On 31 Jan 2012 at 10:43pm Paul Newman wrote:
A certain miserable English mangling lefty; Alf of the Green Party, has been suggesting an ultra progressive tax regime which would remove the structural deficit, he reckons, at a stroke.( Why are they always the same ?)
..coo and to think no-one noticed eh. That easy? Well we would all like more of other people??s money, they have a lot , and its always been popular. Why then does no serious politician suggest it ?
Here are some facts.
In 2008 The IFS calculated that the government would maximise revenues from those earning over £100,000 by imposing a marginal rate of 55.6% . At that time this close to the marginal rate of 53%including Income tax NI and indirect tax. That marginal rate is now higher and costs us money for symbolic reasons ( Says Robert Chote OBS)
The IFS Concluded -??No powerful case for increasing income tax on the very highest earners even on redistribute grounds?
Clue - Do you think( Golden Rule ) Gordon Brown would not have taken every last penny ? We are on the Laffer curve and above at the top end
The government's own survey of personal incomes tells us this
The top 1% of earners pay 11.6% of pre tax income and 22% of tax.
.he bottom 25% receive 8.2% of the national pre tax income and pay 2% of income tax.
1997-2008 The top 10 % of incomes grew by 17% The bottom 5% by 13.5%.
The poor ,in other words, got richer.
We already have a more redistributive society than Sweden, we start less equal( yes it??s a bad thing )but gross hand outs have been pushed to the limit.
So if anyone tells you that tax can be raised, but not from you, ordinary people, they are lying. Whether it??s semi digested guff (see Alf ) or a real world spending commitment hypothecated on some ??rich ??tax. You pay Discuss equality and fairness by all means but not fairy tales .(of which another is that evasion can be stopped)
On 1 Feb 2012 at 9:47am supporter wrote:
getting so boring
On 1 Feb 2012 at 10:45am Yawn... wrote:
and no one believes your figures anyway... or reads your semi-literate posts for that matter
On 1 Feb 2012 at 11:35am Clifford wrote:
Paul Newman posts telling us why it would be wrong to tax the rich. Now there's a surprise.
On 1 Feb 2012 at 11:57am Facts, anyone? wrote:
For truth about evasion, avoidance and UK tax follow the link:
Check it out here »
On 1 Feb 2012 at 12:27pm Mr Forks wrote:
PN should pay a tax on his rambling postings, £1 a word I think!
On 1 Feb 2012 at 12:33pm Mercian wrote:
Income is not the issue. The elephant in the room is wealth, far more polarised and unequally distributed and much the result of unearned gains from a dysfunctional property market.
Tax wealth. Tax land. Reduce tax on income. Make productivity pay and bring about the "euthanasia of the rentier".
Although it has to be said that a lot of Scandinavian countries have higher top rate taxes than us (at lower income levels) and yet seem to have no problem running very successful capitalist enterprises or finding people to run them successfully.
On 1 Feb 2012 at 12:35pm Mercian wrote:
Paul, of course evasion can't be stopped but it can be reduced. For a start off, we could withdraw our protection from the many tax havens which are sitll under our wing. We could also introduce a general anti-avoidance law as many other countries have. Oh, hang on, it might annoy the City, where many politicians expect to get jobs post-career and where the COnservative party gets a lot of its funding from.
On 1 Feb 2012 at 12:40pm Paul Newman wrote:
Not wrong necessarrily Clifford , just counter productive , taxes at certain levels above certain proportions lose money. This is why left wing states have to close borders and then, of course , they lose even more.
A grown up discussion about what to do now has to include this knowledge with the common currency of everyone fro me to a Duncan Weldon( let us say) the Economic adviser employed by the TUC and with whom I have previously disgreed aboyut the precise location of the curve
Tax Evasion is a universal fact . Noone pays more tax than they have to and it is not illegal . Government departments also employ accountants to arrange their affairs tax efficiently
Policing it is an ongoing process not a pot of gold and the more you make it worthwhile the more there is . None of this is new , its just a way of pretending there is some easy way out of spending more than the exchequer collects.
There is not and this is why the lies spread by extremists of all types to rouse the rabble into envious rage are so dangerous .It matters not if it is the Greens the SWP or the BNP they are all at it . No suprise really
On 1 Feb 2012 at 12:55pm Paul Newman wrote:
Maybe Mercian , its not a new idea, there would also be debits involved and it is not a way to plan serious spending .
On taxing wealth I know it has long been the Liberal mantra but Property has also been the means of long term redistribution.Privately owned Companies have notional value but taxing them only hurts wage earners customers and the wider economy. Inequality and social immobility are real problems in the UK I agree .
Saying so is a platitude though , and pretending we can sequester Lakshir Mittals income is just infantile
I have hopes of reformed education ? Could hardly be worse anyway.
On 1 Feb 2012 at 2:12pm Clifford wrote:
I see Paul Newman is using the old trope of calling people who want to see a fair tax system 'envious'. It's what I think the psychologists knows as 'projection' - that is, projecting the qualities one is most ashamed of onto others. I remember my old man telling me that during the war, when there was rationing to ensure fair shares, 'spivs' and the rich who evaded rationing were generally despised - another case of 'envy' I suppose.
On 1 Feb 2012 at 4:20pm Mercian wrote:
Paul, a land value tax would be a very simple and fair way of taxing (unearned) wealth and would also tame the property market.
Paul - could you provide me with a coherent justification for why the British government provides protection for jurisdictions such as the Caymans or Bermuda, or for that matter Jersey or Guernsey?
Check it out here »
On 1 Feb 2012 at 4:23pm Mercian wrote:
And would you have any problem with a GAAR (General Anti Avoidance Rule). It works effectively in many other countries.
On 1 Feb 2012 at 10:23pm Paul Newman wrote:
Fir what its worth I suspect a GAAR is a meaningless gesture and I see no virtue whatsoever in raising the effective rate of corporation tax in an open competitive economy where profits are normal. The UK has a very open Economy and the most progressive tax system in the G8
On a land tax,properly constituted , that might be a good wheeze, my only problem is that the proposed 'mansion tax' is a truly awful idea and if that is what is on the table then I`ll stick.
On 2 Feb 2012 at 8:22am DFL wrote:
So I guess we go back to the old syndome of rich people are rich and poor people are poor, and never the twain shall meet ? Whatever happenned to equality ? Will we humans ever learn ? Look at the state of the middle east - 70+ people killed in a footbal match !! Al Qaeda in cahoots with the Afghan Army and Police ! Women killing their daughters because they had a baby girl instead of a boy ! I think we Brits need to sort out our own social infrastructure a bit sharpish, or, .......
On 2 Feb 2012 at 9:46am Southover Queen wrote:
I think we probably do, yes, DFL. We could learn a lot from the Scandinavian countries, where there is much more wealth redistribution and where people are much happier because of it.
I think the problem with the free market/low tax system we seem to have foisted upon us by successive governments is that it is indeed a system entirely driven by envy. And the trouble with envy, as anyone organising a children's party will tell you, is that it makes people miserable - even those who have far more than they can possibly use. Listen to the rhetoric around you: "consumers must be encouraged to spend because otherwise the economy will fail" - that means (to my ears anyway) persuade the consumer that his 40' flat screen telly is making him unhappy because it isn't 3D, or driving a brand new Range Rover is the key to instant joy.
On 2 Feb 2012 at 12:20pm Clifford wrote:
Paul Newman writes, 'The UK has... the most progressive tax system in the G8.'
Paul, I think we need a bit more information about that before we can agree or disagree. As a reminder, the G8 countries are Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, United Kingdom, United States. I'm not going to plough through their tax systems, but you clearly have to be able to make that statement, Paul, so share the information with us.
On 2 Feb 2012 at 1:31pm Facts, anyone? wrote:
And provide sources
On 2 Feb 2012 at 4:12pm bastian wrote:
DFL, if you mention equality some ardent right winger will lable you as commie and call you old fashioned for suggesting it, despite the fact that it is what so many people re thinking even if they are comfortably off but can see that others are not.
On 2 Feb 2012 at 5:29pm DFL wrote:
I know Bastian, but the thing is, I'm middle of the road !
On 2 Feb 2012 at 7:46pm Paul Newman wrote:
The information on relative progressiveness of tax system comes form the Wall Street Journal originally.
Check it out here »
On 4 Feb 2012 at 6:26pm Facts, anyone? wrote:
Oh dear. Has anyone else followed PN's link?
That is a joke of a study. It measures the difference in taxation between two totally arbitrary points on the salary scale. What if tax on salaries over £200K went down (proportionally) in the UK WHICH THEY DO or if tax percentage went up (proportionally) for people earning less that £25K or on benefits (through VAT etc) WHICH THEY DO.
This is an unbelievable limited analysis. It wouldn't be out of place in a primary school project. But thanks for sharing so we know where your 'facts' are coming from.
On 4 Feb 2012 at 6:37pm Facts, anyone? wrote:
Don't be fooled. Our present tax system charges the lowest tax rates
of all to the largest companies, which operate their in-house banks in tax havens (courtesy of new corporate tax legislation from George Osborne) and which pay just 5.75% tax on the resulting profits.
Source: HM Treasury, Overview of Draft Legislation for Finance Bill 2011