Bolitics The New Condem Government

[tonyh29]

If you are a low earner you don't pay much, and if you are a higher earner you pay a lot more, the fairest way.

your reasoned tax argument wont work here ...I think the socialist view is that they they don't mind the poor being poorer, provided that the rich are less rich

[snowychap]

A useless, half-witted socialist government had made a complete mess of the economy and it is up to a capitalist government to sort it out.

We may well have had a useless, half-witted government (replaced by, it seems, another uselss, half-witted one) but would you care to explain why you think it was a socialist one?

[markavfc40]

If you are a low earner you don't pay much, and if you are a higher earner you pay a lot more, the fairest way.

your reasoned tax argument wont work here ...I think the socialist view is that they they don't mind the poor being poorer, provided that the rich are less rich

Really. I'd say that what most fair minded people want is for the poor to be less poor and if that ultimately means that the rich are less rich so be it.

I'd class myslef as somewhere in the middle but I'd happlily pay a little more if it helped those most in need and helped at least maintain, but preferably improve, public services.

[tonyh29]

I'd class myslef as somewhere in the middle but I'd happlily pay a little more if it helped those most in need and helped at least maintain, but preferably improve, public services.

interesting some countries that implemented flat tax appear to have seen rising living standards and falling unemployment .. and that tax revenues have increased due to a subsequent decline in tax evasion

a flat tax "could" be detrimental to middle income earners but would most likely benefit the poor ( and the rich)

[markavfc40]

So would you say its fairer to hit the middle income earners to help the poor become less poor and the rich get richer? surely your just creating a bigger divide in society than there is already as you are pushing the richest even further up, middle income earners down and bringing the poor up a little. What your eventually left with is a society where most people are somewhere in between what would now be considered poor and middle income earners and the very rich.

I'd suggest what needs to happen is that the living standards of the poor needs to be improved and that we all help improve that by paying more and the richest paying proportionally more. That should help rebalance society and it most certainly needs rebalancing. I guess I would be considered a middle income earner and I'm more than happy to pay more. I'm not so sure the rich are though.

[TrentVilla]

I'd class myslef as somewhere in the middle but I'd happlily pay a little more if it helped those most in need and helped at least maintain, but preferably improve, public services.

interesting some countries that implemented flat tax appear to have seen rising living standards and falling unemployment .. and that tax revenues have increased due to a subsequent decline in tax evasion

a flat tax "could" be detrimental to middle income earners but would most likely benefit the poor ( and the rich)

By your use of the term "some" I'd presume that some didn't as well then.

So not really sure what this is supposed to signify.

[TrentVilla]

This is the major problem in all this isn’t it. The current people running the country failing to take responsibility for what is happening – lack of growth, rising unemployment, is either down to the previous Government and now down to the problems in the euro zone.

Did the previous Government make mistakes? Damn right they did but they certainly are not solely responsible for where we and the rest of the world found ourselves when this mob took charge in 2010.

They have now been in power for 18 months. They hid behind reducing the deficit to bring in what were/are clearly ideologically led policies in terms of the reckless cuts to public services. The promise was that the hundreds of thousands of job losses in the public sector would be offset by the jobs created in the private sector. Well what have we now found 18 months down the line? Unemployment rising at an alarming rate, now at levels not seen since the early 90’s and certain to get worse, youth unemployment at its highest since records began and growth at 0.5% and mid term predictions revised down.

The general consensus is now that the deficit will not now be wiped out by 2014/15, which was given as the carrot for the austerity measures/cuts, but that the deficit may well be as high as 100 billion come the end of this parliament.

We can argue the toss for ever and a day as to the reasons for where we found ourselves in 2010 and it won’t make a blind bit of difference. What matters is the here and now and it is clear for all to see that the measures the Government has taken since coming in to power, and continue to make, have not and will continue not to work.

On a very human level what I find most concerning is that once again it is the poorest and most vulnerable that are suffering under the Tories and that is simply not a price worth paying.

I’ll be honest I’m pretty comfortably off and would welcome tax rises for those that can afford it if that ensures that public services are kept to or helped to reach a high standard, pensioners don’t have to choose between keeping warm or going hungry, a disabled person doesn’t have their benefits cut and someone else can keep their job.

It is sickening to see the effects the Governments policies are having now and no one with any morals should be happy with what is happening.

Being led by a Government sticking their heads in the sand, continuing forward with policies that clearly aren’t working and blaming everyone else is not the way forward for this country. They need to accept that they have gone about things in the wrong way and come up with a plan B ASAP.

Excellent post in my view.

[thetrees]

So would you say its fairer to hit the middle income earners to help the poor become less poor and the rich get richer? surely your just creating a bigger divide in society than there is already as you are pushing the richest even further up, middle income earners down and bringing the poor up a little. What your eventually left with is a society where most people are somewhere in between what would now be considered poor and middle income earners and the very rich.

I'd suggest what needs to happen is that the living standards of the poor needs to be improved and that we all help improve that by paying more and the richest paying proportionally more. That should help rebalance society and it most certainly needs rebalancing. I guess I would be considered a middle income earner and I'm more than happy to pay more. I'm not so sure the rich are though.

I am not sure what the definition of 'poor' is nowadays, but certainly the benefit culture in this country has created a permanently out-of-work underclass, who can only relieve their boredom with their Sky and mobile phone subscriptions. Cynical, I know.

Presumably the 'poor' to whom you refer are unemployed and therefore not liable for income tax. Therefore a straightforward fair model, with a rise in the basic rate of income tax, would ensure that all people who pay income tax on a pay as you earn basis will pay their fair proportion.

I don't share the left leaning views of some, but am quite happy to join into any fair to all way of getting more money in, which will hopefully be distributed to those who need it the most. But there is a very thin grey line between 'need', 'want' and 'expect'.

I often read on VT about the tax dodgers, who have enough money to pay clever and expensive accountants to help them avoid paying tax. These people should, of course, be pursued and reined in. But I never read on VT about the black economy, the 'cash in hand' workers and dodgy dealings that go on, presumably because these are ordinary 'hard workers' not 'fat cats'?

All areas of our society should take their responsibility in enabling a recovery, but while one half of society just expects the other half to pay, it will never work.

[jonno_2004]

I often read on VT about the tax dodgers, who have enough money to pay clever and expensive accountants to help them avoid paying tax. These people should, of course, be pursued and reined in. But I never read on VT about the black economy, the 'cash in hand' workers and dodgy dealings that go on, presumably because these are ordinary 'hard workers' not 'fat cats'?

All areas of our society should take their responsibility in enabling a recovery, but while one half of society just expects the other half to pay, it will never work.

Two of the better paragraphs I've read on here in a while. Every 'unfair' element of society needs to be targeted and not those considered to be fashionable through warped political views on both sides of the spectrum.

[Richard]

So would you say its fairer to hit the middle income earners to help the poor become less poor and the rich get richer? surely your just creating a bigger divide in society than there is already as you are pushing the richest even further up, middle income earners down and bringing the poor up a little. What your eventually left with is a society where most people are somewhere in between what would now be considered poor and middle income earners and the very rich.

I'd suggest what needs to happen is that the living standards of the poor needs to be improved and that we all help improve that by paying more and the richest paying proportionally more. That should help rebalance society and it most certainly needs rebalancing. I guess I would be considered a middle income earner and I'm more than happy to pay more. I'm not so sure the rich are though.

I am not sure what the definition of 'poor' is nowadays, but certainly the benefit culture in this country has created a permanently out-of-work underclass, who can only relieve their boredom with their Sky and mobile phone subscriptions. Cynical, I know.

Presumably the 'poor' to whom you refer are unemployed and therefore not liable for income tax. Therefore a straightforward fair model, with a rise in the basic rate of income tax, would ensure that all people who pay income tax on a pay as you earn basis will pay their fair proportion.

I don't share the left leaning views of some, but am quite happy to join into any fair to all way of getting more money in, which will hopefully be distributed to those who need it the most. But there is a very thin grey line between 'need', 'want' and 'expect'.

I often read on VT about the tax dodgers, who have enough money to pay clever and expensive accountants to help them avoid paying tax. These people should, of course, be pursued and reined in. But I never read on VT about the black economy, the 'cash in hand' workers and dodgy dealings that go on, presumably because these are ordinary 'hard workers' not 'fat cats'?

All areas of our society should take their responsibility in enabling a recovery, but while one half of society just expects the other half to pay, it will never work.

In addition to all of that there also has to be in place a motivation for people to aspire to higher salaries. Merely taxing them more and more would basically not encourage them to earn the money in the first place if they would be better off on a lower salary scale. Much like the issue we currently face with some people on benefits whereby it would not pay them (or so the reason goes) to earn a living.

[tonyh29]

By your use of the term "some" I'd presume that some didn't as well then.

no my term "some" was to avoid using the word "all" and having someone pull my up on it :winkold:

i used some as I didn't have knowledge of all the countries that have implemented it

it's supposed to signify a possible alternative that's all .. been a few years since i studied economics but it's introduction "could "lead to something called negative income tax (got a feeling it was Friedman who proposed it ?) whereby you set a household level and if you fall below it the govt would credit you that tax amount .. it's welfare just under another name essentially

[tonyh29]

I often read on VT about the tax dodgers, who have enough money to pay clever and expensive accountants to help them avoid paying tax. These people should, of course, be pursued and reined in. But I never read on VT about the black economy, the 'cash in hand' workers and dodgy dealings that go on, presumably because these are ordinary 'hard workers' not 'fat cats'?

I've referenced exactly that a few times in threads , I've yet to have a builder ,plumber etc at my house who hasn't asked for cash , but they are good old working class people (ha ha ) so of course they don't count

what there appears to be is this mindset that people who remortgage their homes , work 60 hour weeks and don't take any holiday for years don't exist .. rich means you must have got it through privilege of birth or are a banker on £2m a year and thus you don't care about others

[snowychap]

Presumably the 'poor' to whom you refer are unemployed and therefore not liable for income tax.

Why do you presume that? Is it so that you can categorize them (as you claim cynically - others may put it in less kind terms) in the way in which you have above?

Why are those earning the minimum wage, for instance, not poor?

Therefore a straightforward fair model, with a rise in the basic rate of income tax, would ensure that all people who pay income tax on a pay as you earn basis will pay their fair proportion.

Why is this 'fair'?

I often read on VT about the tax dodgers, who have enough money to pay clever and expensive accountants to help them avoid paying tax. These people should, of course, be pursued and reined in. But I never read on VT about the black economy, the 'cash in hand' workers and dodgy dealings that go on, presumably because these are ordinary 'hard workers' not 'fat cats'?

When you compare the two in the abstract then they probably are pretty similar. When put in context perhaps they are not as much so.

I would suggest that the sympathy amongst a wider audience for those in the black economy at the lower end of the income scale is because it may be that their participation is more likely to be as a result of trying to get by and thus out of necessity rather than the mercenary reasons more prevalent at the other end of the income scale.

Is the black economy a purely low income thing, too, as it would appear that you are suggesting (by contrasting it with groups of 'fat cats')?

Surely the black economy ranges from the person doing a couple of hours foreigner for his mate to the organized gang smuggling in contraband?

Who pays the 'cash in hand' worker? Do the black economy 'employers' not benefit?

All areas of our society should take their responsibility in enabling a recovery, but while one half of society just expects the other half to pay, it will never work.

It would appear to me that the second half of your claim betrays the Osborneish 'we're all in it together' nature of the first part and leads quite neatly back to the cynical position you take at the beginning of the post.

[tonyh29]

I’ll be honest I’m pretty comfortably off and would welcome tax rises for those that can afford it if that ensures that public services are kept to or helped to reach a high standard, pensioners don’t have to choose between keeping warm or going hungry, a disabled person doesn’t have their benefits cut and someone else can keep their job.

It is sickening to see the effects the Governments policies are having now and no one with any morals should be happy with what is happening.

i'm sure you can donate all your salary to worthy causes instead whilst you wait for them to implement it ?

Have Pensioners suddenly had to make this "choice" you speak of since 2010 ..No .. I posted it in a thread years ago about how disgusting it was having to see OAP's buying nothing but cans of Tesco Value Baked Beans for their weekly shop ...

you keep using this "morals" phrase like some form of disguised insult but you'll probably find there is very little between you and 99.9% of the other people in the world irrespective of where they put their "X" in an election ..

[colhint]

regrading the minimum wage. I don't know for sure but I would have thought the Government at the time, not having a go at Labour here, would have

done some research to set the rate which would have kept those earning it out of the poor bracket. Its not as if they would have just picked a number at random.

[snowychap]

regrading the minimum wage. I don't know for sure but I would have thought the Government at the time, not having a go at Labour here, would have

done some research to set the rate which would have kept those earning it out of the poor bracket. Its not as if they would have just picked a number at random.

Doesn't the Low Pay Commission set the NMW (or at least 'advise' the government on the level)?

[colhint]

so if thats the case, they souldn't be classed as poor (unless of course they live up to their name and set the rate as what they deem as poor)

[tonyh29]

I would have thought the Government at the time, not having a go at Labour here, would have

done some research to set the rate which would have kept those earning it out of the poor bracket

the Low Pay commission recommend a rate which the government then sets ( which may or may not be the rate recommended by the LPC)

[snowychap]

so if thats the case, they souldn't be classed as poor

Why not?

In any event, the point of me using the NMW was as a comparison to thetrees's presumption of who were in the category to which Mark was referring.

[colhint]

Well are you suggesting the Low Pay Commision advise a rate which would make anuone who earbs it poor? But I do agree there are too many assumptions and grouping of people.