Will Posted April 14, 2010 Posted April 14, 2010 The flat rate of tax for all is maybe a bit far but lumping NI in with tax is definitely a sensible idea. The tax system could really do with a massive simplification. Why get rid of inheritance tax? Why have it? The money has already been taxed at least once already, do the government really need to take another chunk of it?
Fierce_LiNk Posted April 14, 2010 Posted April 14, 2010 (edited) Basically, increase police, double the number of troops, create new jobs. How do they plan to do this? It's just a classic case of "tell the public what they want to hear." Also, how do they intend to just have one United British Culture? Is that even a good idea? Multiculturalism isn't an entirely bad idea...the world is made up of so many people. Edited April 14, 2010 by Fierce_LiNk
Dannyboy-the-Dane Posted April 14, 2010 Posted April 14, 2010 Basically, increase police, double the number of troops, create new jobs. How do they plan do this? It's just a classic case of "tell the public what they want to hear." Also, how do they intend to just have one United British Culture? Is that even a good idea? Multiculturalism isn't an entirely bad idea...the world is made up of so many people. The whole idea of national identity is a bit silly, really. Who decides what's British and what's not? We all have different ideas of what is [insert nationality adjective], all of them essentially stereotypes and prejudices with more or less truth in them.
ipaul Posted April 14, 2010 Posted April 14, 2010 The flat rate of tax for all is maybe a bit far but lumping NI in with tax is definitely a sensible idea. The tax system could really do with a massive simplification. Why have it? The money has already been taxed at least once already' date=' do the government really need to take another chunk of it?[/quote'] A massive simplication that means poor people are paying more than before (or at least as much as) whilst the rich have their taxes heavily reduced and public services like the NHS are left to die. I actually think inheritance tax, as long as it is reserved for rich people (say 500k, a little higher than the current threshold, which I think is too low) is one of the fairest taxes there is. It makes more sense than income tax on a level. Think about someone like...Paris Hilton. Not a great example I know, but what did she really do to earn all of that money she's inheriting? Is it really fair to keep all of that money between a few wealthy families? For middle class and working class people, inheritance tax doesn't make all that much sense, taking a chunk of money from an already meagre sum. But for the rich, I support it. (class being used purely in the American economic term here)
Will Posted April 14, 2010 Posted April 14, 2010 It only results in the poor paying more if you do it in a stupid way. There's no reason a tax simplification has to fuck anyone over. The thing with inheritance tax, let's use your example, is that most of that money is tied up in assets and business that won't be inherited at all - merely passed on as part of a business that comes under someone else's control at some point. I think a parent who has worked all their life should be able to choose where their money goes without someone taking a huge chunk out of it. In fairness all that ends up happening is that people pass on their wealth before they die so as to avoid it. It would be much easier just to let it go completely.
ipaul Posted April 14, 2010 Posted April 14, 2010 It only results in the poor paying more if you do it in a stupid way. There's no reason a tax simplification has to fuck anyone over. The thing with inheritance tax' date=' let's use your example, is that most of that money is tied up in assets and business that won't be inherited at all - merely passed on as part of a business that comes under someone else's control at some point. I think a parent who has worked all their life should be able to choose where their money goes without someone taking a huge chunk out of it. In fairness all that ends up happening is that people pass on their wealth before they die so as to avoid it. It would be much easier just to let it go completely.[/quote'] Their tax simplification does no favours for anyone. Apart from the wealthiest people in the country. It is profoundly right wing and regressive, even Thatcher would look at that and go 'Wow that's a bit far'. The abolish national insurance bit and it incorporate into income tax would be welcome, but they heavily reduces taxes for the wealthiest few and that to me is just perverse. Fair point about inheritance there, but still, it be nice if we could at least try and spread that money around a little. Tax evasion's a massive problem generally, not just with the inheritance.
Will Posted April 14, 2010 Posted April 14, 2010 Oh sorry wires crossed on that one, I totally agree the way they plan to do it is ridiculous. I agree with the idea though. Absolutely right on the evasion point, the trouble is it's usually the rich who are able to do it. Again, it's something I think a big simplification of tax in general would sort out.
Mr_Odwin Posted April 14, 2010 Posted April 14, 2010 I don't support UKIP. Let me get that out there. But ... to make their 31% look better consider this: 1) The tax free amount one earns would be raised to £11500. 2) Abolishing NI accounts for the other 11%, that would be added to the standard 20%. Essentially they are merging the two and raising the amount you can earn. It would simplify a wage slip and the poorest people would see a tangible net wage increase. (And so would the mega rich, and their net increase would be much larger. I personally fall on the "tax the rich because no one needs that much money" side of the fence.)
ipaul Posted April 14, 2010 Posted April 14, 2010 I don't support UKIP. Let me get that out there.But ... to make their 31% look better consider this: 1) The tax free amount one earns would be raised to £11500. 2) Abolishing NI accounts for the other 11%, that would be added to the standard 20%. Essentially they are merging the two and raising the amount you can earn. It would simplify a wage slip and the poorest people would see a tangible net wage increase. (And so would the mega rich, and their net increase would be much larger. I personally fall on the "tax the rich because no one needs that much money" side of the fence.) Well the two points you raise i agree with. But if you're gonna tax normal folk 31%, then rich people should be maybe ...55%? I think we all agree here :P
Will Posted April 14, 2010 Posted April 14, 2010 Yeah I think you're right on that, personally I'd go for a higher tax free limit, say £15k, the next £85k taxed at 25-30% (Tax and NI combined) and then anything over £100k tax the hell out of, say 60% or so. You'd obviously need to know the real figures to tweak that correctly but I don't see why it couldn't work.
Supergrunch Posted April 14, 2010 Posted April 14, 2010 Yeah I think you're right on that' date=' personally I'd go for a higher tax free limit, say £15k, the next £85k taxed at 25-30% (Tax and NI combined) and then anything over £100k tax the hell out of, say 60% or so. You'd obviously need to know the real figures to tweak that correctly but I don't see why it couldn't work.[/quote']So wait, someone earing a gross of £90k gets say, £63k after tax (assuming 30%), but somone on £100k only gets £40k? I'm all for higher percentages of tax on those who earn more, but I think they should still end up actually earning more.
ipaul Posted April 14, 2010 Posted April 14, 2010 So wait, someone earing a gross of £90k gets say, £63k after tax (assuming 30%), but somone on £100k only gets £40k? I'm all for higher percentages of tax on those who earn more, but I think they should still end up actually earning more. No but only the money earned from £100k onwards would be taxed at that amount. They earn £150k - £100k is taxed at 30%, £50k is taxed at 60%.
Supergrunch Posted April 14, 2010 Posted April 14, 2010 No but only the money earned from £100k onwards would be taxed at that amount. They earn £150k - £100k is taxed at 30%, £50k is taxed at 60%. Ah okay, that makes more sense. Not sure what precise figures I'd advocate though.
ipaul Posted April 14, 2010 Posted April 14, 2010 Ah okay, that makes more sense. Not sure what precise figures I'd advocate though. Yeah I think it's impossible to name any precise figures when you don't have the entire budget and a team of accountants with you.
Mr_Odwin Posted April 14, 2010 Posted April 14, 2010 So wait, someone earing a gross of £90k gets say, £63k after tax (assuming 30%), but somone on £100k only gets £40k? I'm all for higher percentages of tax on those who earn more, but I think they should still end up actually earning more. Grunch doesn't understand tax bands! WE FOUND HIS WEAKNESS GUYS!!
Dannyboy-the-Dane Posted April 14, 2010 Posted April 14, 2010 It's pleasant to see we share the same opinion on these things.
jayseven Posted April 14, 2010 Posted April 14, 2010 lawl :P I've just realised the date for the election so I have a fantastic new excuse for not voting; I have essays due in on teh 5th and teh 7th of May.
Will Posted April 14, 2010 Posted April 14, 2010 Pretty much the whole labour party just came round to our area. They buzzed every flat at the same time, rude! They will definitely not be getting my vote now (not that they would have anyway).
nightwolf Posted April 14, 2010 Posted April 14, 2010 lawl :P I've just realised the date for the election so I have a fantastic new excuse for not voting; I have essays due in on teh 5th and teh 7th of May. Pah, nobody needs an excuse to not vote. I haven't voted, why? Because I have no fecking clue about politics and in a year I may be abroad. Pah *shuffles on*
ipaul Posted April 14, 2010 Posted April 14, 2010 Non voters annoy me. I swear they should make politics compulsory at secondary education.
dwarf Posted April 14, 2010 Posted April 14, 2010 It is, but barely. I actually think Brown is the least twattish of all 3 leaders.
nightwolf Posted April 14, 2010 Posted April 14, 2010 It is, but barely. I actually think Brown is the least twattish of all 3 leaders. No it isn't. I wasn't taught anything about voting at my high school nor college.
ipaul Posted April 14, 2010 Posted April 14, 2010 It is, but barely. I actually think Brown is the least twattish of all 3 leaders. What's wrong with Clegg?
MoogleViper Posted April 14, 2010 Posted April 14, 2010 No it isn't. I wasn't taught anything about voting at my high school nor college. We spent an hour on it. They essentially said that there's three parties, Labour, Conservative and Lib Dem. What's wrong with Clegg? Although I'm a Lib Dem I'm not the world's biggest fan of Clegg. Vince Cable however...
ipaul Posted April 14, 2010 Posted April 14, 2010 We spent an hour on it. They essentially said that there's three parties, Labour, Conservative and Lib Dem. Although I'm a Lib Dem I'm not the world's biggest fan of Clegg. Vince Cable however... I'm not either but I don't think he's a twat...
Recommended Posts