UKIP & the anti-fascist lot

[BadFish]

People who earn more pay more anyway - why should they pay a higher percentage ?

Because they can and still live very affluent lifestyles.

 

[seagullsovergrimsby]

The three main parties are crapping themselves at the moment at the thought of a by election in Portsmouth South. UKIP could end up with their first ever MP at Westminster before the Euro elections take place in 2014.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

Since when has Brighton & Hove Albion been a government agency?

I've not suggested that they are. I just find it bizarre that people think it's OK for people to pay more in tax services based on their income but not private services. The effort it usually takes ( both educationally and professionally ) to earn more - and the responsibility you tend to get with higher salaries - shouldn't automatically equate to having to pay a higher percentage of tax.

 

[Guinness Boy]

You literally haven't got a fvcking clue, are you trying to tell me that a stockbroker TRADES stocks in the market?

They buy and sell stocks and shares on behalf of clients for commission. If that's not trading what it it?

as for your commodity trader analogy , it's quite simply laughable , do you really think commodity traders brought the city to its knees ? Do you not realise that companies as diverse as hovis to shell need to hedge their exposure using derivatives ?

I'm sure they do. The point is not as many of you city boys understand them and their risks as should do, particularly after continuous 16 hour days on an extensive charlie habit. It's not Shell's need to hedge I'm questioning. It's the trader's understanding of the vehicle. This WAS rather widely reported when all those banks failed. And when you say exposure you mean maintain their massive ****ing profits

you REALLY don't know what you're talking about.

You can't even quote me properly.

 

[Buzzer]

OK - ignore the envy part of my post and provide a constructive argument as to why people who are paid more should pay a higher percentage of their salary in tax ?

I'd say there are several reasons.

Firstly, almost every country operates a progressive tax system albeit with different rates obviously but the concept is generally acknowledged as fair.

Secondly it's affordable as it penalises at the marginal rate but doesn't kick in at some considerable level above average and median pay.

Thirdly, the person is still earning a considerable amount in real terms even at the top rates. I don't think any government is in favour of bringing back the 98 pence in the pound rate that the Beatles were paying,

The trick is of course to make the rate high enough to be worthwhile but low enough so you don't scare off the taxpayers you are after. Depardieu leaving France for Russia is a good example of this. All governments have economic advisers and all of them are aware of the Laffer Curve - the correlation between tax revenues and rates of tax.

If we could have a Chancellor with the courage to bring back true One Nation Tory principles then I would consider voting for them again. As it is, this reversion back to Thatcherite trickle-down economics that Osborne seems hell-bent on bringing back just makes me very sad and more than a little angry.


...and when I see Farage and the ex-Tory malcontents I'm pretty sure that none of them would agree with me on One Nation Conservatism being a good thing.

 

[Simster]

The three main parties are crapping themselves at the moment at the thought of a by election in Portsmouth South. UKIP could end up with their first ever MP at Westminster before the Euro elections take place in 2014.

What a complete load of shite. UKIP would then have ONE MP. Big deal. As it is, they haven't got any, and never have had. And who is to say they'd win that anyway? If recent by-elections are anything to go by, they will do what they always do and finish a solid second or third by hoovering up the protest votes.

So why would any of them be "crapping themselves" over that? You're just making stuff up. The simple fact is that UKIP are an irrelevance when it comes to the decisions being made in this country, because we don't have PR.

 

[Buzzer]

Actually - that's something that I think always gets missed when discussing the UKIP and BNP. They are single issue parties for sure, but we really need to scrutinise their other policies. I think Dimbleby missed a trick when he had Griffin on Question Time. Griffin's fiscal policy begins with nationalising banks. It would kill the City of London at a stroke and that's just about the biggest industry we have (despite it's shortcomings). He could have had Nick tied up in knots in no time over that - or his defence policy and how it would fit with being a member of NATO etc etc etc.

These people voting for the protest parties...be careful what you wish for.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

Secondly it's affordable as it penalises at the marginal rate but doesn't kick in at some considerable level above average and median pay.

All you arguments are fair points but I need to pick this one up.

I pay ( well above the standard ) maintenance to my ex-wife in child maintenance. I'm taxed on that but she isn't. The effect on me is that I'm short of money each month. Now I know loads of people will say - well that's you're fault why should the state pay for your marriage breakdown - BUT whenever myself or my partner are assessed for various "benefits" or indeed when my partner was out of work, no allowance was taken for the "income" I paid my ex-wife. Indeed, when assessed for tax you're an individual but when assessed for benefits you're a household - no account is taken for the money I use to support my step-daughter.

The taxation system should be fair ( as should the benefits system ) - it isn't currently and a flat rate makes it closer to fair than it currently is. The harder I work the more money I should have in MY pocket - the government will get more anyway but it certainly shouldn't get a bigger percentage due to MY hard work !

 

[Westdene Seagull]

So why would any of them be "crapping themselves" over that? You're just making stuff up. The simple fact is that UKIP are an irrelevance when it comes to the decisions being made in this country, because we don't have PR.

Such an irrelevance that they've produced pages of comment on here, on the Argus and made the Tories change their policies. They may never win outright but an irrelevance isn't what they are.

 

[Buzzer]

All you arguments are fair points but I need to pick this one up.

I pay ( well above the standard ) maintenance to my ex-wife in child maintenance. I'm taxed on that but she isn't. The effect on me is that I'm short of money each month. Now I know loads of people will say - well that's you're fault why should the state pay for your marriage breakdown - BUT whenever myself or my partner are assessed for various "benefits" or indeed when my partner was out of work, no allowance was taken for the "income" I paid my ex-wife. Indeed, when assessed for tax you're an individual but when assessed for benefits you're a household - no account is taken for the money I use to support my step-daughter.

The taxation system should be fair ( as should the benefits system ) - it isn't currently and a flat rate makes it closer to fair than it currently is. The harder I work the more money I should have in MY pocket - the government will get more anyway but it certainly shouldn't get a bigger percentage due to MY hard work !

I pay maintenance too so get where you are coming from but the principle still holds IMO. I don't know the ins and outs of other countries' tax systems but if you work hard you are still taking home more money and the difference between basic and top rate isn't big enough to put you off working harder, I'm guessing.

I take a slightly detached look at it because the Government will always spend our money on things I disagree with. Perhaps the answer is to have higher rates of VAT on luxury items.

EDIT - and another thought (although my tax law is a bit rusty so this could be wrong)- those earning top whack pay a lot less employee NI on that money don't they?

 

[Guinness Boy]

These people voting for the protest parties...be careful what you wish for.

Yeah, I think everyone who voted Green in the last Brighton and Hove City Council elections is starting to realise that....

 

[Simster]

Such an irrelevance that they've produced pages of comment on here, on the Argus and made the Tories change their policies. They may never win outright but an irrelevance isn't what they are.

I'm afraid they are. They might influence mainstream party policy but they have no influence on the decisions being made at national level.

And where does this idea that the three main parties are "crapping themselves" at the the thought of UKIP gaining a single seat come from? Did they "crap themselves" when the Greens took Brighton Pavillion or when Martin Bell won in his silly white suit?

 

[Buzzer]

Yeah, I think everyone who voted Green in the last Brighton and Hove City Council elections is starting to realise that....

And I'm left with no-one to vote for. No wonder Iceland and Italy have voted for professional comedians. I want to vote - I want things to change but there is absolutely no-one I trust. Anyone who thinks Farage is the honest maverick he pretends to be is in for a rude awakening.

 

[teaboy]

All you arguments are fair points but I need to pick this one up.

I pay ( well above the standard ) maintenance to my ex-wife in child maintenance. I'm taxed on that but she isn't. The effect on me is that I'm short of money each month. Now I know loads of people will say - well that's you're fault why should the state pay for your marriage breakdown - BUT whenever myself or my partner are assessed for various "benefits" or indeed when my partner was out of work, no allowance was taken for the "income" I paid my ex-wife. Indeed, when assessed for tax you're an individual but when assessed for benefits you're a household - no account is taken for the money I use to support my step-daughter.

The taxation system should be fair ( as should the benefits system ) - it isn't currently and a flat rate makes it closer to fair than it currently is. The harder I work the more money I should have in MY pocket - the government will get more anyway but it certainly shouldn't get a bigger percentage due to MY hard work !

That still doesn't make things 'fair' though, does it? Wages are not the only 'value' to a job. Do bankers work harder than nurses?

 

[Buzzer]

from what I can work out it is just a load of arrogant, egotistical money grabbing twats playing games with other peoples money. I am not convinced that any of it contributes anything to world. Very few city types that i have met have been worth talking to, the ones who have saw through the sharade and got themselves a proper job.

Couldn't we just do without it?

Let's be brutally honest here. How many of us have jobs that are crucial to the well-being of the nation? It's all getting a bit like Mark Twain's description of a bourgeois state where everyone ekes out a precarious living taking in each other's washing.

 

[Buzzer]

That still doesn't make things 'fair' though, does it? Wages are not the only 'value' to a job. Do bankers work harder than nurses?

Maybe not but their skill (apparently) is in wealth creation and they create a lot of wealth that pays for the nurses and there's lot fewer bankers. That's the theory, anyway.


Apologies - I've monopolised this thread. I think I'm done.

 

[User removed 4]

They buy and sell stocks and shares on behalf of clients for commission. If that's not trading what it it?



I'm sure they do. The point is not as many of you city boys understand them and their risks as should do, particularly after continuous 16 hour days on an extensive charlie habit. It's not Shell's need to hedge I'm questioning. It's the trader's understanding of the vehicle. This WAS rather widely reported when all those banks failed. And when you say exposure you mean maintain their massive ****ing profits



You can't even quote me properly.

they buy and sell stocks and shares on behalf of customers for a commission , yes they do, "if that's not trading what is it " , er, it's broking that's what it is, completely different from trading which will be market making or discretionary, 16 hour days ?? What film did you get that from ? Complete and utter Bollox, as for hedging exposure, I mean hedging exposure , nothing else , prices fluctuate for a myriad of reasons , weather, natural disasters,crop failure , or perhaps we could just inhabit your incredibly small and convenient world and use the catch all "greedy bankers" excuse.

 

[seagullsovergrimsby]

What a complete load of shite. UKIP would then have ONE MP. Big deal. As it is, they haven't got any, and never have had. And who is to say they'd win that anyway? If recent by-elections are anything to go by, they will do what they always do and finish a solid second or third by hoovering up the protest votes.

So why would any of them be "crapping themselves" over that? You're just making stuff up. The simple fact is that UKIP are an irrelevance when it comes to the decisions being made in this country, because we don't have PR.

They would have 1 MP if they won Portsmouth South which could propel them on to winning more seats in the Euro elections next year. The General Election is the year after and a high UKIP turnout could see the LibDems reduced to a dozen seats , the Tories losing swathes of seats to Labour with Labour ending up as the party with an overall majority in the Commons.

 

[User removed 4]

What a complete load of shite. UKIP would then have ONE MP. Big deal. As it is, they haven't got any, and never have had. And who is to say they'd win that anyway? If recent by-elections are anything to go by, they will do what they always do and finish a solid second or third by hoovering up the protest votes.

So why would any of them be "crapping themselves" over that? You're just making stuff up. The simple fact is that UKIP are an irrelevance when it comes to the decisions being made in this country, because we don't have PR.

I'm sure you would have said the lib dems were an irrelevance a few years ago simster, I voted ukip in the council elections as a protest, but from what I can gather I'd have a massive problem with their policies on redundancy payments and lack of protection for the workforce,but as a little aside , I've seen you describe as " clowns " those who want to withdraw from the EU,now at the moment I'm undecided, but I can recall you having similar sentiments towards "small minded little Englanders" who were against joining the euro, well that worked out well for those that did eh ?

 

[Simster]

They would have 1 MP if they won Portsmouth South which could propel them on to winning more seats in the Euro elections next year. The General Election is the year after and a high UKIP turnout could see the LibDems reduced to a dozen seats , the Tories losing swathes of seats to Labour with Labour ending up as the party with an overall majority in the Commons.

Equally, they could lose that seat in Portsmouth after holding it for less than 2 years, not win any seats anywhere else and go back to being little more than a pressure group.

And here are the results of the 2010 election from Portsmouth South:

Liberal Democrat Mike Hancock 18,921 45.9 +4.2
Conservative Flick Drummond 13,721 33.3 −0.4
Labour John Ferrett 5,640 13.7 −8.7
UKIP Robert Robinson 876 2.1 −0.2
BNP Geoff Crompton 873 2.1 +2.1
Green Tim Dawes 716 1.7 +1.7
English Democrats Ian Ducain 400 1.0 +1.0
Independent Les Cummings 117 0.3 +0.3

You honesty think UKIP are going to overturn a tiny majority of 5,000 - and 18,000 over themselves?

"crapping themselves" my arse.