Interesting films about Russia, essential viewing!

[John Brown]

I thought this was about russian films? none of you can stick to subjects very well, now you're talking about politics, universal credit, and we've got the very worst of hard left and hard right here in the same room, you're doing yourself no favours all you old men, surprised none of you have had a heart attack yet.

That's a big assumption.

 

[Jacob]

I binge watched them over two days finishing last episode last night. I found it very interesting. I had not heard of the series but thanks for letting me know.

I'm doing it one at a time. Episode 4 next.

 

[PhilipL]

Never been a problem in the past. Thatcher 1979, top rate was reduced from 83% to 60% and the basic rate from 33% to 30%.
Probably would have been better to keep it high as low tax doesn't produce any particular benefits other than making the wealthy even better off.

VAT was 15%. It affects the lowest income group most at its current rate. Also a high rate encourages cash usage to avoid the 20%.

We tax income and expenditure but not wealth. Why not?

 

[Scruples]

They are surviving still but foreign owned and in many cases foreign state run industries. Complete madness.

The unions fought to keep industries going.

Exactly. The unions represent the interests of working people. Thatcher was not on their side.

And fewer council houses to rent. She also created more homelessness and inadequate housing. We now have a whole generation who are unlikely to get on "the housing ladder".

reducing the tax burden on the better off by reducing the quality of life for the less well off. They often call it "austerity" as though it's necessary, but only apply it to the less well off. We will be hearing more of this from the current govt.

For some but not for all.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/nov/07/ftse-100-executive-pay-rose-23-per-cent-4m-2022 Trussell Trust sees 81% increase in food bank usage across its network

.

 

[Scruples]

I don't see it like that. She saw that some industries weren't going to survive, in the long term, without massive government funding. The unions were strong and fought any changes she made which resulted in the inevitable closures. One thing she was determined about was that she wouldn't let the country be held to ransom by the unions.
She did, though, create more home owners and reduce the burden on the taxpayer at the same time. Good times.

VAT was 15%. It affects the lowest income group most at its current rate. Also a high rate encourages cash usage to avoid the 20%.

We tax income and expenditure but not wealth. Why not?

.It applies to all but affects those on lower incomes. Taxing incomes and purchases means everbody contributes to the state coffers. Although taxing the wealthy would contribute a little more, it might also reduce their ability for expansion in the business and employment. Not something the government would want.

 

[Jacob]

VAT was 15%. It affects the lowest income group most at its current rate. Also a high rate encourages cash usage to avoid the 20%.

We tax income and expenditure but not wealth. Why not?

Thatcher increased VAT from 8 to 15% in 1979. A simple move to shift the tax burden to the less well off whilst massively reducing income tax for the wealthy A higher proportion of the the poor's spending goes on VAT.

Scruples said:
.It applies to all but affects those on lower incomes. Taxing incomes and purchases means everbody contributes to the state coffers. Although taxing the wealthy would contribute a little more, it might also reduce their ability for expansion in the business and employment......

They didn't do that - they stashed it away and/or bought assets, especially housing, hence the historically high prices.
Best way to encourage investment is to increase corporation tax. It's not taxed if it's re-invested and it discourages crude profiteering

 

[bansobaby]

A higher proportion of the the poor's spending goes on VAT.

Are you saying that a greater proportion of the spending of someone lower down the income scale than the spending of someone higher up goes on VAT?

Utterly preposterous....... you really have missed your calling as a politician or more likely a spin-doctor.....

 

[Jacob]

Are you saying that a greater proportion of the spending of someone lower down the income scale than the spending of someone higher up goes on VAT?
......

Yes exactly that.
It's well known and often commented upon. Check it for yourself it's not difficult.

"....the poorest fifth of people paid 22.9% on indirect taxes such as Value Added Tax (VAT) compared with 9.1% for the richest fifth of people in FYE 2021...".

https://www.tutor2u.net/economics/blog/are-indirect-taxes-regressivehttps://www.poverty.ac.uk/report-ta.../low-income-households-hit-indirect-tax-rises

 

[johna.clements]

When working class people were given the offer to buy their homes for £5 grand, not long after along came a nice chap to offer them £8 grand they had never seen this amount of money in one fail swoop so they sold but now fewer council housing so private renting from a chap with a portfolio of properties
Same with buying shares in utilities as soon as they went up after purchasing them they sold em off they didn't reinvest profits they had a foreign holiday bought a new car, big tv . And like now Universal credits give them all thier allowances in one payment each month so they can pay thier own bills . All these things are fine if you can understand money and budgets but if your not shown how to play the capitalist game you go out and blow the lot and are left with nothing Hence higher povity levels in the nation ( But that's what I believe ) but before its replied "who needs beliefs"

The benefit system incentivises spending money rather than saving.

You’re currently allowed £6000 of savings, it was less back in the 80s. They are "taxed" on the amount over this allowance of £4.35 every month for every £250 they have over £6000. The person with £8000 would loose £34.80 per month or £417.60 per year.

If you are in a job that is cyclic or are getting older and you may have to stop working a manual job a rainy day fund could be a bad idea.

 

[bansobaby]

It's well known and often commented upon. Check it for yourself it's not difficult.
https://www.tutor2u.net/economics/blog/are-indirect-taxes-regressivehttps://www.poverty.ac.uk/report-ta.../low-income-households-hit-indirect-tax-rises

Another attempt to dodge.

It's simple maths:

Most food is zero VAT rated, rent is almost always zero VAT rated, mortgage payments do not attract VAT, energy for heating is 5% VAT rated. These by definition will be the principle expenditures of those on low income.

Unless your "rich person" buys solely zero rated items with their excess expenditure, it is impossible for your statement, "A higher proportion of the the poor's spending goes on VAT" to hold true.

Generally these threads cause me to merely chuckle, but blatant disinformation a.ka. BS, p***** me off.

 

[Jacob]

Another attempt to dodge.

It's simple maths:

Most food is zero VAT rated, rent is almost always zero VAT rated, mortgage payments do not attract VAT, energy for heating is 5% VAT rated. These by definition will be the principle expenditures of those on low income.

Unless your "rich person" buys solely zero rated items with their excess expenditure, it is impossible for your statement, "A higher proportion of the the poor's spending goes on VAT" to hold true.

Generally these threads cause me to merely chuckle, but blatant disinformation a.ka. BS, p***** me off.

So are you saying the links above are telling lies?
Or have you got the maths wrong?
Hint - it's not about the absolute sum, it's about the proportion of income.
Hope that helps.
The video explains it well:

 

[johna.clements]

Another attempt to dodge.

It's simple maths:

Most food is zero VAT rated, rent is almost always zero VAT rated, mortgage payments do not attract VAT, energy for heating is 5% VAT rated. These by definition will be the principle expenditures of those on low income.

Unless your "rich person" buys solely zero rated items with their excess expenditure, it is impossible for your statement, "A higher proportion of the the poor's spending goes on VAT" to hold true.

Generally these threads cause me to merely chuckle, but blatant disinformation a.ka. BS, p***** me off.

What maths you have not shown any.

Bottom 20% spend 10% of dispoable housahald income on VAT the top 20% of households 5% on VAT.

https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-8513/CBP-8513.pdf

 

[bansobaby]

So are you saying the links above are telling lies? Or have you got the maths wrong?
Hint - it's not about the absolute sum, it's about the proportion of income.
Hope that helps.

Hint- I'm fully aware of how the mathematics works:

If it were about the absolute sum, your statement would be correct given that those on higher incomes will generally spend more.

You clearly stated that the proportion paid by those on lower income was higher.

I repeat, that is a mathematical impossibility unless those on lower income spend none of that income on the zero and lower VAT rated expenditure mentioned above.

Nowhere in the links you provide does it state "A higher proportion of the the poor's spending goes on VAT."

 

[bansobaby]

What maths you have not shown any.

Bottom 20% spend 10% of dispoable housahald income on VAT the top 20% of households 5% on VAT.

https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-8513/CBP-8513.pdf

Disposable income does not equal total income.

 

[johna.clements]

Disposable income does not equal total income.

Yes disposal income is after direct taxes. The bottom 20% pay twice as much as the top 20% after direct tax.

 

[Jacob]

That's it

 

[bansobaby]

Yes disposal income is after direct taxes. The bottom 20% pay twice as much as the top 20% after direct tax.

Disposable income being what is left after tax is the Uk Government definition.

Most accepted definitions of disposable income are that it's what is left after you have kept yourself alive.

If you spend, for example, £800 of your £850 income on zero or reduced VAT rated items to stay alive then the rest on "luxury" full VAT rated items, you have either spent 20% or thereabouts of your "income" on VAT or about 2.5%.

I imagine that those in the higher income brackets would have to be dead to spend less than 2.5% of their expenditure on VAT.

I don't necessarily disagree with some of the sentiments being expressed, but twisting already highly dubious statistics should be left to politicians.

 

[Jacob]

Disposable income being what is left after tax is the Uk Government definition.

Most accepted definitions of disposable income are that it's what is left after you have kept yourself alive.

If you spend, for example, £800 of your £850 income on zero or reduced VAT rated items to stay alive then the rest on "luxury" full VAT rated items, you have either spent 20% or thereabouts of your "income" on VAT or about 2.5%.

I imagine that those in the higher income brackets would have to be dead to spend less than 2.5% of their expenditure on VAT.

I don't necessarily disagree with some of the sentiments being expressed, but twisting already highly dubious statistics should be left to politicians.

Who has twisted anything and what is dubious about the figures? Are you saying the links I quoted are lies?

 

[bansobaby]

That's it

That's not it.

You stated expenditure.

Disposable income, whatever the definition, is highly unlikely to equate to expenditure at higher income levels. It will be saved.

 

[Jacob]

That's not it.

You stated expenditure.

Disposable income, whatever the definition, is highly unlikely to equate to expenditure at higher income levels. It will be saved.

Splitting hairs.
Saving is one way of spending your money. Maybe there should be a tax on savings expenditure? There are arguments for direct wealth taxes.