Should the rich be squeezed more?

Emy1501

marklv wrote: »

There you go - back to the public sector, blame everything on that. Medical care, education, police, armed forces, public administration - nothing of that is worth anything to you. Well, it matters to me and many others.

What if your house was burgled by violent chavs one evening, and you dialled 999? What if the police didn't arrive until 40 minutes later because they were too busy with other incidents due to staff shortages and you got beaten up very badly? What if your wife and children were raped by these lowlifes? What then? Would you still support cuts in the public sector?

The problem is someones got to pay for these services. The government has run out of money to continue as we were and therefore the choice is to tax higher or cut. We know people are not interested in higher taxes so we have to cut. I would be happy to pay higher taxes for better services even though I do not earn a vast a mount but most would not and no party who says we will give you excellent services but you have to pay for it will get in.

marklv

Emy1501 wrote: »

The problem is someones got to pay for these services. The government has run out of money to continue as we were and therefore the choice is to tax higher or cut. We know people are not interested in higher taxes so we have to cut. I would be happy to pay higher taxes for better services even though I do not earn a vast a mount but most would not and no party who says we will give you excellent services but you have to pay for it will get in.

The government has not run out of money - it is just reluctant to increase the necessary taxes to raise that money. The money exists and it can be raised. The trouble is too many people want to continue living in a low tax regime and also get all the services they expect - it can't work this way. And the rich are the ones who can afford to pay more and should pay more. Targeting already low paid public sector workers with cuts is not the right approach.

Niche

marklv wrote: »

The government has not run out of money

LOL, you should be in stand up comedy, they are borrowing billions BUT have not run out of money:rotfl:

Emy1501

marklv wrote: »

The government has not run out of money - it is just reluctant to increase the necessary taxes to raise that money. The money exists and it can be raised. The trouble is too many people want to continue living in a low tax regime and also get all the services they expect - it can't work this way. And the rich are the ones who can afford to pay more and should pay more. Targeting already low paid public sector workers with cuts is not the right approach.

A Low tax regime? The rich pay some of the highest taxes around. As for you issue about all the services and low tax regime thats something you have to blame the government for who have promised for years great services without higher taxes without any real way of paying for it.

Simple fact is no party is going to get in on higher taxes and therefore only real way forward is cutting the waste and some services and the public sector being running more efficiently. I was amazed to hear the government saying they could save 500m by cutting down on sick days in the NHS. Why are they waiting till next year to do this. Why have they not taken a stuff stance on sickness before?

The simple fact is tax the rich hard especially the best talent and they go somewhere else to earning money and pay taxes and we are left here with all those who can't be bothered to work or who other countries do not want.

Jonbvn

fc123 wrote: »

????? You work in the Public Sector? Which bit if you don't mind me asking?

Probably strategic planning and tax policy!:eek:

JonnyBravo

I can't believe how many sensible people are arguing with this troll.
Do any of you really believe you will make him type anything along the lines of "oh yeah... i never thought of that, I'm wrong"?

He put out a line with a very large hook on it. On the line was a big sign saying "Beware of this obvious hook" and still people flocked to take the bait.

Spartacus_Mills

marklv wrote: »

Until Nigel Lawson came up with his catastrophic 'give away' budget the top rate of income tax was 60%. I am suggesting we restore that at a £150k level , and lower the 50% income tax threshold to c.£85k a year.

I do agree the budget was a catastrophe simply as he cut too much too quickly and it caused an inflationary spike.

However speaking about it on Radio 4 late last year Lord Lawson stated that the cut in top level tax actually brought more money into the treasury as it made avoidance schemes less attractive.

I do not like the idea of just soaking the rich for the sake of it. I believe it would be counter productive.

Spartacus_Mills

Niche wrote: »

LOL, you should be in stand up comedy, they are borrowing billions BUT have not run out of money:rotfl:

Indeed, the government is printing money to buy its own debt.

mitchaa

I love the argument that if you tax the high earners more they will simply move out of the country:think:

What really?

I know I wouldn't. My family and friends and the British way of life mean more to me than how many noughts are in my bank account. Moving abroad for taxation purposes is extremely greedy and selfish in my opinion. If they really want to go, then bye bye to them. For every bigwig on a high 6 figure salary there will be another 20 or so capable of filling their positions. No one is irreplaceable.

I agree with the 50% income tax. I dont whinge about paying 40% so they shouldn't whinge about paying 50%.

Just the way of the world.

mitchaa

You have to remember when someone on £200k gets a 5% payrise he gets a £10k increase.

When someone on a £25k average salary gets a 5% payrise he gets a £1.2k payrise.

The bigwigs below took 7%, the riff raff nurses took just 3%

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8614684.stm

The world is not fair.