THE FOURTH OF JULY

[RobinBHM]

Amazing how many people rise up to defend the right of the mega rich to have much more than they need when so many have much less, whether in terms of income and/or in public services

I defend the opportunity for the rights of the mega rich to have much more than they need

I dont care how much people can earn

I do care that our political system is rigged so the wealthy can give money to government in exchange for political influence specifically so that the rich can accumulate more wealth and the least paid get less.


We should not live in a society where millions of people are not able to earn enough to have a decent standard of living
We should not live in a society where taxes are so high because weve flogged all our public services and are now at the mercy of sovereign wealth funds
We should not live in a society where people cant afford a comfortable secure home at a cost in proportion to their wages
We should not live in a society where we have no safety net for those fallen on hard times -if you get ill and lose your job you could be homeless in 3 months

I dont care what the solution is, but a solution is what we need

 

[Spectric]

The only taxation system that would be fair is one where everyone contributes their fair share without using avoidance schemes. It is also to crude in that there are not enough bands so a transition from one to another is felt harder, why should you suddenly pay 40% because you get a small payrise. I think the system needs some hysteresis included so that rather than these sudden step changes you get the breakpoint but also a margin that you need to exceed so for example rather than 40% at £50,271 you must be at least say £2000 over so that if you get a small payrise that takes you £1200 over then it has no impact wheras currently that payrise is only £720. Also more actual bands because 20% & 40% are now hitting the lower earners hardest so maybe 20%, 30%, 40%, 60% and 75% so the taxation requires those earning a lot more would pay more. A lot of the problems are because it seems money brings out the worst in people, if you have been lucky and worked hard to get rich then how can you accept others who struggle to put food on the table even though they might be working all the hours possible . There is no reason not to set up a charitable trust to provide something for your local community and to also just make donations to help others brcause often these people have far more money than they could ever spend.

 

[Jacob]

.....

I do care that our political system is rigged so the wealthy can give money to government in exchange for political influence specifically so that the rich can accumulate more wealth and the least paid get less.


We should not live in a society where millions of people are not able to earn enough to have a decent standard of living
We should not live in a society where taxes are so high because weve flogged all our public services and are now at the mercy of sovereign wealth funds
We should not live in a society where people cant afford a comfortable secure home at a cost in proportion to their wages
We should not live in a society where we have no safety net for those fallen on hard times -if you get ill and lose your job you could be homeless in 3 months

I dont care what the solution is, but a solution is what we need

I agree. That makes you what could be called a "pragmatic socialist". It's about doing what's necessary.
As I understand it (or not) Marxists call it "praxis" i.e. what is actually done rather than a theory about it. Marx was very vague about praxis and not at all clear what his communist society would actually turn out like, hence soviet Russia and "command economies" etc.

 

[RobinBHM]

The only taxation system that would be fair is one where everyone contributes their fair share without using avoidance schemes. It is also to crude in that there are not enough bands so a transition from one to another is felt harder, why should you suddenly pay 40% because you get a small payrise. I think the system needs some hysteresis included so that rather than these sudden step changes you get the breakpoint but also a margin that you need to exceed so for example rather than 40% at £50,271 you must be at least say £2000 over so that if you get a small payrise that takes you £1200 over then it has no impact wheras currently that payrise is only £720. Also more actual bands because 20% & 40% are now hitting the lower earners hardest so maybe 20%, 30%, 40%, 60% and 75% so the taxation requires those earning a lot more would pay more. A lot of the problems are because it seems money brings out the worst in people, if you have been lucky and worked hard to get rich then how can you accept others who struggle to put food on the table even though they might be working all the hours possible . There is no reason not to set up a charitable trust to provide something for your local community and to also just make donations to help others brcause often these people have far more money than they could ever spend.

this point: "Also more actual bands because 20% & 40% are now hitting the lower earners hardest"

I would say that those tax bands are where we see people struggling, but I wonder if the problem is that wages are too low and cost too high rather than taxation

Property costs and childcare costs are way too high

Im not making a political point, just pointing out the facts, I think most of us realise there is a problem in this country and its been growing.

 

[Jacob]

t...

Property costs and childcare costs are way too high

and the profits thereof, where taxation is too low.

 

[Terry - Somerset]

The term "wealthy" and "rich" needs definition. Asset values need to be separated from income - a 25 year old IT wizard may earn £250k pa and rent a flat, a farmer with land worth £5m may struggle to make minimum wage. A few figures: related to taxpayers (not total population)

• The top 1% have an income over £200k
• The top 3% have an income over £100k.
• The top 10% have an income over £62k
• The 50th ;percentile is £27k

Pay (not total income) in many professions sits in the range £60-100k - GPs, hospital consultants, secondary school head teachers, police chief inspector, qualified solicitors, etc. They are reasonably rewarded for responsibility, training and ability.

There are regional differences, and incomes will vary with age and experience.. Circumstances vary - house-owner, mortgage, dependant children, 2nd household income etc.

Spending more to improve public services needs to be funded through increased taxation, not borrowing. Relying on the top 1-3% to improve services for the remaining 97-99% is unlikely to materially improve public services.

To illustrate = the additional tax rate of 45% is paid on incomes over £150k. A 1% increase in the rate is estimated to raise £150-200m. A 10p rise = £1-2bn. Total public expenditure in the UK is ~£1200bn. Thus a 10% increase would only make a trivial difference.

Conclusion - to materially reduce UK inequality means that many who are neither rich nor wealthy will have to contribute - perhaps starting on incomes over (say) £40k. "Soak the idle rich" is populist rhetorical garbage, not a realistic proposition.

 

[Spectric]

I would say that those tax bands are where we see people struggling, but I wonder if the problem is that wages are too low and cost too high rather than taxation

Yes people are struggling because the threshold at which you pay 40% tax has not changed for several years, people are getting pay rises which push them over this threshold and now pay 40% on everything over the threshold which often makes the payrise insignificant. If you are just £1000 over this threshold you only get £600 but if you are £10000 over then you may lose more but also you still get more and may not struggle. We need a lower bracket for those at the lowest incomes of say 15% , then 30% and 45% for those on more than £75000 then a high rate at 55% for above £150000. You could have a special bracket for those who earn ridiculous money for doing nothing more than kicking a ball around and this tax income is used for only helping stop poverty.

 

[Jacob]

....

To illustrate = the additional tax rate of 45% is paid on incomes over £150k. A 1% increase in the rate is estimated to raise £150-200m. A 10p rise = £1-2bn. Total public expenditure in the UK is ~£1200bn. Thus a 10% increase would only make a trivial difference.

I'm sure you are right - much more is needed. 1979 In Thatchers first budget the top rate was reduced from 83% to 60% and the basic rate from 33% to 30%. The drop to 60% produced no notable benefit (except to the rich).
Top tax rates in 1963 were an astonishing 91% and the economy was booming

Conclusion -

Conclusion? That you are a bit of an old tory!

to materially reduce UK inequality means that many who are neither rich nor wealthy will have to contribute - perhaps starting on incomes over (say) £40k.

OK, but more direct personal taxation and less indirect - which hits the low paid hardest

"Soak the idle rich" is populist rhetorical garbage, not a realistic proposition.

I'm all for it!
More so now as so many things are in various states of emergency.
It's the elephant in the room which no politician dares mention. Even the tories know this and have been furtively raising taxes. Starmer needs to go for full on - maybe a top rate of 75% for starters, not to frighten the horses. Plus other taxes and reforms of course. Plenty of scope there.
https://equalitytrust.org.uk/scale-economic-inequality-uk/

 

[RobinBHM]

Yes people are struggling because the threshold at which you pay 40% tax has not changed for several years, people are getting pay rises which push them over this threshold and now pay 40% on everything over the threshold which often makes the payrise insignificant. If you are just £1000 over this threshold you only get £600 but if you are £10000 over then you may lose more but also you still get more and may not struggle. We need a lower bracket for those at the lowest incomes of say 15% , then 30% and 45% for those on more than £75000 then a high rate at 55% for above £150000. You could have a special bracket for those who earn ridiculous money for doing nothing more than kicking a ball around and this tax income is used for only helping stop poverty.

Since 2019 there have been £80b of taxes rises put in place mostly stealth taxes by freezing personal allowance and tax bands.

Tories are lying when they say they cutting taxes
Labour are being dishonest by not addressing it

 

[Jacob]

Here's another opinion on why need to raise taxes. Lots of people are saying the same. It makes grim reading. It's a BIG elephant in the room but it should be welcomed rather than moaned about -taxation is the price of civilisation. https://www.theguardian.com/busines...-face-uk-public-services-on-brink-of-collapse

 

[Jacob]

Or emigration, or movement around Britain etc who knows?
My point is it's an increasing fact of life and we might as well work out how to deal with it in a civilised way now, while we still can. A rehearsal! To face it rather than ducking out with moronic schemes like Rwanda.
Also we desperately need the labour force.

More along the same lines https://www.theguardian.com/comment...un/07/migration-truth-political-leaders-right

 

[Spectric]

The financial equation is not balanced because we have a huge national debt since Covid and less people in employment paying taxes so you get a hole, you can cut expenditure and reduce taxes but have to accept the loss of services or everyone pays tax to spread the overal burden and keep things running, we are trying to maintain lifestyles that cannot be maintained anymore because the UK is not productive.

 

[RobinBHM]

Here's another opinion on why need to raise taxes. Lots of people are saying the same. It makes grim reading. It's a BIG elephant in the room but it should be welcomed rather than moaned about -taxation is the price of civilisation. https://www.theguardian.com/busines...-face-uk-public-services-on-brink-of-collapse

it is the age old problem

we know we need higher taxes but the public vote for lower taxes

The Conservatives have been promising freebies for decades, during the 80s and 90s the Tories lowered taxes as a bribe using North Sea oil revenue as the funding source so squandering it unlike Norway. Then they privatised everything not nailed down and gave away more tax cut bribes. Then Thatcher flogged council houses and used the money to give away as....tax cuts

Then Blair got in and built shiny new hospitals using future generations to pay for it


And now the coffers are well and truly empty, we are truly forked

 

[Jacob]

...... the UK is not productive.

But taxation plus public spending IS productivity and spreads into many other areas of the economy.
High tax and spend leads to higher productivity, and vice versa - see low tax "banana republic" comments earlier

 

[Jacob]

...

And now the coffers are well and truly empty, we are truly forked

Only if we don't start filling them again. Say 75% top rate as an emergency measure for starters, then a review across the whole field.

 

[ey_tony]

Do you think the typical British worker should be able to earn enough in a full time job to afford to live and have a secure home?
We currently have 4.8m people in food insecurity, 6 million people in fuel poverty and 8 million people waiting for NHS treatment

the UK has far worse levels of inequality than many other Western economies, the typical Brit has a far lower standard of living


Given that there are lots of people who are working full time but cant afford to live, I find it hard to agree with this statement:

"It's not the wealthy who aren't contributing enough it's the vast majority of workers who aren't and that disparity needs addressing"

Workers cant afford to save, some cant afford 3 meals a day every day of the month, many cant afford to heat their homes, increasingly people cant buy houses and are trapped in rent.

Since when is Inequality or failing social policies the fault of the successful or the wealthy?

 

[Jacob]

Since when is Inequality or failing social policies the fault of the successful or the wealthy?

More or less always.
Workers don't choose long hours, low wages and high rents, they are thrust upon them, often by very well paid management who also pay themselves massive bonuses at the drop of a hat. Even when they are utterly incompetent like Paula Vennals, and an army of similar berks

 

[Chris152]

Since when is Inequality or failing social policies the fault of the successful or the wealthy?

Aye, just about forever. I guess you've not studied history.

 

[Terry - Somerset]

Policies are produced by politicians who have to balance what is required with the prospects of electoral success.

It is naïve to expect politicians to act only upon what is required. They may be sacrificing their seat at the next election, to be replaced by those who may not share their policies. Barmy!!

The other option is to suspend democratic processes so that the party in power can fully implement their policies. Whether an election would ever be held willingly is debateable. Unacceptable!!

Proposals, no matter how sincerely held, that do not reflect the compromises that need to be made lack any real substance.

 

[Jake]

Proposals, no matter how sincerely held, that do not reflect the compromises that need to be made lack any real substance.

True, but there is enormous subjectivity in what is considered possible as well as what compromises need to be made. None of the variables are fixed (obviously).