Cameron vs Davis - Who won?...

[beorhthelm]

No it is not. It is regressive taxation. 20% of £25K a year represents a far greater real slice of your income than 20% of £100k a year. Keep your Yankee fantasies on the other side of the pond, thank you.

Oh come on. Take off the blinkers and work it out for yourself. 20% is 20% wheather its from 10K, 20K, 50K or 100K. You go to buy a car and its the same price whoever you are, whatever your income. If they tried to charge you more than someone earning 10K less you'd tell them to f*** off. Why let the government do the same and think its clever?

Dress it up with fancy intellectual terms "progressive", "regressive" whatever, it just a joke now where politicians tickle the electorate over cutting taxes to favor the well off or raise taxes to punish the well off. Time for a change.

 

[larus]

No it is not. It is regressive taxation. 20% of £25K a year represents a far greater real slice of your income than 20% of £100k a year. Keep your Yankee fantasies on the other side of the pond, thank you.

Missing a point. There's also the level of income where no tax is paid.

Therefore, the overall tax burden reduces the lower your salary, even though it's a flat rate.

 

[looney]

No it is not. It is regressive taxation. 20% of £25K a year represents a far greater real slice of your income than 20% of £100k a year. Keep your Yankee fantasies on the other side of the pond, thank you.

So Estonia is in the USA then? The flat tax is comming so you'd better get used to it.


Also Cameron will trash bumbler Brown at the polls, word is Camerons got the blairites shit scared.


Its not regressive thats when the poor face a greater burden not an equal one. Indirect tax is regressive cos the poor smoke more therefor pay more.

Oh and your maths sucks.

 

[Dandyman]

So Estonia is in the USA then? The flat tax is comming so you'd better get used to it.


Also Cameron will trash bumbler Brown at the polls, word is Camerons got the blairites shit scared.


Its not regressive thats when the poor face a greater burden not an equal one. Indirect tax is regressive cos the poor smoke more therefor pay more.

Oh and your maths sucks.

Grow up. Every government in modern times has accepted that income tax rates should be based on the ability to pay. Flat rate tax is a hand out to the rich based on slashing services for the majority of the population.If you want to advocate something at least have the honest and guts to acknowledge it's real agenda.

 

[beorhthelm]

Flat tax has nothing to do with cutting services or public finances (or increasing them). Its about changing to a system that cant be cynically manipulated every 4 years when an election is due. Its more than getting rid of the arbitary 10/22/40% thresholds, its about getting rid of all the costly reliefs, credits and loop holes in the current mess.

IF it is used to improve or reduce public finances, that is down to the implementation, not the principle itself.

 

[DannyBhoy]

Who cares

 

[looney]

Grow up. Every government in modern times has accepted that income tax rates should be based on the ability to pay. Flat rate tax is a hand out to the rich based on slashing services for the majority of the population.If you want to advocate something at least have the honest and guts to acknowledge it's real agenda.

As bwhatever said above.

It also shows that when tax neutral ie doesn't raise any more or less tax it boosts public spending by up to 10% due to cost reductions.

As for ability to pay it removes a lot of poor from the tax system.

As for the rich, if you earn £10 rather than £1 you pay, for example £2 instead of 20p. How much more the wealthy should pay is politics.

Oh and they do pay more under this system as there are fewer loopholes. Did you see how much Ray Palour paid in the court papers ref his divorce?

It would also help businesses and the self employed by simplifying there tax chits.

The only people who dont like it want to manipulate the tax system for their own nefarious agendas.

 

[looney]

IF it is used to improve or reduce public finances, that is down to the implementation, not the principle itself.

The principle behind it is to improve efficiancy in public finances and taxation, not to stop political manipulation. Thats just a pleasant or unpleasant side effect depending on your politics.


Read "Free to choose" by Milton Friedman, its about economics old boy.