Milliband

dtsazza

spadoosh wrote: »

Going back to his intent his argument against 5p tax reduction was simple. the people earning this much don't need it, the response from government..... silence.

It's not the kind of thing you can really go over in a public debate like that, though.

If those people don't need it, why not tax it at 55%, or 60%, or even 100%?

If you think anything other than 0% or 100% is correct then you're admitting some sort of equilibrium, where it's possible for the rate to be to be too high or too low, and you're searching for the "Goldilocks" level.

To bring in absolutes such as "they don't need it" is unrealistically facile. I suppose what he's trying to say is that they are likely to have greater supply elasticity to changes in tax rates, but he's not phrasing it in a way that invites discussion (hardly surprising).

So given that you can't have a sensible discussion about it, if you don't have any snappy soundbites to come back with (also equally meaningless) then saying nothing is the best option.

chucknorris

spadoosh wrote: »

Parliament is full of cheap shots, hell they even had them at the speaker today, dont comment if youve only ever seen pmq's once.

Going back to his intent his argument against 5p tax reduction was simple. the people earning this much don't need it,

Yes of course they are (seen it plenty of times thanks), but they are hoping to get somewhere with their questions and make a point, where was he going to get with that question?

Sorry but I just can't see him being the next labour PM.

Of course they don't need it, it is not about needing it is about wanting it. He wants to attract more entrepeneurs.

spadoosh

dtsazza wrote: »

It's not the kind of thing you can really go over in a public debate like that, though.

If those people don't need it, why not tax it at 55%, or 60%, or even 100%?

If you think anything other than 0% or 100% is correct then you're admitting some sort of equilibrium, where it's possible for the rate to be to be too high or too low, and you're searching for the "Goldilocks" level.

To bring in absolutes such as "they don't need it" is unrealistically facile. I suppose what he's trying to say is that they are likely to have greater supply elasticity to changes in tax rates, but he's not phrasing it in a way that invites discussion (hardly surprising).

So given that you can't have a sensible discussion about it, if you don't have any snappy soundbites to come back with (also equally meaningless) then saying nothing is the best option.

Sorry, the response was the condem bench gesturing 5p to him, its all well and nice like that (bit of pr for the uneducated) but that 5p is 000's lost in revenue.

And you cant discuss in that kind of forum. PMq's was before the budget, the exchequer delivers the budget the opposition leaders highlights bad things in the budget. No discussion, there isnt supposed to be.

Answer me this if you could. With the proposed rise in tax allowance were is this lost income being subsidised? Not from the rich because theres no way the stamp duty increase will come close to covering the 5p reduction nevery mind the 7 or 8 billion we need to subsidise the increased personal tax allowance.

Theres some good ideas in the budget i cant argue that but there are some bloody big holes in it aswell. Ed's gonna be splitting his sides next year, conservative.... why so optimistic with your forecasts then?!? C'mon boys, if you meet half of those targets ill be impressed!

spadoosh

chucknorris wrote: »

Yes of course they are (seen it plenty of times thanks), but they are hoping to get somewhere with their questions and make a point, where was he going to get with that question?

Sorry but I just can't see him being the next labour PM.

Of course they don't need it, it is not about needing it is about wanting it. He wants to attract more entrepeneurs.

The point he was making was there are people who need tax subsidies and there are people who do not. Why give the people who do not these subsidies and potentially (probably imo) make the very poorest much worse off.

Appologies IMO 1-0 milliband on that one. And i agree i dont think hes strong enough to be the next labour pm, says alot when managed to give the condems a good battering though, something you cant really deny.

chucknorris

spadoosh wrote: »

The point he was making was there are people who need tax subsidies and there are people who do not. Why give the people who do not these subsidies and potentially (probably imo) make the very poorest much worse off.

.

Because it may encourage entrepeneurs to start more businesses which will provide employment and attract more taxes from the business itself and those employed by it.

ILW

chucknorris wrote: »

Because it may encourage entrepeneurs to start more businesses which will provide employment.

Are there people who decide not to start a business because they think they will have to pay a lot of tax if it is sucessful?

kabayiri

dtsazza wrote: »

...
If those people don't need it, why not tax it at 55%, or 60%, or even 100%?
...

This is the annoying bit to me.

The setting of a given tax threshold is supposed to bring in revenue, and help get the country out of it's deficit hole.

But, apparently, many people with means to avoid the impact of the threshold feel somehow that it shouldn't be them contributing but "the other guy". With that sort of outlook, and a compliant accountancy industry behind them, why shouldn't they seek to defeat a 45% rate ?

chucknorris

ILW wrote: »

Are there people who decide not to start a business because they think they will have to pay a lot of tax if it is sucessful?

They might not start the business in this country.

kabayiri

chucknorris wrote: »

Because it may encourage entrepeneurs to start more businesses which will provide employment and attract more taxes from the business itself and those employed by it.

We have been saying this for years though, and it doesn't seem like we are a nation of innovators any more than we were in the 80s.

I'd suggest such entrepreneurs need other things like access to skilled staff; and NI-related tax breaks to get the business over those difficult first few years.

chucknorris

kabayiri wrote: »

We have been saying this for years though, and it doesn't seem like we are a nation of innovators any more than we were in the 80s.

I'd suggest such entrepreneurs need other things like access to skilled staff; and NI-related tax breaks to get the business over those difficult first few years.

I also think they need those too but also at the end of the day the ultimate rewards need to be balanced against the risk taken.