[Politics] Tory meltdown finally arrived [was: incoming]...

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Sunak is an elite profiteer with his eye on his bank account at all times. He is out of touch and a liar.

Truss is all of the above with the addition of being mentally defective and about as crackers as posh middle aged women come.

Out of the two I'd take Sunak any day. Even though he's a prick.

I don't think Truss is posh.

But she is certainly fickle: "Truss was active in the Liberal Democrats. She was president of Oxford University Liberal Democrats and a member of the national executive committee of Liberal Democrat Youth and Students (LDYS). During her time as a Liberal Democrat, Truss supported the legalisation of cannabis and the abolition of the monarchy."

 

[Machiavelli]

I’m presuming he’s saying that cutting VAT would be progressive - not that VAT is progressive, which it isn’t.

But cutting VAT and increasing it is the same thing in terms of progressiveness.

If cutting VAT is progressive, it means that the poor pay less in VAT because they buy less, while the rich pay more in VAT because they buy more.

The reason for my question is that I agree, this is progressive. But (I think) [MENTION=28490]Machiavelli[/MENTION] mocks me because I claim a flat rate (%) income tax is progressive.

If a rich man buys a pound of spuds and pays 20p in VAT, nobody would think it fair for a poor man to be charged only 10 p in VAT for the same spuds.

And yet some people think that if someone sells 100Kg of spuds it is fair if they pay £10 in tax, whilst someone selling 1000Kg of spuds should pay £200 in tax. Progressive, like. And at some point a very rich man selling a million Kg of spuds should pay all his income from the sale in tax. Progressive, like.

:

DiS has it spot on.
Cutting VAT is progressive because those with less money spend a higher proportion/% of it on day-to-day spending and, therefore, an increase in VAT means that they're taxed more, and a decrease in it results in them being taxed less.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

DiS has it spot on.
Cutting VAT is progressive because those with less money spend a higher proportion/% of it on day-to-day spending and, therefore, an increase in VAT means that they're taxed more, and a decrease in it results in them being taxed less.

They spend a higher % of their income on everything they buy, compared to a rich person, certainly. But the VAT % of the value of the goods they buy is the same. A rich person gets the same benefit from a VAT cut if there is a penny off a bag of frozen peas as a poor person. More, if he is a frozen peas gorger.

I struggle to understand how you distinguish betweeen equality and ....handouts.

And I will never understand how you think that 10% of £20,000 and 20% of £200,000 are the same/equal/fair.

I'm a member of the labour party. If this sort of tomfoolery, which was once called 'soaking the rich' and something about 'pips squeeking' becomes headline policy, I'm out (well, probably not out, but deeply unimpressed). And if I can't be persuaded that this is 'fair', how the **** will the red wall tories be weaned of the tit of Truss?

I have edited a couple of egregious typos, there, made as so cross was I when I ventured into my rant

 

[Boys 9d]

Wasn't VAT introduced as a consequence of joining the European Commom Market? If so with Brexit, shouldn't it be abolished as part of th "bonfire" of ECC rules and regulations?

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

I would like to know how people with an 'official' employment income of £15-30K a year survive. Here is how I would do it.

Assuming I do not have the qualifications to get a job that payed more than bugger all, I would moonlight, doing cash in hand work. I know people who do this. They get paid cash in hand because everyone knows that people who do certain jobs don't earn a lot and there will be no consequences if you pay them cash in hand. Gardener. Cleaner. Window cleaner. Builders. Even high end builders will take a mix of legit and illegal payment.

So why the **** does this happen? Progressive taxation. You pay nothing till you hit a threshold, and you pay a lot more when you hit another threshold. Tax avoidance is a progressive process, though. If you are stuck on an unfeasibly low income you will reach for anything. Cash in hand. When you settle you start to look at benefits.

Ah, benefits. The benefits game. If you can work that one out you can maximise your situation by mixing up all the benefit claims going with a legit job plus some cash in hand. I know people who navigate this well.

Or you are crushed and just live day to day, with no hope and nothing but death on the horizon.

I have argued before with people who think better paid people are all on PAYE and pay all the income tax that is due. So I will leave that one. Well paid people are good at maximising their situation. I have been told that it is actually possible to pay someone to manage your tax situation. Fancy that!

Solutions? Flat rate income tax. Simple. No form filling, no deductables. HMG can move it up and down and we all pay the same (%) proportional to income. That is fair. Fact.

And, lo, people then start whatabouting 'people with complex jobs', business outgoings etc. Well, this is not 'income' as in 'money paid to you by an employer'. We are talking about being employed, or self employed. The latter - simple - cash in hand is illegal, and anyone paying it will be prosecuted.

The reason this won't happen is that Truss's daughter's Vietnamese nanny, well, you know. EVERYONE is at it, paying cash in hand.

And the tory leader candidates are positioning themselves around 'radically different' approaches to tax. **** me. This nation.....

And why doesn't everyone on less than £30K a year simply vote labour and their income tax will instantly fall owing to a 'progressive' solution? **** me! This is not their policy (as far as I am aware) and if it were, it would be a load of old bollocks, like it always has been.

**** me. Nobody ever got rich, or saved their mortgage, or avoided the food banks due to changes in income tax. FFS!!!!

 

[The Clamp]

I don't think Truss is posh.

But she is certainly fickle: "Truss was active in the Liberal Democrats. She was president of Oxford University Liberal Democrats and a member of the national executive committee of Liberal Democrat Youth and Students (LDYS). During her time as a Liberal Democrat, Truss supported the legalisation of cannabis and the abolition of the monarchy."

Apart from a brief spell in Leeds, she had a pretty privileged upbringing and education. She flits from one cause to another though, for sure. Cannabis and abolition were probably what her mates at Oxford uni told her to say.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Wasn't VAT introduced as a consequence of joining the European Commom Market? If so with Brexit, shouldn't it be abolished as part of th "bonfire" of ECC rules and regulations?

It replaced Purchase Tax but PT was generally on luxury goods only. Margaret Thatcher thought it was better to put VAT up and personal income tax down.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Apart from a brief spell in Leeds, she had a pretty privileged upbringing and education. She flits from one cause to another though, for sure. Cannabis and abolition were probably what her mates at Oxford uni told her to say.

I wouldn't bash her for her childhood or family background. The measure of a person is what they do with themselves.

As far as I can see she's elevated herself to become peripatetically self serving, dim, implausible and frankly unwholesome.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Apart from a brief spell in Leeds, she had a pretty privileged upbringing and education. She flits from one cause to another though, for sure. Cannabis and abolition were probably what her mates at Oxford uni told her to say.

Roundhay in Leeds is not a deprived area. Far from it.

 

[The Clamp]

Roundhay in Leeds is not a deprived area. Far from it.

Ha! Yes, I was being a bit tongue in cheek!

 

[pocketseagull]

Flat Tax places you in the Libertarian Right and you're more likely the get that with Conservatives than Labour.

You seemed to suggest above thread that 20% tax for someone earning 200k is unfair if someone earning 20K is taxed at 10%. That's fortunately quite a fringe outlook.

Also suggesting that tax avoidance via cash in hand work is rife among people earning under 30k seems a bit fanciful. I'd be astonished if you could actually back that up.

 

[Machiavelli]

They spend a higher % of their income on everything they buy, compared to a rich person, certainly. But the VAT % of the value of the goods they buy is the same. A rich person gets the same benefit from a VAT cut if there is a penny off a bag of frozen peas as a poor person. More, if he is a frozen peas gorger. YES, BUT HE (FOR, GIVEN INEQUALITY BETWEEN THE SEXES, IT'S LIKELY IT'S A HE) GETS A LESSER % BENEFIT FROM THE VAT CUT.

I struggle to understand how you distinguish betweeen equality and ....handouts. THE FORMER IS AN EXTREMELY COMPLEX, OVERFLOWING SIGNIFIER, WHILE THE LATTER IS GENERALLY DEPLOYED BY THE RIGHT TO OPPOSE STATE ACTIVITY. I COULD GO ON ABOUT EQUALITY, BUT THE BEST RECENT BOOK ON IT IS WRITTEN BY PIERRE ROSANVALLON.

And I will never understand how you think that 10% of £20,000 and 20% of £200,000 are the same/equal/fair. 1, THE FORMER IS £2,000; THE LATTER IS £40,000. NO IDEA WHY YOU'D THINK THAT I'D THINK THEY'RE THE SAME. EQUALLY I DON'T THINK THE SAME IS A SYNOYM FOR EQUALITY OR FAIRNESS, BUT THAT JUST TAKES US BACK TO ROSANVALLON, ETC.

I'm a member of the labour party. If this sort of tomfoolery, which was once called 'soaking the rich' and something about 'pips squeeking' becomes headline policy, I'm out (well, probably not out, but deeply unimpressed). And if I can't be persuaded that this is 'fair', how the **** will the red wall tories be weaned of the tit of Truss? I SUSPECT THAT GIVEN THE DIRECTION OF TRAVEL YOU'LL BE LEAVING THE LABOUR PARTY. I ALSO SUSPECT THAT A SIGNIFICANT ENOUGH NUMBER OF RED WALL TORIES WILL BE WEANED BACK TO LABOUR. BUT BOTH OF THESE ARE JUST SPECULATIONS ON MY BEHALF: WE SHALL SEE.

I have edited a couple of egregious typos, there, made as so cross was I when I ventured into my rant

Without wanting to dispense more fuel for your rants, I think there are several premises that you're operating with on taxation that mean that you have a radically different understanding to how most do. My comments in CAPITALS ABOVE might go some way to an explanation.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Without wanting to dispense more fuel for your rants, I think there are several premises that you're operating with on taxation that mean that you have a radically different understanding to how most do. My comments in CAPITALS ABOVE might go some way to an explanation.

Thanks for the reply. Appreciated. I suspect this would take several hours and several pints to resolve. One day, perhaps

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Wasn't VAT introduced as a consequence of joining the European Commom Market? If so with Brexit, shouldn't it be abolished as part of th "bonfire" of ECC rules and regulations?

We'd have to replace it with a 'purchase tax' which is what we had before. More needless change for change's sake.

Expect Sunak to promise this in the next few days!

As comeback, Truss will doubtless promise to remove all tax and replace it with slavery.

 

[beorhthelm]

Without wanting to dispense more fuel for your rants, I think there are several premises that you're operating with on taxation that mean that you have a radically different understanding to how most do. My comments in CAPITALS ABOVE might go some way to an explanation.

regarding the first point at least, stick to a simpler VAT reduces inflationary effects would be easier sell for everyone.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Flat Tax places you in the Libertarian Right and you're more likely the get that with Conservatives than Labour.

You seemed to suggest above thread that 20% tax for someone earning 200k is unfair if someone earning 20K is taxed at 10%. That's fortunately quite a fringe outlook.

Also suggesting that tax avoidance via cash in hand work is rife among people earning under 30k seems a bit fanciful. I'd be astonished if you could actually back that up.

1. Really? Can you back that up?

2. And so you think that incremental tax, which logically ends with someone who earns an absolute fortune paying all of it in income tax is something that most people would find to be logical and reasonable? When Labour put (or proposed) a tax of 90+% on income over a certain amount, the tories had a field day; we had 'tax exiles' and all sorts. At the time I regarded the likes of Bassey, Bowie, Bolan, Caine, Connery (and so on, in alphapetical order) as greedy *****. Still do. However I want to see a labour government and recreating another flight of the unconscionables won't win labour votes.

3. Of course not. Statistics are not kept on undeclared income! I can provide circumstantial evidence, lots of it, but nobody like a grass.

I am quite happy to be outside the tent on this. Last time I argued it with my brother we didn't speak for 6 months. My brother is one of those who refuse to vote labour because they are 'tory lite' and seems happier to have a shit shower of ever decreasingly-talented tory carpetbaggers running the country than see a centre left labour government dilute the purity of socialism.

For that reason....if labour's adherence to graduated (%) taxation (a bit like what we have now no doubt, with some jiggery pokery at the margins to make it look like some sort of radical increment in 'fairness') is sufficiently popular to win a majority in parliament, I'm in. I look forward to the announcement (and hope I won't need a tutorial from [MENTION=28490]Machiavelli[/MENTION] to understand it. I'm not holding my breath).

 

[Machiavelli]

Thanks for the reply. Appreciated. I suspect this would take several hours and several pints to resolve. One day, perhaps

You are as generous as ever.
This also might disappoint you, however, but I'm with [MENTION=30631]pocketseagull[/MENTION] on the points made, and the fact that there is a posse forming, and you're on the other side might also illustrate that you are advocating a heterodox position ...
... although I think I've grasped the point you're making which (I think) is:
Person A on 200k p.a. is taxed at 20% and contributes 40k to HMRC's coffers
Person B on 20k p.a. is also taxed at 20%* and contributes 4k to HMRC's coffers
Therefore the rich A contributes 40k and the poor B contributes 4k, and that is progressive.
Logically that might work, but it assumes that language is logical, which it is not. The term progressive when applied to taxation has a history, to which you allude, and is when the rich were taxed until their pips squeaked.
If you want to develop a richer understanding on taxation and economic history more generally, I can highly recommend Thomas Piketty (not for the first time). The last chapter (17) of Capital and Ideology contains his proposal/blueprint for a form of socialism that he calls participatory socialism. It has a very different view of income taxation and, even more so, asset taxation than you have expressed. But, more importantly, it has impressive explanatory power.


*I know that you mentioned 10% but that, by definition, wouldn't be a flat (income) tax > note: the term flat tax is reserved for taxes on income

 

[beorhthelm]

*I know that you mentioned 10% but that, by definition, wouldn't be a flat (income) tax > note: the term flat tax is reserved for taxes on income

income can be broad term applied to corporation, captial gains, dividends and inheritance. then you couldnt avoid tax by disguising income into other catagories.

also asset taxes destory wealth, and im quite sure thats the intention. many would have to sell assets to have cash to pay, lowing the value and distributing the assets more widely. eventually the assets would disperse among the upper middle class, then the middle and lower class, each cycle lowing value or being taken by the state in lieu of payment. we'd live in utopia of owning nothing and be grateful for the handouts. we tax income and gains, taking some of the productive output, because its sustainable.

 

[A1X]

[tweet]1557478057833017344[/tweet]

 

[nicko31]

[tweet]1557478057833017344[/tweet]

Quick tally up suggests these group to companies increased their profits collectively by 100 fold

Just incredible