Bollitics: VT General Election Poll #2

[kidlewis]

what tax are you proposing on the Bentley v Punto though ?

let's go for the Levi option of an asset tax. The state exists to protect people and their assets - ie someone doesn't rob your bently vs robbing my punto. Your asset is worth more than mine therefore as any insurance policy goes, the more you are protecting the more you pay.

No mention of road tax in my thread - it was regarding asset tax. So instead of the car example, let's say your house. You pay for the police and the fire services to protect your house from burglary and arson or even mishap, and the army exists to protect your house from being overrun with goths and anarchists; so your surrey mansion is worth £1m and my northfield 2 bed is worth £140k, so you should pay 7 times more in tax - as the state exists to preserve your asset value.

Go on explain how you envisage a fair tax - in numbers.

everyone pays the same percentage of tax. for income.

as for asset tax. As Tony says you keep road tax the same and you use fuel duty to hit the more fuel hungry cars.

If you want to tax cars damage to the environment then you make people pay a lump sum when they buy the car. Not every year.

If you want a mansion tax based on your system then council tax has to go.

I would argue though that if I live in a million pound house but never call the fire, police, army and have private health care. And someone living in a small cheaper house, commits crime, puts people (and themselves) in hospital more than the norm, smokes and drinks excessively, then they should pay more than I do.

[kidlewis]

Say it's worht £1m and you have no cash

on the same arguemnt if you have no cash you shouldn't be having children and thus we can scrap child benefit and save a few quid

So are you saying all these people shouldn't use council services because they can't afford to pay their council tax? Is this a choice?

I think he is saying don't have kids if you can't afford/support them.

and certainly don't allow the government to throw a cheque at you when you do.

[Risso]

I don't see why (if I am lucky enough) to move up to beyond the basic tax rate why another 20% should be taken out of my wage. I am working my ass off now to try and move up in the world and if it simply gets taken away through another 20% going onto government coffers then I will be a bit pi**ed in all honesty.

'Simply gets taken away'?

Okay, it might appear that we haven't moved too far from feudal times in that the really wealthy are still getting away with paying little or no taxes and the ordinary people are bearing the burden of paying for foreign wars (or, as they always have been, the foibles of our leaders) but that really isn't the essence of taxation policy in the modern world.

ok well perhaps not taken away but I certainly don't feel there is ANY point in me getting a pay increase to over the £37,401 40% band unless I am heading way over it.

Why is it OK for someone earning 30k to pay 30% yet someone earning £7k more to pay double?

I can certainly see why people try and get round it when they are around that threshold figure.

I understand people on moster salaries trying to get round it is more of an injustice, but certainly if I am lucky enough to earn £37k or even up to £45k per year, I', going to try and get round that extra 20% if I can.

Yes If I am super lucky and the company goes sky high and I end up somehow getting £70k-100k a year then most certainly will be happy to pay the 40%.

I'm sorry if you know this, but your post doesn't make it clear. You only pay the 40% on the amount you earn over the higher rate threshold, as it's a marginal tax. You don't get to £40K then pay 40% on the whole amount.

[Gringo]

as for asset tax. As Tony says you keep road tax the same and you use fuel duty to hit the more fuel hungry cars.

That's not an asset tax - that's called road tax as I tried to break out above. An asset tax would be a tax on everything you own. If the state protects your assets, then those with more assets should pay more.

[kidlewis]

I don't see why (if I am lucky enough) to move up to beyond the basic tax rate why another 20% should be taken out of my wage. I am working my ass off now to try and move up in the world and if it simply gets taken away through another 20% going onto government coffers then I will be a bit pi**ed in all honesty.

'Simply gets taken away'?

Okay, it might appear that we haven't moved too far from feudal times in that the really wealthy are still getting away with paying little or no taxes and the ordinary people are bearing the burden of paying for foreign wars (or, as they always have been, the foibles of our leaders) but that really isn't the essence of taxation policy in the modern world.

ok well perhaps not taken away but I certainly don't feel there is ANY point in me getting a pay increase to over the £37,401 40% band unless I am heading way over it.

Why is it OK for someone earning 30k to pay 30% yet someone earning £7k more to pay double?

I can certainly see why people try and get round it when they are around that threshold figure.

I understand people on moster salaries trying to get round it is more of an injustice, but certainly if I am lucky enough to earn £37k or even up to £45k per year, I', going to try and get round that extra 20% if I can.

Yes If I am super lucky and the company goes sky high and I end up somehow getting £70k-100k a year then most certainly will be happy to pay the 40%.

I'm sorry if you know this, but your post doesn't make it clear. You only pay the 40% on the amount you earn over the higher rate threshold, as it's a marginal tax. You don't get to £40K then pay 40% on the whole amount.

Yeah I did know it was on earnings over £40k but why should I work hard to try and get paid more when I know more will go out of my pocket?

I certainly think in the future I will try and get my car and various personal purchases through the company to save myself 17.5% VAT and also a few "nights out entertaining clients" too.

[snowychap]

I certainly don't feel there is ANY point in me getting a pay increase to over the £37,401 40% band unless I am heading way over it.

Why not?

Unless you are being paid by the hour or piecework and are actually analysing the net rewards for each kilojoule of effort, it seems a rather daft argument.

You don't look at the rest of your remuneration in such terms, do you?

Why is it OK for someone earning 30k to pay 30% yet someone earning £7k more to pay double?

:?

Income tax is marginal.

Edit: Just seen Risso's post and your reply.

[Gringo]

Say it's worht £1m and you have no cash

on the same arguemnt if you have no cash you shouldn't be having children and thus we can scrap child benefit and save a few quid

So are you saying all these people shouldn't use council services because they can't afford to pay their council tax? Is this a choice?

I think he is saying don't have kids if you can't afford/support them.

and certainly don't allow the government to throw a cheque at you when you do.

Child benefit goes to all - so what (if you take his words literally) he is saying is that the poor shouldn't breed.

[kidlewis]

as for asset tax. As Tony says you keep road tax the same and you use fuel duty to hit the more fuel hungry cars.

That's not an asset tax - that's called road tax as I tried to break out above. An asset tax would be a tax on everything you own. If the state protects your assets, then those with more assets should pay more.

but I argue people who use the services more should also pay an increased amount.

I.e. if you work and smoke heavily, then your NI goes up.

It should also be linked to how you behave to a certain degree.

[kidlewis]

Say it's worht £1m and you have no cash

on the same arguemnt if you have no cash you shouldn't be having children and thus we can scrap child benefit and save a few quid

So are you saying all these people shouldn't use council services because they can't afford to pay their council tax? Is this a choice?

I think he is saying don't have kids if you can't afford/support them.

and certainly don't allow the government to throw a cheque at you when you do.

Child benefit goes to all - so what (if you take his words literally) he is saying is that the poor shouldn't breed.

I meant the Child Trust Fund. That shouldn't exist.

[tonyh29]

on the same arguemnt if you have no cash you shouldn't be having children and thus we can scrap child benefit and save a few quid

That's a pathetic argument.

thanks for the input :-)

I know it's a long thread but my reply wasn't some heartless ploy to wipe out the poor , it was based on theory in a post saying if you have no assets you should sell you house to raise cash to pay your way ..

So you have no cash , so you are made to sell your house to pay your tax and then indirectly the money raised goes to someone who has no money but wants to have children but can't really afford to have them without some form of subside

is that better ?

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

on the same arguemnt if you have no cash you shouldn't be having children and thus we can scrap child benefit and save a few quid

That's a pathetic argument.

thanks for the input :-)

I know it's a long thread but my reply wasn't some heartless ploy to wipe out the poor , it was based on theory in a post saying if you have no assets you should sell you house to raise cash to pay your way ..

So you have no cash , so you are made to sell your house to pay your tax and then indirectly the money raised goes to someone who has no money but wants to have children but can't really afford to have them without some form of subside

is that better ?

No, what you're saying is the poor shouldn't have kids, don't bother trying to weasel out of it because I think anyone with a few brain cells can see what you are getting at.

Leave children out of your petty hatred for all things Labour, a right to have kids is not based on how much £££ you have in the bank. End of **** story.

[tonyh29]

You pay for the police and the fire services to protect your house from burglary and arson or even mishap, and the army exists to protect your house from being overrun with goths and anarchists; so your surrey mansion is worth £1m and my northfield 2 bed is worth £140k, so you should pay 7 times more in tax - as the state exists to preserve your asset value.

Well firstly I don't pay the police to protect me from burglary , nor does anyone else for that matter .. I pay ADT and again it's down to choice , many houses near me don't have alarms .. i would put their house numbers but there may be common criminals watching

You can argue that the fire brigade will require more water to put out a fire on my castle than they will on your 2 bedroom house , but then my water is on a meter and thus i'm paying on a fair usage system anyway

The army .. well they buy their own equipment thanks to this government so unless you are proposing we deal with goths and anarchists using cruise missiles then again my tax burden on the army is the same as yours

If we based tax paid purely on size though , what about a flat in Chelsea that costs £1m .. In every way it's the same as your the 2 bedroom flat in Northfield apart from the fact it has a W10 postcode and a van Gogh over the mantle piece purchased at auction with a nice % sales tax going towards the government coffers :winkold: .. should the rates be the same on the 2 properties ?

[tonyh29]

No, what you're saying is the poor shouldn't have kids, don't bother trying to weasel out of it because I think anyone with a few brain cells can see what you are getting at.

well clearly that's a few more brain cells than you have then as it's gone totally over your head

oh and :-) so that the insult is seen as comedy rather than as the clear insult it was (Internet rule 467b)

I have no problem with poor people , after all without them who would clean my house and car and tend my garden ??

btw this is also in jest , just in case you also mis-understand this post as well :-)

[tonyh29]

Child benefit goes to all - so what (if you take his words literally) he is saying is that the poor shouldn't breed.

oh ffs you know damn well that wasn't what i said

I get child benefit money and trust fund money and I don't believe I should receive either is my honest opinion

same way that the winter fuel allowance is given to all pensioners regardless of means .. chances are the Queen gets sent it each winter as she is at the right age and lives in a house ..

[leviramsey]

Everyone has a tax free allowance of £20k and then pay 50% tax on all earnings above that. Or maybe 60% and abolish VAT (the most wasteful tax ever dreamt up).

I agree with this post (especially the second).

Where most of the loopholes in tax codes arise is when they get complex. Having tax brackets with different rates and attempting social engineering through the tax code is a recipe for tax loopholes.

[leviramsey]

as for asset tax. As Tony says you keep road tax the same and you use fuel duty to hit the more fuel hungry cars.

Better to privatize the motorways and toll those while reducing fuel duties....

I would argue though that if I live in a million pound house but never call the fire, police, army and have private health care. And someone living in a small cheaper house, commits crime, puts people (and themselves) in hospital more than the norm, smokes and drinks excessively, then they should pay more than I do.

Part of the beauty of the asset tax I've proposed is that it could theoretically be an optional tax. If you're reasonably sure that you're not going to have to worry about somebody breaking into your house (e.g. you have Smith & Wesson providing your security) you don't pay the tax, but if you do get broken into, the police and courts are going to say "tough" (though perhaps a payment of back taxes plus interest and they might just take interest. Most (nearly all) people will probably conclude that the cops and courts do a decent job and pay the tax.

Don't want to declare a bank account? Then you give up the ability to use the courts to protect your account. If you're a bank and want the ability to use the courts to maintain compliance (up to and including foreclosing on the loan) then you declare it and pay the tax.

[leviramsey]

Say it's worht £1m and you have no cash

on the same arguemnt if you have no cash you shouldn't be having children and thus we can scrap child benefit and save a few quid

So are you saying all these people shouldn't use council services because they can't afford to pay their council tax? Is this a choice?

I think he is saying don't have kids if you can't afford/support them.

and certainly don't allow the government to throw a cheque at you when you do.

Child benefit goes to all - so what (if you take his words literally) he is saying is that the poor shouldn't breed.

Which is particularly interesting since it's largely because there aren't enough kids being born that Europe (including the UK) is going over the cliff (though insular attitudes towards immigration also play a major part).

[Awol]

on the same arguemnt if you have no cash you shouldn't be having children and thus we can scrap child benefit and save a few quid

That's a pathetic argument.

thanks for the input :-)

I know it's a long thread but my reply wasn't some heartless ploy to wipe out the poor , it was based on theory in a post saying if you have no assets you should sell you house to raise cash to pay your way ..

So you have no cash , so you are made to sell your house to pay your tax and then indirectly the money raised goes to someone who has no money but wants to have children but can't really afford to have them without some form of subside

is that better ?

No, what you're saying is the poor shouldn't have kids, don't bother trying to weasel out of it because I think anyone with a few brain cells can see what you are getting at.

Leave children out of your petty hatred for all things Labour, a right to have kids is not based on how much £££ you have in the bank. End of **** story.

Everyone has the 'right' to own a big house, drive a Porsche and bang supermodels too, IF they can afford it.

Imo society doesn't owe it's members the right to have anything that the individual cannot afford other than education, healthcare and a roof over their head - and many would argue against the latter of those rights. If the individual over extends themselves by having things they can't afford then inevitably those things are taken away, ether by a bank, a debt collector or social services.

I think what Tony is adovcating is personal responsibility in the sphere of parenting. Not exactly a bad idea, is it?

[avfc89]

Cons will protect the rich and make the poor poorer they haven't changed one little bit. I am voting Labour.

[avfc89]

Does Tony live in the south? Typical southerner's view CED.