Great news
- Thread starter garyi
- Start date
martin clark
pinko bodger
No, they're not - if the narrative is right. And it really ought to be; any Opposition MP right now has an open-goal of 12yrs + of snide corruption, sycophancy & abject-waste, to kick at.
I've no issue with paying more tax, very esp. as part of gross, progressive reformation of tax structure, for so many better outcomes for the present - and investment in the future.
None whatsoever. That's exactly what I want, the kind of Society I aspire to, work-toward & want the UK to be. Yes, obviously it will cost me personally more to do so*. So be it.
* - but perhaps rather less than is obvious for all of us - if the huge margin of present Graft can be reigned-in... that also needs to happen. Another open-goal for any Opposition MP to mine.
I've no issue with paying more tax, very esp. as part of gross, progressive reformation of tax structure, for so many better outcomes for the present - and investment in the future.
None whatsoever. That's exactly what I want, the kind of Society I aspire to, work-toward & want the UK to be. Yes, obviously it will cost me personally more to do so*. So be it.
* - but perhaps rather less than is obvious for all of us - if the huge margin of present Graft can be reigned-in... that also needs to happen. Another open-goal for any Opposition MP to mine.
Ponty
pfm Member
Yet we’ve had the highest tax burden for 70 years. How high does it need to be? The most recent labour govt have never had a 45% income tax rate, that was a tory thing.
martin clark
pinko bodger
It's very, very much less about what the 'tax burden' is: but very, very much more , about how the monies raised by such a levy is used.
It's the second half where (amongst other things) the present & previous Conservative administrations have utterly, utterly failed us all. You say 'we’ve had the highest tax burden for 70 years' - and if that's true .. ask WHY there is so little or nothing to show for it. Ask Why; not 'how much'..? Nor 'how little can I get away with..?'
It's the second half where (amongst other things) the present & previous Conservative administrations have utterly, utterly failed us all. You say 'we’ve had the highest tax burden for 70 years' - and if that's true .. ask WHY there is so little or nothing to show for it. Ask Why; not 'how much'..? Nor 'how little can I get away with..?'
Joe Hutch
Mate of the bloke
How are you liking this 'true conservatism' that's been unleashed?
Jim Audiomisc
pfm Member
Jim Audiomisc
pfm Member
Not if its: "Tax bombshell... erm, dropped on big international companies who are willingly acting as Putin's weapon of war against us."
Ponty
pfm Member
Keep it simple, just raise the personal allowance. Trouble with the axing of the 45p rate is although the optics are terrible, it only raised £2BN a year IIRC, which is a drop in the ocean compared with the cost of a rise in personal allowance, or a 1p cut in basic rate income tax, or NI cut (back to where it was). More than 25% of all income tax revenue is paid by the top 1% of taxpayers and 90% of all income tax revenue is paid by the top 50% of taxpayers with the highest incomes. I’d call that more than a ‘fair share’.
Ponty
pfm Member
Ireland has a far lower corp tax rate (12.5%). They seem to get away with it OK.
If we're swimming in a all time high of tax revenue then maybe we should take a closer look at where it is all going, because it's certainly not trickling down.
Ponty
pfm Member
You’ve got to look at % of overall income paid in tax. I can’t be bothered to do the numbers now as I’m going for a dog walk but total tax % on a £50K salary really isn’t that much. It’s a far bigger % on a £150K salary, which is also subject to losing the personal allowance altogether don’t forget. Which is why increasing the personal allowance is a very progressive policy IMHO.
kjb
Proof reading not always a strength
I can't recall who, bit someone once said something like "the British want North American levels of taxation and North European standards of public services."
I spent quite a bit of the summer in Scandanavia. Ther public spaces, education, transport make the UK look like it's been left behind. Mind you, I bought a small glass of wine and a beer and paid nearly £30. I've never been sure whether the British see that as an acceptable payoff.
I fear that might all change with recent event in Sweden...
kjb
Proof reading not always a strength
I think there are many older people (including many of my own family) who get most of their news from the Daily Mail and the tv, mainly the BBC. As the BBC are constantly being accused of left-wing bias, buy the Mail as much as anyone, I do think the news media shape significant aspects of their world view.
Most days I dip into The Guardian, The independent, the BBC, C4, the Mail and the Sun to see their differing viewpoints. There are days when it seems they are writing about different countries. My kids (aged 17 -38) get their news online, from podcasts and social media and while well informed and engaged rarely go near what I think of as traditional media.
I think it is both dangerous and patronizing to think that wide sections of our country don't have their views shaped by The Scum and Wail. Politicians know how pervasive their influence is which is why they put so much time not cultivating them and using them to circulate their views. Tony Blair realised how difficult it is to win power without cultivating positive links with Fleet Street. Social media may change that over time but not int he lifetime of this or the next government.
Sue Pertwee-Tyr
Accuphase all the way down
Maybe I’m being dumb, but I don’t really see how the majority of income tax is paid by high earners, if the 45% rate only raises c£2bn. The high earners are very much in the minority, so are greatly outnumbered by ‘ordinary’ taxpayers. So how do they get to pay most income tax, if the higher rate is so ineffective? I suspect you have swallowed the rhetoric/dogma without thinking; alternatively I’ve missed something. Which is it?
My Dad was once a really clued up bloke with his finger on the pulse, now like you say he is old and gets all his news from a shit newspaper and the TV out of routine/tradition.
He's now clueless and doesn't know about half of the stuff going on I tell him about, I'm pretty sure he thinks I'm making most of it up or because I get it from online sources that it is all some sort of conspiracy theory I'm ravelled up in. Sad really.
foxwelljsly
Me too, I ate one sour too.
Of course it only raises £2bn. It only penalises high earner’s income that can’t be legally concealed from HMRC. Most people earning £100k+ should be smart enough to get a bit creative about their tax affairs.
Jim Audiomisc
pfm Member
Overall, accepted and (sadly) agreed. But the question is why so many read and believe the Daily Mail when reality is still around them. e.g. Your energy prices will go up even if you read the DM. As will other prices now. We've had Tory Governments for many years. And the BBC present a quite different view. So why believe the DM rather than the BBC or check with other media?
Shows a lack of willingness to think critically. Fine in good times, maybe. But for many we've not had anthing like 'good times' for *decades* now. Why take on trust that the DM is correct?
I used to regularly read various newspapers and mags. (Helped that a local shop also sold various 'international' editions at times from other places like the US.) Over the years I honed that down to sources that had a recording of being accurate and reliable rather than simply rants or lies. I don't think I'm particularly bright. Just willing to check things out critically.
I confess I'm also doubtful of a lot of 'social media'. Given the use that people like Trump make of it and have some fall for it. Short messages tend to be simplistic assertions with no evidence. Also may be more emotion than fact or rationality.
Also used to make a lot of use of public libraries to find things. Then bought copies of some books when I'd found reason to. Prefer a book to short messages. More room for assessment of reliability vs it being propaganda or a rant. Where's the beef?