.

[Fergie 307]

Just floating this ( im not an economist )
If everyone beyond say 18k a year paid a flat rate of 20%, no exceptions, including on bonuses and any other 'benefits' of their job / investments, would we be better or worse off? At the mo a lot of high earners get away with cheating their tax bills, so a 20%, non negotiable rate for all, would be fair?
Including big tech and corporations, i.e google and amazon forvexample

I think that is broadly the idea behind Truss eliminating the top rate. Tax people at a level they believe is reasonable and they are less likely to try and avoid paying it, so the overall take actually increases. In itself a perfecty sensible argument, and Thatcher proved that it could work. Problem is you need to have measures in place first to ensure compliance, or IMO anyway. To just do it in present circumstances was daft. If she had wanted to be radical she could have taken 2p off the 40p rate. That would have helped a lot of people, and might well have stimulated some growth.

 

[Yorkieguy]

Source/reference please. Cheers

Karen on Facebook?

 

[Jacob]

Did they?? I know the stevie ray vaughn version, didnt know the beetles wrote it

I saw an article on flipboard a few days ago when a guy ( the author i believe ) complaned that his benefits didnt rise to match inflation and his mortgage payments i didnt read the article ( couldnt be bothered ), but one commenter was astounded that his benefits factored in to help get the mortgage !

Why? He's got to have somewhere to live. Do you think he (and his family) should take to the streets if they can't afford the mortgage, or rents for that matter?

 

[clogs]

In my other post it should have said my elec went from just over a 100 euro's to almost 800 for the same amount....

I would be happy if all companies pay a standard UNAVOIDABLE tax of 15% on profit made in the UK....Amazon, StarBucks etc....
There should be no tax deductables...if the company can afford a Roll's or a Lear Jet ten it's cost and servicing should come out of the profit thats left.....
the only tax deductables should be for genuine research....
Lastley if u are to be and MP, or high flying civil servant etc, your tax and income should become available to the public ....
that would go some way to the pocket fillers being outed.....
Now for the big'un.....
all the sabre rattling from China should be met with a total ban on all imports...time to put the commies in their place.....
I feel for the norm Chinaman who can't escape their system....
it's time for a revolution......

 

[Jacob]

I think that is broadly the idea behind Truss eliminating the top rate. Tax people at a level they believe is reasonable and they are less likely to try and avoid paying it, so the overall take actually increases.

Don't be silly!

In itself a perfecty sensible argument, and Thatcher proved that it could work.

No she did not. It's a popular loony-right fairy story.

... If she had wanted to be radical she could have taken 2p off the 40p rate. That would have helped a lot of people,

Not really. It's a huge number of people and a big drop in tax revenue, but small amount per person, taken from people not the poorest in society by any means. The poorest don't benefit from tax cuts - they don't pay tax.

and might well have stimulated some growth.

The way to stimulate growth is to take money from where it is not needed (where it is saved) to where it is needed (where it is spent). Redistribute downwards. It's childishly simple.
It also remedies problems of poverty and deprivation at a stroke and improves society and civilisation for all.
Trussonomics is very radical but childishly moronic. Will achieve exactly the opposite of what is claimed. Increased rents, mortgages, other costs, stops people spending. Increased interest rates encourage the better off to save. Trickle up theory works. Trickle down theory is very silly.

 

[Scruples]

Last year's pension increase covered 3 out of 12 months increase in electricity. ( That is last year's increase only). It didn't cover the increases in petrol, council tax, food....

This year? F*** knows!

Won't be long before I have to pay out more than I get just to breathe, let alone eat or go anywhere.

For what did I spend my life serving my community in the forces and emergency services? I could have worked in the private sector, or even as a politician feathering my own nest ( in between illegal wine parties at No.10 or going to Barnard Castle for my eye tests).

So, now you're beginning to see the futility of life.

 

[Amateur]

Its funny how most posts sit inside a structure that we all accept and work within hoping it will be fair to the working classes.
The truth is this is only one level of society.
Many Asian communities are themselves set up to be functioning societies outside the system.
While many benefits drug addicts, drug suppliers travelling communities, county line working kids all exist outside the normal tax paying system most of us here live within.
But we always attack the rich for not contributing enough while these other sections of society go untouched.
Yet today anyone who tries to level up the system, (s) and I include immigrants in boats in this, find themselves attacked by judges, courts and the self righteous all fighting for their own causes outside our laws and order tramlines that we here accept as the rules.

 

[Jacob]

Its funny how most posts sit inside a structure that we all accept and work within hoping it will be fair to the working classes.
The truth is this is only one level of society.
Many Asian communities are themselves set up to be functioning societies outside the system.
While many benefits drug addicts, drug suppliers travelling communities, county line working kids all exist outside the normal tax paying system most of us here live within.

Nothing particularly Asian about it. Many Asian communities provide us with doctors, nurses and other workers at all levels.

But we always attack the rich for not contributing enough

We attack the politicians who don't tax the rich enough, or care for the poor enough, and those who defend this.

 

[AlanY]

Why? He's got to have somewhere to live. Do you think he (and his family) should take to the streets if they can't afford the mortgage, or rents for that matter?

Not quite sure why I should pay his mortgage or rent, though. The guy should get a job. Or work two jobs. Otherwise benefits becomes a lifestyle choice and that is not what was intended with the welfare system. It is supposed to be a safety net. A temporary measure. I have worked and paid my taxes for 48 years without once having to fall back on benefits. When times were hard, I had a second job as a taxi driver evenings and weekends. It was dung, but it fed the kids and kept the house warm. The benefits system needs a root and branch overhaul to get it back to what it should be. People who choose not to work can also choose to be cold and hungry.

 

[Amateur]

Nothing particularly Asian about it. Many Asian communities provide us with doctors, nurses and other workers at all levels.

We attack the politicians who don't tax the rich enough, or care for the poor enough, and those who defend this.

Im talking functioning communities outside the norm.

 

[Jacob]

Not quite sure why I should pay his mortgage or rent, though. The guy should get a job. Or work two jobs.

Many people do just that.

..... People who choose not to work .....

People don't choose not to work - except the idle rich of course!

 

[Jacob]

Im talking functioning communities outside the norm.

Yes there are criminals of various sorts who dodge paying taxes. Asians don't particularly feature highly in this group. The most egregious examples are the mega rich tax dodgers, they come from all walks of life and send their kids to Eton.

 

[Suffolk Brian]

Couple of bits.
The first house my (then) wife an I went after was a bog standard end terrace two up two down in Watford in Hertfordshire. £5000. The council offered us a 100% low start mortgage, starting at £80 per month, going up to £100 after 5 years. I lay awake at night wondering where the **** I would get £100 a month from.
Income tax. I have a pet opinion that everyone should pay 20p in the £1 on everything. No more, no less. No tax free pay/income, no sliding scale, nothing. Just 20p in the £1.
Another beef. We are pensioners. A penny off National Insurance. What the ****? As pensioners we don’t pay National Insurance, so how does that help us. We cannot go on strike, “demanding” 10% raise. Pensioners always suffer. Always - unless you can afford to live somewhere hot and probably exotic and have a good accountant.
Merging the last two points, why not merge income tax and National Insurance? We all know that N.I. money doesn’t get spent directly on the health service, so why cover it up. How about a single flat rate tax in place of them both. We would all know where we stand then.

 

[DrPhill]

The way to stimulate growth is to take money from where it is not needed (where it is saved) to where it is needed (where it is spent). Redistribute downwards. It's childishly simple.
It also remedies problems of poverty and deprivation at a stroke and improves society and civilisation for all.
Trussonomics is very radical but childishly moronic. Will achieve exactly the opposite of what is claimed. Increased rents, mortgages, other costs, stops people spending. Increased interest rates encourage the better off to save. Trickle up theory works. Trickle down theory is very silly.

rutger_bregman_poverty_isn_t_a_lack_of_character_it_s_a_lack_of_cash

 

[Amateur]

Yes there are criminals of various sorts who dodge paying taxes. Asians don't particularly feature highly in this group. The most egregious examples are the mega rich tax dodgers and they come from all walks of life and send their kids to Eton.

Their entire money borrowing system is outside the tax system.

And the mega rich criminal also sends his son to Eton?
Hes different?

 

[Jacob]

......I have a pet opinion that everyone should pay 20p in the £1 on everything. No more, no less. No tax free pay/income, no sliding scale, nothing. Just 20p in the £1.
......

It would be grossly punitive on the less well off. A much higher proportion (often all) is spent on essentials. A 20% tax would be a tax on essentials; food, heat, living etc. not a tax on surplus wealth.
Whereas a multi millionaire is not likely to suffer any inconvenience if deprived of half a million or so.
Money is worth much more, tax much more punitive, in real terms, to the less well off, and vice versa.

 

[Jacob]

..... savers have been suffering ....

Poor things! At least they've got a bit of cash stashed away!

 

[Jacob]

Im talking functioning communities outside the norm.

Imaginary functioning communities outside the norm

 

[Jorny]

One of the largest problem is that in many countries (especially here in Sweden), wages are taxed more than profits from capital. This basically means that the rich are taxed less and the poor more. It also distorts the economy and leads to an ever increasing financialization where resources are moved away from the real economy of goods and services and towards the financial sector.

 

[Fergie 307]

Don't be silly!

No she did not. It's a popular loony-right fairy story.

Not really. It's a huge number of people and a big drop in tax revenue, but small amount per person, taken from people not the poorest in society by any means. The poorest don't benefit from tax cuts - they don't pay tax.

The way to stimulate growth is to take money from where it is not needed (where it is saved) to where it is needed (where it is spent). Redistribute downwards. It's childishly simple.
It also remedies problems of poverty and deprivation at a stroke and improves society and civilisation for all.
Trussonomics is very radical but childishly moronic. Will achieve exactly the opposite of what is claimed. Increased rents, mortgages, other costs, stops people spending. Increased interest rates encourage the better off to save. Trickle up theory works. Trickle down theory is very silly.

The only problem with the idea of increasing taxes on the rich is that it assumes that they will stay put and take it, which of course they wont, so it doesnt work in practice. Healey famously announced that he would tax the rich until they squeaked, and introduced a top rate which equated to something like 98%. Very popular with the left im sure, but how much revenue did it raise, pipper all. Simply because the vast majority of those liable either found loopholes to avoid it, or voted with their feet and left the country. When Thatcher dropped the rate actual revenue increased overall. I do get annoyed when people keep saying"the rich should pay more tax". They DO pay more tax, if your salary was £1 million you would pay well over £400k in taxes, way more than you are going to take out of the system. What we need to crack down on is those who seek to avoid paying it. Increasing the rates just penalises the law abiding and does nothing to adress this. And I agree entirely the the idea of cutting taxes has no immediate benefit to the most needy, and was a stupid idea. Cant help wondering how many who voted for Truss are now regretting it, but then from speaking to a few people I know who got to vote, they were annoyed that the two final candidates, voted for by MP's, were the last people they wanted to see on the ballot.