Dick Swiveller
Well-known member
- Sep 9, 2011
- 9,524
Could go either way - bit risky. Will people remember his name and vote for that or the Green part and vote for that?
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[Politics] Tory meltdown finally arrived [was: incoming]...
- Thread starter TomandJerry
- Start date
Could go either way - bit risky. Will people remember his name and vote for that or the Green part and vote for that?
That’s pretty much how income tax works isn’t it ? 45% top rate etc
Even more so when it's the Deputy PM and Secretary of State for Justice
Yes. I think everyone should pay the same % tax on income. We can debate what constitutes income, but I'm thinking salary/wages, the income that is currently considered for income tax.
I am also against lower thresholds and upper thresholds for changing the %.
Yes. And I don't approve.
Labour support it on the principle of 'soak the rich' (till the pips squeek, etc.).
The tories support it on the grounds that they can virtue signal to those who want to soak the rich, knowing there are 1,001 ways of mitigating against paying it using tax loopholes, created by and curated for people like themselves.
A flat rate of income tax, no quibbles, no loopholes, the same for everyone, would put an end to all this shitehousery.
Machiavelli
Well-known member
For confirmation: you're advocating a flat tax. If so, you'll have agreement with over half of your Ignore list.
It would definitely simplify (and make much cheaper) the admin and collection and as you say reduce the opportunity (and need to a degree) for avoidance……….last time I read anything on it (years ago TBF) I seem to recall the estimate of the rate required was something like 25% (assuming personal allowances stayed the same). This would hit the lower paid pretty hard so allowances would probably need to be higher
The problem now is because Labour said it ought to happen they will now resolutely not do it until they run out of other options or public opinion swings too far.
See also: Autumn 2020 lockdown.
That is fair comment.
Yes, most countries in Europe may have PR. They are also richer, cleaner and fairer than the UK. People work shorter hours, have more bank holidays, better health care, better education systems, even better weather.
We, on the other hand, have a feckless, overworked, underpaid population with bad teeth. We have small shitty roads, horrible post-war brutalist architecture, haphazard education, second rate (albeit free at the point of use) healthcare, and a cockamamie government.
But that's the way we like it. British. Distinct. A bit shit. And a bit plucky.
We couldn't cope with PR. We wouldn't understand it. Voter turnout would plummet. Political parties wouldn't know how to game it. We'd end up with some oaf like Farrage as PM.
I love living in England. We are a bit peculiar, and FPTP suits us.
In any case, nothing to debate here. It isn't ever going to change because turkeys (Labour and Tory turkeys) don't vote for Christmas, and the naked self-interest of the parties who favour PR is laughably palpable.
Last edited:
It would definitely simplify (and make much cheaper) the admin and collection and as you say reduce the opportunity (and need to a degree) for avoidance……….last time I read anything on it (years ago TBF) I seem to recall the estimate of the rate required was something like 25% (assuming personal allowances stayed the same). This would hit the lower paid pretty hard so allowances would probably need to be higher
Absolutely. Nail on head.
You can fiddle around with the management of things for the lower paid, certainly. My favourite solution to the impact of a flat rate tax on the lower paid who currently pay nothing until they cross a rubicon (at £16K?) is (wait for it.......) pay them more!
After all, there can't be many lowly paid people in the country or the nation wouldn't have repeatedly voted in a conservative government, especially with a proper socialist alternative at the last GE (Corbyn) so it won't cost a great deal.
Seriously, I suspect that so much would be saved from the newly efficienct and low maintenance cost of such a system there would be ways of mitigating against added hardship for the lower paid.
If that's correct (and I doubt it is - why would pretty pink fairy want a flat rate of tax when he doesn't even have a job?) then I am not bothered. I am sure that everyone on my ignore list loves their dear old mum (if still alive) and their kids if they have any. I am not going to quibble with that. As noted on may occasions, even a broken clock is right twice a day.
darkwolf666
Well-known member
Yet another bloke who obviously doesn’t do the shopping in his household [emoji6]
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Or maybe not, as Asda announce they will drop the Smart Price range...
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/uk-news/asda-axes-smart-price-range-23525479.amp
beorhthelm
A. Virgo, Football Genius
- Jul 21, 2003
- 36,014
would like to know what problems they have solved, other than doing things a bit differently, i see all the same issues raised across Europe.
lets be honest people here think it'll get rid of the Tories, ignoring the substantial representation it would have given UKIP the past decade (PR put Neil Hamilton in as MEP for Wales ffs). its pitched as a end in itself, rather to a means to and end, when what we could really do with is some better political discussion and less telling lies, perpetuating old concepts and myths.
Pavilionaire
Well-known member
- Jul 7, 2003
- 31,262
In any case, nothing to debate here. It isn't ever going to change because turkeys (Labour and Tory turkeys) don't vote for Christmas, and the naked self-interest of the parties who favour PR is laughably palpable.
In every General Election since 1955 the Labour + Lib Dems vote has exceeded the Tory vote in absolute terms, even in the years of a "Tory landslide".
The SNP / Green / Plaid Cymru parties that hoover up most of the remaining votes are also left of centre and likely to side with Labour / Lib Dems. This would suggest that - as a nation - we are actually more left of centre.
Presently, Labour + Lib Dem = 53%, Tories have 33%, so a 20-point lead for the parties of the left. Yet Tory + Lib Dems is 4% higher than Labour.
Yet Tony Blair is the only Labour leader in the last 48 years to win a GE.
Arguably, by NOT entering into an electoral pact Labour are the turkeys voting for Christmas - year in, year out.
- Jul 10, 2003
- 27,762
So you think if there's a flat rate of income tax, those 1,001 ways will disappear for those that have the money to use and abuse them
In which case, I'm an anarchist. If only people would simply take responsibility for their place and responsibilities in society everything would be really lovely.
And as for a voting system which forces Johnson and Patel to hold hands merrily with Ken Clarke and Rory Stewart, all in the name of 'Getting and Keeping Power', there should be at least three Tory parties and probably the same number of Labour parties if people really wanted to vote for MPs with principles. FPTP encourages 'career politicians' to get on side with the 'winners'. Meanwhile the country gets f***ed
Last edited:
Baldseagull
Well-known member
Simplification of the Tax code is a good idea, but your tax banding example fails to point out that everyone is subject to those rates, the £1,000,000 earner still only pays the same rate as the £20,000 earner on the first £50,000 of their earnings, it is not quite right to state it is an additional tax on the wealthy, it is a rate that kicks in at that level of income.
beorhthelm
A. Virgo, Football Genius
- Jul 21, 2003
- 36,014
absolutly. but then they only want it because it popular with some group, dont acknowledge there is already £3.7bn increased tax revenues.
if prices stay high, expect something called a windfull in the autumn budget, that will just shuffle the deck. but oil and inflation could be down by then and a different budget needed.
Last edited:
Yes, that's right, but it is simply an added complication. Everyone is subjected to the same rates - till their earnings cross a boundary, then they are not. Once they cross a boundary then the average rate across their entire income becomes more than the average rate of someone with a lower income below that boundary. It doesn't detract from my advocacy of a flat rate. I pay nothing on the first (say) £16K, then I pay (say - I must confess I don't know the actual rates) 35% on income between £16K and £50K, then 45% on any income above that. And the amount I should pay (according to HMG) every year is different from what I paid, and none of it makes any sense. I farnkly don't know the average rate of tax I pay on my income. How mad is that? Do you know?
It is also a disincentive to many to work harder and earn more knowing that once the extra income crosses a tax boundary the rate of tax on it goes up. Remember Labour's 98% top income tax rate? Jesus H Christ, even I, red in tooth and claw back in the day, recognised it made more sense to bugger off to Spain and put up with Johnny Foreigner than be soaked in Surrey by Denis sodding Healey.
There is another advantage of taxing everyone, no matter how little they earn, at the same rate. It makes us all equal, equal contributors (in % terms which is the only terms that nake sense), equal citizens. all part of the same ship, all with the same interests and all subject equally to the whims and caprices of the economy, in terms of our income tax. It maps to the inclusiveness agenda.
I am not necessarily against a coalition government. Albeit nobody ever voted for any such coalition. But I am implacably against PR.
If Labour cannot sort itself out so it is electable, so be it. And I say that as a member of the Labour party