noble for some to commit their lives to a higher cause, this will not help our country dig itself out of the economic mire that we find ourselves in today. This is to say that we don't need these noble people, however, even the rich can be just as noble through philanthropic activity.

 

Do you have the figures to substantiate this to make it a cost effective measure? Bearing in mind that reducing VAT from 20% to 17.5% would would cost HMRC to the tune of £8.5bn and that the 50% top rate brought in only £1bn, I don't think an extra 3% on the top rate will simply do.