Another Drive4show 'Anything goes' thread

[beninho]

First topic message reminder :

https://officiating.worldrugby.org/?module=3&section=36&subsection=129&language=en

"It is not mandatory for the team receiving the challenge to face it."

How many effing times. If they don't face it up silently and respectfully they get massive media criticism.

No they don't!

This is getting crazy!

[super_realist]

£8m was the figure touted yesterday but its still a living wage -until Jezza gets in and all footballers and managers will be off.Last one out put the lights out(to reduce carbon footprint)
Todays show promised to double the number of houses built at present- double.So where do the tradesmen land and finance come from. It is just impossible to make that kind of thing happen over the short term maybe over 10 years.There is virtually no unemployment at present so no one sitting waiting to become a bricky or joiner or eco worker
We have been insulating houses since 1978 when grants were first introduced.Corbyn is verging on madness in my opinion.I work for a social housing business and we build hundreds of houses a year as do many others.One of our lettings agents spoke to a young man sitting outside the local Aldi recently (homeless) and said we can help you he declined and said he would rather live rough -incredible .

Absolutely right. It's absolutely absurd to claim that they could build that sort of number in the timescale, just as it's absurd for Corbyn to claim he can get a new deal in 3 months for Brexit. It's akin to Canada laughably claiming they'll plant 10bn trees in the next ten years.

I've nothing especially against Labour, I wouldn't even mind a moderate Labour government, but a crackpot socialist Marxist government like Corbyn and his loathsome cohorts like Abbott and McDonnel want will absolutely kill this country.
It's easy for them to make such a ludicrous and laughable manifesto when they know they are practically unelectable. They are as deluded in those plans as the increasingly annoying Jo Swinson is in her assertion that she will be PM.

Labour should have swept to power in 2017, and they would have if they weren't such a divided and lunatic party with Corbyn at the helm. There has never been a more unpopular opposition leader. How could Labour not see the damage this man is doing and get rid of him and get someone who could actually get the party in power?


McDonnels costings are already being laughed at and his latest claim of taxing oil companies is hilarious. It's already the most highly taxed industry in the whole of the UK, they'll just relinquish licences and go elsewhere where tax regimes are more favourable.

I'm not sure I can vote for any party out of who I actually want to run the country. I'll  vote for the Lib Dems in my seat to keep the bigoted SNP out but that's as far as it goes.

[beninho]

People do choose to sleep rough. But these people are usually entrenched rough sleepers with a multitude of problems. The issue of providing housing at that point, will not solve the issues. They have usually bern failed by the system. Mental health issues not picked up early enough or no support provided. Even housing assistance not provided at the early stages. When someone has been rough sleeping and in hubs, they tend to struggle to having a house, and again the support is thin on the ground to assist in maintaining a tenancy. Bills to pay, furniture, rent,money to budget. Its a tough transition.

We have a housing crisis, and building more homes can only be a good thing, but it all depends where they are built. London has more in temporary accommodation then the rest of England together. Will homes be built in london boroughs?

[beninho]

I saw a clip from question time of someobe moaning about a tac rise for over 80k earners. Now maybe, it should be 100k limits. But ig someone earning 80k cant pay an extra 250 then he has more problems then tax. If he doesn't want to, he had more problems.

[super_realist]

I saw a clip from question time of someobe moaning about a tac rise for over 80k earners. Now maybe, it should be 100k limits. But ig someone earning 80k cant pay an extra 250 then he has more problems then tax. If he doesn't want to, he had more problems.

There comes a point when it's no longer fair to claim that just because you earn more, then you should be the one where additional tax burden is placed.

Some on 20k pays £1850  in income tax and NI per year.

Someone on 60k pays £16700 in income tax and NI per year. (someone on 80k pays £25k total tax, nearly 14x what someone earning 4x less pays)

Someone on £60000 earns 3x as much, but pays almost 10 times more tax.  Don't higher earners already pay enough on that basis? Why should high earners keep being punished for their endeavours? They already more than pay their fair share of tax. Why ask them to pay more? It kills innovation and causes a brain drain if you just keep adding tax to the high earners (or even moderate earners) in this country.

I agree that anyone in that bracket can afford the extra £250, that's not the point,  but why should they constantly be threatened with tax rises? They already pay massively into the exchequer and pay a much higher proportion of their salary in tax than those on lower salaries.
Governments need to think of other methods of revenue raising rather than simply robbing from the population.

[beninho]

Yep, I find it fair and have no issues with people earning more paying more. I have issues with people using creative acvounting to reduce tax liabilities. And big businesses paying less then they should.

[super_realist]

I don't find it unfair that earning more means you pay more, but when you already pay 10-14 times more, yet only earn 3-4 times more than any further increase in tax is unjust.

[JAS]

People do choose to sleep rough. But these people are usually entrenched rough sleepers with a multitude of problems. The issue of providing housing at that point, will not solve the issues. They have usually bern failed by the system. Mental health issues not picked up early enough or no support provided. Even housing assistance not provided at the early stages. When someone has been rough sleeping and in hubs, they tend to struggle to having a house, and again the support is thin on the ground to assist in maintaining a tenancy. Bills to pay, furniture, rent,money to budget. Its a tough transition.

We have a housing crisis, and building more homes can only be a good thing, but it all depends where they are built. London has more in temporary accommodation then the rest of England together. Will homes be built in london boroughs?

That’s the beauty about debate on these sort of forums, I know I can be a bit lefty ranty but I do like to hear alternative angles on my perception. Homelessness and poverty are an absolute scourge on a civilised society and it’s all very well ranting about how we got here and who’s to blame (the easy bit). The first step to moving the debate on is hearing what the actual practicalities and implications are on the ground, without that NO political party can offer a practical way forward. That to me is a lot to do with what’s missing in politics. Politicians see a problem (or have one highlighted to them) and immediately go on a platform apportioning blame and saying how they’ll do it differently. All well and good but all too often the missing link is them actually understanding the problem they’re trying to solve. In that respect and in terms of housing and homelessness I really do think Corbyn is much much closer to understanding the “at the coal face” reality (although the papers will tell you he’s just a Marxist idealist.

To me if you form an opinion, whether it be from principle or from observation or both and then stick rigidly to it without listening to those challenging it then you eventually end up looking completely and utterly out of touch.

[super_realist]

JAS,
Corbyn may well be closer to the struggles of those that are worse off, but you can't seriously believe that the suggestions he puts forward are in any way workable. Nice idea, but total pipe dreams.

Everything that Corbyn suggests as a solution is a way of killing any financial source which could provide the funds to help solve these problems.

For example. Who is going to pay for his idea to treble the housing being built?
Who is going to pay to get rid of public schools? Who is going to pay to put the private pupils though state school?
Who is going to pay for the renationalising of rail, water and energy companies?
It's pie in the sky stuff.

The only way forward for Labour, and I think you know it is to move back towards the centre left, maybe not as far as it was under Blair, but it certainly needs to move.

[JAS]

I don't find it unfair that earning more means you pay more, but when you already pay 10-14 times more, yet only earn 3-4 times more than any further increase in tax is unjust.

It’s called progressive taxation Super, the way you quibble over the detail of it makes you sound like you don’t like the overall principle that people earning more pay more.

The real problem at the moment is that the degree of progression is skewed in favour of the top, the whole “trickle down” economics so trumpeted as the way to go since Reagan and Thatcher neoliberalism was ushered in and encouraged by every government since (yes including Blair’s). Well guess what, 40 years in and it’s becoming bloody obvious that wealth and prosperity DOESNT trickle down, wealth trickles across to secret bank accounts in places like Panama & the Cayman Islands, thus leaving economies short of money in circulation, how do we address that? Well how about redressing the balance, those smart enough to move money offshore and damage the economy should be first in the queue to pay for the repairs.

How about a decade or 2 of TRICKLE UP economics!!

[JAS]

JAS,
Corbyn may well be closer to the struggles of those that are worse off, but you can't seriously believe that the suggestions he puts forward are in any way workable. Nice idea, but total pipe dreams.

Everything that Corbyn suggests as a solution is a way of killing any financial source which could provide the funds to help solve these problems.

For example. Who is going to pay for his idea to treble the housing being built?
Who is going to pay to get rid of public schools? Who is going to pay to put the private pupils though state school?
Who is going to pay for the renationalising of rail, water and energy companies?
It's pie in the sky stuff.

The only way forward for Labour, and I think you know it is to move back towards the centre left, maybe not as far as it was under Blair, but it certainly needs to move.

Super, we paid to bail out banks FFS!! Are you saying you’re happier to pay through taxation to help restore bankers bonuses than you are to see the less well off in this country adequately housed?? That is effectively what you’re saying. Have a think about that the next time you pass an occupied shop doorway.

Besides a large house building program would produce “real jobs” employment. That means additional tax & NI receipts, that means more spending power for a lot of working people which will also mean additional vat receipts. So it’s not quite the “pie in the sky”

So for £80bn we’d get a fair bit of economic gain as opposed to the £80bn we put into the banking system to refloat it (significant proportion of that is now languishing off shore not helping our economy at all.

[McLaren]

I don't fully agree with super on the point he raises about the tax rates for those earning over 60k but a portion of the wage bracket he mentions is what should be considered middle class, and historically middle class wasn't seen as the wealthy elite.

I don't feel I would be betraying my leftie roots to support slightly lower tax burdens for those in roughly the 50-80K bracket but more heavily tax the very wealthy. A goal of any political system should be to grow a healthy and happy middle class. I guess I don't know the exact numbers to make it work but it feels like a fair society wouldn't overly tax the middle class to let the very wealthy off the hook.

[JAS]

I don't fully agree with super on the point he raises about the tax rates for those earning over 60k but a portion of the wage bracket he mentions is what should be considered middle class, and historically middle class wasn't seen as the wealthy elite.

I don't feel I would be betraying my leftie roots to support slightly lower tax burdens for those in roughly the 50-80K bracket but more heavily tax the very wealthy. A  goal of any political system should be to grow a healthy and happy middle class. I guess I don't know the exact numbers to make it work but it feels like a fair society wouldn't overly tax the middle class to let the very wealthy off the hook.

Without actually looking it up Mac, where do you think £50k income puts you on the income distribution scale, similarly for £80k?

[McLaren]

Jas

Probably puts you well up there. I obviously (given my political leanings) think that group (50-80K) should be pretty thoroughly taxed, I just have an instinct that until you put the effort into taxing the super rich and big corporations then be careful about coming for relatively ordinary people. To be clear I would not condone a massive tax cut for this group just that they hardly seem like the people to target if you want to fairly grow the tax income.

[Roller_Coaster]

Problem is, they're the group that will put up and shut up. Don't have enough to move or employ someone to find affordable tax avoidance schemes.

The rich rich will be more able/likely jut to up sticks and business owners may be able to relocate (depending on business of course). Hitting big corporates is just the same - go and have a look round Dublin for the tech sector in a relatively unlikely place for a huge tech sector.

[navyblueshorts]

I saw a clip from question time of someobe moaning about a tac rise for over 80k earners. Now maybe, it should be 100k limits. But ig someone earning 80k cant pay an extra 250 then he has more problems then tax. If he doesn't want to, he had more problems.

There comes a point when it's no longer fair to claim that just because you earn more, then you should be the one where additional tax burden is placed.

Some on 20k pays £1850  in income tax and NI per year.

Someone on 60k pays £16700 in income tax and NI per year. (someone on 80k pays £25k total tax, nearly 14x what someone earning 4x less pays)

Someone on £60000 earns 3x as much, but pays almost 10 times more tax.  Don't higher earners already pay enough on that basis? Why should high earners keep being punished for their endeavours? They already more than pay their fair share of tax. Why ask them to pay more? It kills innovation and causes a brain drain if you just keep adding tax to the high earners (or even moderate earners) in this country.

I agree that anyone in that bracket can afford the extra £250, that's not the point,  but why should they constantly be threatened with tax rises? They already pay massively into the exchequer and pay a much higher proportion of their salary in tax than those on lower salaries.
Governments need to think of other methods of revenue raising rather than simply robbing from the population.

Tend to agree with this providing they pay their actual tax share, and not employ a clever accountant to find loopholes and reduce their overall tax.

[navyblueshorts]

I don't fully agree with super on the point he raises about the tax rates for those earning over 60k but a portion of the wage bracket he mentions is what should be considered middle class, and historically middle class wasn't seen as the wealthy elite.

I don't feel I would be betraying my leftie roots to support slightly lower tax burdens for those in roughly the 50-80K bracket but more heavily tax the very wealthy. A  goal of any political system should be to grow a healthy and happy middle class. I guess I don't know the exact numbers to make it work but it feels like a fair society wouldn't overly tax the middle class to let the very wealthy off the hook.

Problem is, this isn't going to work is it? Especially not these days where it's apparently so easy to move your wealth around. I thought there was pretty good empirical evidence of what an 'acceptable' higher rate band of tax was - somewhere in the 40s %? Much higher and people would rather move than pay it.

Not clear, but:

https://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/9678

[JAS]

I saw a clip from question time of someobe moaning about a tac rise for over 80k earners. Now maybe, it should be 100k limits. But ig someone earning 80k cant pay an extra 250 then he has more problems then tax. If he doesn't want to, he had more problems.

There comes a point when it's no longer fair to claim that just because you earn more, then you should be the one where additional tax burden is placed.

Some on 20k pays £1850  in income tax and NI per year.

Someone on 60k pays £16700 in income tax and NI per year. (someone on 80k pays £25k total tax, nearly 14x what someone earning 4x less pays)

Someone on £60000 earns 3x as much, but pays almost 10 times more tax.  Don't higher earners already pay enough on that basis? Why should high earners keep being punished for their endeavours? They already more than pay their fair share of tax. Why ask them to pay more? It kills innovation and causes a brain drain if you just keep adding tax to the high earners (or even moderate earners) in this country.

I agree that anyone in that bracket can afford the extra £250, that's not the point,  but why should they constantly be threatened with tax rises? They already pay massively into the exchequer and pay a much higher proportion of their salary in tax than those on lower salaries.
Governments need to think of other methods of revenue raising rather than simply robbing from the population.

Tend to agree with this providing they pay their actual tax share, and not employ a clever accountant to find loopholes and reduce their overall tax.

I’d quote one of my favourite economists here. Taxation is effectively asset protection insurance. The more you have, the more should be prepared to pay to protect it.
I.e. you’ve done well and earned enough to buy a big country house, your taxes pay for the police that will come to help you if anyone tries to come and attack you or steal from you. The more you have and therefore the more you have to lose,  the more you pay. Would you expect to pay the same to insure a 1.5lr Skoda as you would a Porsche or Ferrari? No of course you wouldn’t, same principle applies, why should the state not apply the same logic as insurance company’s??

[McLaren]

Jas

As with a lot of economics it sounds nice on paper but does anyone actually think as reasonably as that?

[pedro]

Jas, don’t think anybody disagrees high earners should pay higher taxes. And they also do. Question is how much more.

PS: then why shouldn’t the 40-fags-a-day-fat-loser pay an extra ‘insurance’ when he’ll most likely be a much higher burden on the NHS than the guy in the country house?

[super_realist]

I don't find it unfair that earning more means you pay more, but when you already pay 10-14 times more, yet only earn 3-4 times more than any further increase in tax is unjust.

It’s called progressive taxation Super, the way you quibble over the detail of it makes you sound like you don’t like the overall principle that people earning more pay more.

The real problem at the moment is that the degree of progression is skewed in favour of the top, the whole “trickle down” economics so trumpeted as the way to go since Reagan and Thatcher neoliberalism was ushered in and encouraged by every government since (yes including Blair’s). Well guess what, 40 years in and it’s becoming bloody obvious that wealth and prosperity DOESNT trickle down, wealth trickles across to secret bank accounts in places like Panama & the Cayman Islands, thus leaving economies short of money in circulation, how do we address that? Well how about redressing the balance, those smart enough to move money offshore and damage the economy should be first in the queue to pay for the repairs.

How about a decade or 2 of TRICKLE UP economics!!

The whole problem with the Corbyn idea of the "wealthy" is he seems to think that anyone earning over say 80k is a top hat wearing, cigar chomping industrialist who is stamping down on the throat of the poor.
He seems to have this absurd "them and us" peddled by his blatant lie that there are "billionaires and the rest who live in poverty".

If you'd noticed, we aren't talking about people who stash money overseas, we are talking about ordinary people who in Corbyn's eyes have had the temerity to do well for themselves and have dared to earn 80k and therefore simply have to expect that because they have worked hard and been sensible enough to pick a lucrative career path that they should always be opened to being taxed more. Well there comes a point where they've already paid enough. I accept I'm taxed more than someone who is less well off. nothing wrong with that, but there's only so much you can keep taxing people before it becomes unfair.
If I pay 10-14 times the tax of someone else, how much more do you want to take off me?

[super_realist]

I don't fully agree with super on the point he raises about the tax rates for those earning over 60k but a portion of the wage bracket he mentions is what should be considered middle class, and historically middle class wasn't seen as the wealthy elite.

I don't feel I would be betraying my leftie roots to support slightly lower tax burdens for those in roughly the 50-80K bracket but more heavily tax the very wealthy. A  goal of any political system should be to grow a healthy and happy middle class. I guess I don't know the exact numbers to make it work but it feels like a fair society wouldn't overly tax the middle class to let the very wealthy off the hook.

Problem is, this isn't going to work is it? Especially not these days where it's apparently so easy to move your wealth around. I thought there was pretty good empirical evidence of what an 'acceptable' higher rate band of tax was - somewhere in the 40s %? Much higher and people would rather move than pay it.

Not clear, but:

https://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/9678

It's not that easy to move your wealth around though is it? High earners like Doctors, Dentists, Lawyers, Pilots, Divers, IT Directors,  Company directors etc are hardly stashing their money offshore are they? These are the people who are considered "high earners", we are not talking about people like Actors, Musicians, Large corporations etc who take advantage of rules created/permitted by governments to move their money around and avoid taxation. You seem to be implying that everyone on a decent salary is moving money around to avoid paying tax. Total crap.

These are ordinary people and aren't trying to hide or move around their "wealth". They've worked hard for it, why should they constantly bear the brunt of rising taxes in the sort of hell that Corbyn wants to create. Why does Corbyn want to punish people who dare to do well for themselves?

[super_realist]

JAS,
Corbyn may well be closer to the struggles of those that are worse off, but you can't seriously believe that the suggestions he puts forward are in any way workable. Nice idea, but total pipe dreams.

Everything that Corbyn suggests as a solution is a way of killing any financial source which could provide the funds to help solve these problems.

For example. Who is going to pay for his idea to treble the housing being built?
Who is going to pay to get rid of public schools? Who is going to pay to put the private pupils though state school?
Who is going to pay for the renationalising of rail, water and energy companies?
It's pie in the sky stuff.

The only way forward for Labour, and I think you know it is to move back towards the centre left, maybe not as far as it was under Blair, but it certainly needs to move.

Super, we paid to bail out banks FFS!! Are you saying you’re happier to pay through taxation to help restore bankers bonuses than you are to see the less well off in this country adequately housed?? That is effectively what you’re saying. Have a think about that the next time you pass an occupied shop doorway.

Besides a large house building program would produce “real jobs” employment. That means additional  tax & NI receipts, that means more spending power for a lot of working people which will also mean additional vat receipts. So it’s not quite the “pie in the sky”

So for £80bn we’d get a fair bit of economic gain as opposed to the £80bn we put into the banking system to refloat it (significant proportion of that is now languishing off shore not helping our economy at all.

No JAS, I didn't even infer that. I don't want to see the lower income charged more for tax, my point is that you can't keep adding on tax to those in higher tax brackets and punishing their efforts in getting to where they are when they already more than pay their fair share of tax.
Like I said, there's nothing wrong with progressive taxation, but it's a piss take when you already pay massive amounts of tax that you get more and more on top to pay for Corbyn's crackpot manifesto pledges.

(by the way, it wasn't so much that Corbyn wanted housing, more the unrealistic numbers he brought up, which like most of his plans are pulled right out of his bony arse)

Taxation should come from elsewhere rather than robbing those who have dared to do well and who are already paying a massive % of their salaries to the government. I already pay a massive amount of tax, why should I pay any more? Find more avenues to tax companies who avoid paying tax, how about that? How about saving money in the NHS through bad management to help fund that? How about taxing more on fast food? Why does it always have to come down to charging individuals more? How about NOT giving MP's salary increases well above inflation? How about not giving them half of the expenditure claims they do? We have some of the lowest rates of corporation tax in Europe, how about raising some of that?

Corbyn like the total hypocrite he is seems to despise anyone who is not a working class peasant. How could anyone want a party led by this buffoon in Government? I'd take a moderate Labour government, but not one with him, McDonnel or Abbot in  it. They are a disgrace and being as far left as they are is just as bad as a party being far right. Corbyn reminds me of a sixth form debater, idealistic, but no genuine solutions. Like a Wolfie Smith.

I wouldn't even consider someone on 80k to be an especially high earner. Seems unfair to put an extra tax burden on those who have a good, but not amazing income.

[super_realist]

Jas

Probably puts you well up there.  I obviously (given my political leanings) think that group (50-80K) should be pretty thoroughly taxed, I just have an instinct that until you put the effort into taxing the super rich and big corporations then be careful about coming for relatively ordinary people.  To be clear I would not condone a massive tax cut for this group just that they hardly seem like the people to target if you want to fairly grow the tax income.

The 50k to 80k bracket is already thoroughly taxed Mac as I demonstrated. That's the point JAS seems to ignore. He's bought into this Corbyn poison that you can keep adding tax on top of this group because "you can afford it" whilst ignoring that this group already pays its fair share, if not more.

It might be true that 80k puts you in the top 5% of earners, and I've seen graphs to show this, but the majority of wealth in this country is held by the very top couple of %, not those earning 80k.

Glad you see that the 50-80k are not the sort you should you putting additional tax burdens upon, shame JAS can't. I'm reasonably happy to pay the tax I'm paying, although not the Scottish surcharge, but putting anymore is just ridiculous.

Corbyn seems to want to put everyone on equal standing as if everyone deserves to earn the same, but then he's a Marxist Trot, so it's not surprising.

[beninho]

Realist do you earn over 80k a year?

What makes me laugh, is so many people saying 80k is not wealthy, yet its been confirmed tgat it is in the top 5% earners in the uk. So in comparison, yep, its pretty wealthy.

But, bigger issues are companies and tax avoidance schemes. The whole tax system needs to be cracked down.

[beninho]

I saw sonething showing the labour plans against current government spending throughout europe against GDP. Was maybe a third up on the list. So its notjing outlandish. Interesting point was that some countries, spread the tax burden, so it starts at a smaller income, and is higher for your middle earners so the jump to high earners isn't as noticeable. Swedan has a starting rate of 32%, France is 30% going to 41% at 70k.

Should the uk spread the burden or just increase for the highest earners?

[navyblueshorts]

I saw a clip from question time of someobe moaning about a tac rise for over 80k earners. Now maybe, it should be 100k limits. But ig someone earning 80k cant pay an extra 250 then he has more problems then tax. If he doesn't want to, he had more problems.

There comes a point when it's no longer fair to claim that just because you earn more, then you should be the one where additional tax burden is placed.

Some on 20k pays £1850  in income tax and NI per year.

Someone on 60k pays £16700 in income tax and NI per year. (someone on 80k pays £25k total tax, nearly 14x what someone earning 4x less pays)

Someone on £60000 earns 3x as much, but pays almost 10 times more tax.  Don't higher earners already pay enough on that basis? Why should high earners keep being punished for their endeavours? They already more than pay their fair share of tax. Why ask them to pay more? It kills innovation and causes a brain drain if you just keep adding tax to the high earners (or even moderate earners) in this country.

I agree that anyone in that bracket can afford the extra £250, that's not the point,  but why should they constantly be threatened with tax rises? They already pay massively into the exchequer and pay a much higher proportion of their salary in tax than those on lower salaries.
Governments need to think of other methods of revenue raising rather than simply robbing from the population.

Tend to agree with this providing they pay their actual tax share, and not employ a clever accountant to find loopholes and reduce their overall tax.

I’d quote one of my favourite economists here. Taxation is effectively asset protection insurance. The more you have, the more should be prepared to pay to protect it.
I.e. you’ve done well and earned enough to buy a big country house, your taxes pay for the police that will come to help you if anyone tries to come and attack you or steal from you. The more you have and therefore the more you have to lose,  the more you pay. Would you expect to pay the same to insure a 1.5lr Skoda as you would a Porsche or Ferrari? No of course you wouldn’t, same principle applies, why should the state not apply the same logic as insurance company’s??

Not bad. An interesting way to look at it for sure. However, there's clearly a threshold below which people are happy enough to suck it up, whereas above it, they'll avoid until the cows come home. Knowing this, what's the point of Labour, for example, suggesting they'll go beyond that and hit high earners etc? Pointless and it's been done before with little success. They've got to do better than that.

[navyblueshorts]

Jas

As with a lot of economics it sounds nice on paper but does anyone actually think as reasonably as that?

[navyblueshorts]

Jas, don’t think anybody disagrees high earners should pay higher taxes. And they also do. Question is how much more.

PS: then why shouldn’t the 40-fags-a-day-fat-loser pay an extra ‘insurance’ when he’ll most likely be a much higher burden on the NHS than the guy in the country house?

They're already paying a ****load of tax on their fags. Consider that as their insurance against lung disease perhaps?

[navyblueshorts]

I don't fully agree with super on the point he raises about the tax rates for those earning over 60k but a portion of the wage bracket he mentions is what should be considered middle class, and historically middle class wasn't seen as the wealthy elite.

I don't feel I would be betraying my leftie roots to support slightly lower tax burdens for those in roughly the 50-80K bracket but more heavily tax the very wealthy. A  goal of any political system should be to grow a healthy and happy middle class. I guess I don't know the exact numbers to make it work but it feels like a fair society wouldn't overly tax the middle class to let the very wealthy off the hook.

Problem is, this isn't going to work is it? Especially not these days where it's apparently so easy to move your wealth around. I thought there was pretty good empirical evidence of what an 'acceptable' higher rate band of tax was - somewhere in the 40s %? Much higher and people would rather move than pay it.

Not clear, but:

https://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/9678

It's not that easy to move your wealth around though is it? High earners like Doctors, Dentists, Lawyers, Pilots, Divers, IT Directors,  Company directors etc are hardly stashing their money offshore are they? These are the people who are considered "high earners", we are not talking about people like Actors, Musicians, Large corporations etc who take advantage of rules created/permitted by governments to move their money around and avoid taxation. You seem to be implying that everyone on a decent salary is moving money around to avoid paying tax. Total crap.

These are ordinary people and aren't trying to hide or move around their "wealth". They've worked hard for it, why should they constantly bear the brunt of rising taxes in the sort of hell that Corbyn wants to create. Why does Corbyn want to punish people who dare to do well for themselves?

Jesus. You take the first bit (which, admittedly isn't what I meant), but ignore all the rest?? You only see what you want.
OK. I'll be more accurate for you. Maybe I should have said employ a tax expert or financial advisor to tell you how to avoid paying your full share if you're in one of those groups. I don't have a problem with these people if they pay their full, allotted share of tax. Many don't.

[navyblueshorts]

JAS,
Corbyn may well be closer to the struggles of those that are worse off, but you can't seriously believe that the suggestions he puts forward are in any way workable. Nice idea, but total pipe dreams.

Everything that Corbyn suggests as a solution is a way of killing any financial source which could provide the funds to help solve these problems.

For example. Who is going to pay for his idea to treble the housing being built?
Who is going to pay to get rid of public schools? Who is going to pay to put the private pupils though state school?
Who is going to pay for the renationalising of rail, water and energy companies?
It's pie in the sky stuff.

The only way forward for Labour, and I think you know it is to move back towards the centre left, maybe not as far as it was under Blair, but it certainly needs to move.

Super, we paid to bail out banks FFS!! Are you saying you’re happier to pay through taxation to help restore bankers bonuses than you are to see the less well off in this country adequately housed?? That is effectively what you’re saying. Have a think about that the next time you pass an occupied shop doorway.

Besides a large house building program would produce “real jobs” employment. That means additional  tax & NI receipts, that means more spending power for a lot of working people which will also mean additional vat receipts. So it’s not quite the “pie in the sky”

So for £80bn we’d get a fair bit of economic gain as opposed to the £80bn we put into the banking system to refloat it (significant proportion of that is now languishing off shore not helping our economy at all.

No JAS, I didn't even infer that. I don't want to see the lower income charged more for tax, my point is that you can't keep adding on tax to those in higher tax brackets and punishing their efforts in getting to where they are when they already more than pay their fair share of tax.
Like I said, there's nothing wrong with progressive taxation, but it's a piss take when you already pay massive amounts of tax that you get more and more on top to pay for Corbyn's crackpot manifesto pledges.

(by the way, it wasn't so much that Corbyn wanted housing, more the unrealistic numbers he brought up, which like most of his plans are pulled right out of his bony arse)

Taxation should come from elsewhere rather than robbing those who have dared to do well and who are already paying a massive % of their salaries to the government. I already pay a massive amount of tax, why should I pay any more? Find more avenues to tax companies who avoid paying tax, how about that? How about saving money in the NHS through bad management to help fund that? How about taxing more on fast food? Why does it always have to come down to charging individuals more? How about NOT giving MP's salary increases well above inflation? How about not giving them half of the expenditure claims they do? We have some of the lowest rates of corporation tax in Europe, how about raising some of that?

Corbyn like the total hypocrite he is seems to despise anyone who is not a working class peasant. How could anyone want a party led by this buffoon in Government? I'd take a moderate Labour government, but not one with him, McDonnel or Abbot in  it. They are a disgrace and being as far left as they are is just as bad as a party being far right. Corbyn reminds me of a sixth form debater, idealistic, but no genuine solutions. Like a Wolfie Smith.

I wouldn't even consider someone on 80k to be an especially high earner. Seems unfair to put an extra tax burden on those who have a good, but not amazing income.

I chuffing would. That's UK top 5%.

[navyblueshorts]

Realist do you earn over 80k a year?

What makes me laugh, is so many people saying 80k is not wealthy, yet its been confirmed tgat it is in the top 5% earners in the uk. So in comparison, yep, its pretty wealthy.

But, bigger issues are companies and tax avoidance schemes. The whole tax system needs to be cracked down.

This. Everyone should be paying what they owe. No smart financial tricks to reduce the burden because of tax law complexities and the ability to pay for financial advice of that type. No company tricks to have a UK turnover of £billions but pay a tenner in tax. No limited liability partnership companies. Less of this so-called 'self-employed' status rubbish purely for tax purposes. Etc...

[navyblueshorts]

Here's a good one for you. Doctors in NHS forming an LLP, which the NHS then contracts (at extortionate rate) to get the doctors in the NHS (because they refuse to be employed directly) and said doctors then not taking a 'salary' but a 'dividend' instead.

I don't necessarily blame them (although I think the morals stink), but it should never be the case that this is allowable.

[dynamark]

Football clubs forced to give directorships to supporters trusts is actually in the labour manifesto
if the club changed hands.
Most consultants working for NHS and private care are companies and I don't blame them at all.The labour party seems to be all about envy and hatred of anyone who has done well usually through their own very hard work.The guy sitting on the street has usually had several efforts of support and help from the usual agencies but has dropped through the bottom and we cannot help all of the people all of the time.I see it every week very sad but a truth down to circumstance education drugs alcohol family and many other factors .We all get the same chance and some d not get to takeit

[beninho]

Nope, we don't all get the same chance. Do you believe that? Does anyone believe that?

[kwinigolfer]

Felt strongly that it was a (top) job too early for Frank Lampard - now feel he's been a breath of fresh air.
This Chelsea team is exciting to watch - with Loftus Cheek still to come.

Unrelated:
Job open at Goodison?

[dynamark]

Ben think back to your school days maybe 10/12 year old all in same boat and if you do know any of those folk now its always interesting to look at where we all are now.
I know a few and some have done very well,some not and some sadly not here anymore.
All a bunch of lively kids trying to get into the football team and chasing the girls.that age
I get the drawback being brought up in very poor areas but at that age we were all the same

[super_realist]

Realist do you earn over 80k a year?

What makes me laugh, is so many people saying 80k is not wealthy, yet its been confirmed tgat it is in the top 5% earners in the uk. So in comparison, yep, its pretty wealthy.

But, bigger issues are companies and tax avoidance schemes. The whole tax system needs to be cracked down.

My base salary is not 80k, but if the company has had a good year, if I've met my targets and get a decent bonus and if my share options vest then I would be around that figure.

My point is that the "go to" choice of left leaning governments is to constantly increase tax on individuals, and there's only so much you can keep taking off anyone before it becomes skewed and unfair. As I've already pointed out, I might pay 10-14 times the amount in tax as someone who earns only 3-4 times less. How far can it go before people realise that it's an unfair burden?

It seems that Corbyn simply wants to punish people for working hard and picking the right career path.

[super_realist]

Jas, don’t think anybody disagrees high earners should pay higher taxes. And they also do. Question is how much more.

PS: then why shouldn’t the 40-fags-a-day-fat-loser pay an extra ‘insurance’ when he’ll most likely be a much higher burden on the NHS than the guy in the country house?

They're already paying a ****load of tax on their fags. Consider that as their insurance against lung disease perhaps?

Surely fag smokers should also be paying a climate change levy on the polluting aspect of their revolting habit?

[super_realist]

I don't fully agree with super on the point he raises about the tax rates for those earning over 60k but a portion of the wage bracket he mentions is what should be considered middle class, and historically middle class wasn't seen as the wealthy elite.

I don't feel I would be betraying my leftie roots to support slightly lower tax burdens for those in roughly the 50-80K bracket but more heavily tax the very wealthy. A  goal of any political system should be to grow a healthy and happy middle class. I guess I don't know the exact numbers to make it work but it feels like a fair society wouldn't overly tax the middle class to let the very wealthy off the hook.

Problem is, this isn't going to work is it? Especially not these days where it's apparently so easy to move your wealth around. I thought there was pretty good empirical evidence of what an 'acceptable' higher rate band of tax was - somewhere in the 40s %? Much higher and people would rather move than pay it.

Not clear, but:

https://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/9678

It's not that easy to move your wealth around though is it? High earners like Doctors, Dentists, Lawyers, Pilots, Divers, IT Directors,  Company directors etc are hardly stashing their money offshore are they? These are the people who are considered "high earners", we are not talking about people like Actors, Musicians, Large corporations etc who take advantage of rules created/permitted by governments to move their money around and avoid taxation. You seem to be implying that everyone on a decent salary is moving money around to avoid paying tax. Total crap.

These are ordinary people and aren't trying to hide or move around their "wealth". They've worked hard for it, why should they constantly bear the brunt of rising taxes in the sort of hell that Corbyn wants to create. Why does Corbyn want to punish people who dare to do well for themselves?

Jesus. You take the first bit (which, admittedly isn't what I meant), but ignore all the rest?? You only see what you want.
OK. I'll be more accurate for you. Maybe I should have said employ a tax expert or financial advisor to tell you how to avoid paying your full share if you're in one of those groups. I don't have a problem with these people if they pay their full, allotted share of tax. Many don't.

Why aren't you blaming successive governments for allowing these schemes and loopholes to exist?

[navyblueshorts]

Jas, don’t think anybody disagrees high earners should pay higher taxes. And they also do. Question is how much more.

PS: then why shouldn’t the 40-fags-a-day-fat-loser pay an extra ‘insurance’ when he’ll most likely be a much higher burden on the NHS than the guy in the country house?

They're already paying a ****load of tax on their fags. Consider that as their insurance against lung disease perhaps?

Surely fag smokers should also be paying a climate change levy on the polluting aspect of their revolting habit?

Maybe they are, given the % of a pack of 20 that's tax?

[navyblueshorts]

I don't fully agree with super on the point he raises about the tax rates for those earning over 60k but a portion of the wage bracket he mentions is what should be considered middle class, and historically middle class wasn't seen as the wealthy elite.

I don't feel I would be betraying my leftie roots to support slightly lower tax burdens for those in roughly the 50-80K bracket but more heavily tax the very wealthy. A  goal of any political system should be to grow a healthy and happy middle class. I guess I don't know the exact numbers to make it work but it feels like a fair society wouldn't overly tax the middle class to let the very wealthy off the hook.

Problem is, this isn't going to work is it? Especially not these days where it's apparently so easy to move your wealth around. I thought there was pretty good empirical evidence of what an 'acceptable' higher rate band of tax was - somewhere in the 40s %? Much higher and people would rather move than pay it.

Not clear, but:

https://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/9678

It's not that easy to move your wealth around though is it? High earners like Doctors, Dentists, Lawyers, Pilots, Divers, IT Directors,  Company directors etc are hardly stashing their money offshore are they? These are the people who are considered "high earners", we are not talking about people like Actors, Musicians, Large corporations etc who take advantage of rules created/permitted by governments to move their money around and avoid taxation. You seem to be implying that everyone on a decent salary is moving money around to avoid paying tax. Total crap.

These are ordinary people and aren't trying to hide or move around their "wealth". They've worked hard for it, why should they constantly bear the brunt of rising taxes in the sort of hell that Corbyn wants to create. Why does Corbyn want to punish people who dare to do well for themselves?

Jesus. You take the first bit (which, admittedly isn't what I meant), but ignore all the rest?? You only see what you want.
OK. I'll be more accurate for you. Maybe I should have said employ a tax expert or financial advisor to tell you how to avoid paying your full share if you're in one of those groups. I don't have a problem with these people if they pay their full, allotted share of tax. Many don't.

Why aren't you blaming successive governments for allowing these schemes and loopholes to exist?

Who says I'm not? I'm not saying this 'avoidance' is illegal either (time someone sorted out this sort of issue though), but I'd debate both its moral position and also anyone so doing if they want to complain about anyone else's taxes, incl. those of the big corporations, income to the Exchequer, the NHS, education funding etc etc.

[JAS]

I don't fully agree with super on the point he raises about the tax rates for those earning over 60k but a portion of the wage bracket he mentions is what should be considered middle class, and historically middle class wasn't seen as the wealthy elite.

I don't feel I would be betraying my leftie roots to support slightly lower tax burdens for those in roughly the 50-80K bracket but more heavily tax the very wealthy. A  goal of any political system should be to grow a healthy and happy middle class. I guess I don't know the exact numbers to make it work but it feels like a fair society wouldn't overly tax the middle class to let the very wealthy off the hook.

Problem is, this isn't going to work is it? Especially not these days where it's apparently so easy to move your wealth around. I thought there was pretty good empirical evidence of what an 'acceptable' higher rate band of tax was - somewhere in the 40s %? Much higher and people would rather move than pay it.

Not clear, but:

https://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/9678

It's not that easy to move your wealth around though is it? High earners like Doctors, Dentists, Lawyers, Pilots, Divers, IT Directors,  Company directors etc are hardly stashing their money offshore are they? These are the people who are considered "high earners", we are not talking about people like Actors, Musicians, Large corporations etc who take advantage of rules created/permitted by governments to move their money around and avoid taxation. You seem to be implying that everyone on a decent salary is moving money around to avoid paying tax. Total crap.

These are ordinary people and aren't trying to hide or move around their "wealth". They've worked hard for it, why should they constantly bear the brunt of rising taxes in the sort of hell that Corbyn wants to create. Why does Corbyn want to punish people who dare to do well for themselves?

Jesus. You take the first bit (which, admittedly isn't what I meant), but ignore all the rest?? You only see what you want.
OK. I'll be more accurate for you. Maybe I should have said employ a tax expert or financial advisor to tell you how to avoid paying your full share if you're in one of those groups. I don't have a problem with these people if they pay their full, allotted share of tax. Many don't.

Why aren't you blaming successive governments for allowing these schemes and loopholes to exist?

I’ve certainly got no qualms about blaming successive governments for allowing the loopholes to persist. What I would say though is that it’s a constant battle, as one loophole gets discovered and (maybe closed) another more sophisticated way is found. This raises several points to ponder and I’d say it’s more a kind of ingrained attitude of the wealthy that has built up over time. To the accountants it’s all a bit of a game. There’s a lot of wealthy people that will quite happily pay their accountants more to avoid tax than pay the actual tax they should owe. Just have a pause to think about how much those people must hate “we’re all in this together” Love sacks, no they’re not!! and those self same people will quite happily call others actions treasonous.

A big driving factor behind Brexit and the keenness of Boris, JRM, Cummings, Aaron Banks etc is that the EU are actually implementing anti tax avoidance measures. That’s motivating why they really want to “get Brexit done”!!

[super_realist]

Jas, don’t think anybody disagrees high earners should pay higher taxes. And they also do. Question is how much more.

PS: then why shouldn’t the 40-fags-a-day-fat-loser pay an extra ‘insurance’ when he’ll most likely be a much higher burden on the NHS than the guy in the country house?

They're already paying a ****load of tax on their fags. Consider that as their insurance against lung disease perhaps?

Surely fag smokers should also be paying a climate change levy on the polluting aspect of their revolting habit?

Maybe they are, given the % of a pack of 20 that's tax?

Nothing as ever been said about climate levy's on fags, so pretty sure that it's not part of the taxation. It's a demerit tax primarily on the basis of "health".
They could add a quid to a pack easily. Furthermore, they should double the price of a pack in general, like they did in Australia. No one needs to smoke, and not a single person in the world doesn't know it's bad for you.

[super_realist]

I don't fully agree with super on the point he raises about the tax rates for those earning over 60k but a portion of the wage bracket he mentions is what should be considered middle class, and historically middle class wasn't seen as the wealthy elite.

I don't feel I would be betraying my leftie roots to support slightly lower tax burdens for those in roughly the 50-80K bracket but more heavily tax the very wealthy. A  goal of any political system should be to grow a healthy and happy middle class. I guess I don't know the exact numbers to make it work but it feels like a fair society wouldn't overly tax the middle class to let the very wealthy off the hook.

Problem is, this isn't going to work is it? Especially not these days where it's apparently so easy to move your wealth around. I thought there was pretty good empirical evidence of what an 'acceptable' higher rate band of tax was - somewhere in the 40s %? Much higher and people would rather move than pay it.

Not clear, but:

https://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/9678

It's not that easy to move your wealth around though is it? High earners like Doctors, Dentists, Lawyers, Pilots, Divers, IT Directors,  Company directors etc are hardly stashing their money offshore are they? These are the people who are considered "high earners", we are not talking about people like Actors, Musicians, Large corporations etc who take advantage of rules created/permitted by governments to move their money around and avoid taxation. You seem to be implying that everyone on a decent salary is moving money around to avoid paying tax. Total crap.

These are ordinary people and aren't trying to hide or move around their "wealth". They've worked hard for it, why should they constantly bear the brunt of rising taxes in the sort of hell that Corbyn wants to create. Why does Corbyn want to punish people who dare to do well for themselves?

Jesus. You take the first bit (which, admittedly isn't what I meant), but ignore all the rest?? You only see what you want.
OK. I'll be more accurate for you. Maybe I should have said employ a tax expert or financial advisor to tell you how to avoid paying your full share if you're in one of those groups. I don't have a problem with these people if they pay their full, allotted share of tax. Many don't.

Why aren't you blaming successive governments for allowing these schemes and loopholes to exist?

I’ve certainly got no qualms about blaming successive governments for allowing the loopholes to persist. What I would say though is that it’s a constant battle, as one loophole gets discovered and (maybe closed) another more sophisticated way is found. This raises several points to ponder and I’d say it’s more a kind of ingrained attitude of the wealthy that has built up over time. To the accountants it’s all a bit of a game. There’s a lot of wealthy people that will quite happily pay their accountants more to avoid tax than pay the actual tax they should owe. Just have a pause to think about how much those people must hate “we’re all in this together” Love sacks, no they’re not!! and those self same people will quite happily call others actions treasonous.

A big driving factor behind Brexit and the keenness of Boris, JRM, Cummings, Aaron Banks etc is that the EU are actually implementing anti tax avoidance measures. That’s motivating why they really want to “get Brexit done”!!

I think you have your tin foil hat on if racing to get Brexit done is to avoid EU sanctions on tax avoidance. It's taken nearly 4 years so far, so hardly much urgency is there?

The point is that there seems to be an inference from Corbyn's rabble (and maybe you too) that anyone earning over a certain amount is actively trying to reduce and avoid their tax liability. I haven't seen any evidence of this at all. The only people I'm aware of who "might" be in this bracket are contractors who operate as on a limited company basis, but IR35 is being changed to mitigate against this, and there's no evidence a post Brexit Britain will not go forward with this.

What is going to happen if Corbyn starts to go after higher earners even more? Don't you think that people who might have been happy to pay their tax might actually look for creative accounting if Corbyn keeps skimming more and more of their hard earned earnings? Corbyn cannot stand people who have dared to do well for themselves and treats them as some sort of traitor, even though he's one of them, but he's always been a hypocrite so no surprise there.

Every time Corbyn opens his mouth he demonstrates how little he understands any industry he targets. His laughable demonising of the oil industry is a perfect example of that because he blames that for "climate change". It's already the most heavily taxed industry in the UK.

What about every other industry/individual in the entire world? Is he going to tax them too for contributions to "climate change"? You can't attack one industry and charge them, and then not charge other industries like construction, specifically concrete  which is massively responsible for CO2 output. His windfall tax on oil companies also shows he knows nothing at all as he thinks you can use it to just "retrain" people to work in other renewable industries. It's like training a fighter pilot to be a baggage handler. Those jobs which would go would also be the ones that Corbyn wanted to tax more in the first place. Ridiculous, horrible man and the sooner Labour jettison this out of touch, never had a real job bell end the better.

Has there ever been an election when the party coming to power is so much the choice between the lesser of two evils. What a terrible country we live in.

[pedro]

super, it seems you have persuaded Tony Blair at least.

[navyblueshorts]

Jas, don’t think anybody disagrees high earners should pay higher taxes. And they also do. Question is how much more.

PS: then why shouldn’t the 40-fags-a-day-fat-loser pay an extra ‘insurance’ when he’ll most likely be a much higher burden on the NHS than the guy in the country house?

They're already paying a ****load of tax on their fags. Consider that as their insurance against lung disease perhaps?

Surely fag smokers should also be paying a climate change levy on the polluting aspect of their revolting habit?

Maybe they are, given the % of a pack of 20 that's tax?

Nothing as ever been said about climate levy's on fags, so pretty sure that it's not part of the taxation. It's a demerit tax primarily on the basis of "health".
They could add a quid to a pack easily. Furthermore, they should double the price of a pack in general, like they did in Australia. No one needs to smoke, and not a single person in the world doesn't know it's bad for you.

Is it, bollox. We assume as much, but can you tell me that tax is all spent in the NHS? Talking about emissions, not health so won't comment on rest.

[I'm never wrong]

I see Supers favourite sportsman has been nominated for SPOTY. My prediction :- Ben Stokes, then Lewis then Raheem Sterling.

[pedro]

I see Supers favourite sportsman has been nominated for SPOTY. My prediction :- Ben Stokes, then Lewis then Raheem Sterling.

Like it or not, but F1 is quite a big "sport". So anyone winning the F1 WC should be nominated.

[dynamark]

Does anyone know what Corbyn and for that matter McDonald/Abbot did up till now ?

[I'm never wrong]

Well Abbott worked in the meeja until getting elected to Westminster council, then got elected as an MP.

[Sponsored content]