Milliband

spadoosh

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.

Highlighted the keyword for you.


The 50p rate generated an extra £1billion pound last year even when most companies were legally hiding it. Fair enough its down on expected of £3billion but its earning £1billion more than the 45p rate, throwing away money.

chucknorris

spadoosh wrote: »

Highlighted the keyword for you.

Yes of course it is not guaranteed, nothing much in life is apart from death (and ironically) taxes.

It's no surprise to me that Tory and Labour would see this point very differently.

spadoosh

chucknorris wrote: »

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.

Surely then in these current times of austerity when rewards shouldnt be increased and arent being (exluding the uber rich) the right cours of action would be to reduce the risk. Plent of options to try this very few being taken, though i do like the increased spending on infastructure, again, urgently needed.

chucknorris

spadoosh wrote: »

Surely then in these current times of austerity when rewards shouldnt be increased and arent being (exluding the uber rich) the right cours of action would be to reduce the risk. Plent of options to try this very few being taken, though i do like the increased spending on infastructure, again, urgently needed.

I think whatever you said I would still support the cut from 50p and whatever I said you would not support it. In the same way that the Tories and Labour would almost certainly not see eye to eye on this point either.

We'll just have to agree to disagree.

On a personal level I no longer take on risk now, it goes against the grain, but I have enough and I no longer want to risk what I have.

spadoosh

I take it your benefiting from this tax reduction. Here lies the difference in our opinions.

N1AK

Was impressed by Ed's comparitively good performance after the budget. It still could have been considerably better, but it was a massive improvement on the norm.

I listened to PMQs a couple of weeks ago for the first time in a while and remembered just how out of his depth he is debating against Dave. You get the feeling that Dave was thrashing him so badly that it might actually make him look bad due to sympathy.

chucknorris

spadoosh wrote: »

I take it your benefiting from this tax reduction. Here lies the difference in our opinions.

No, not at all. I am not even in the 60% tax band (between 100k and approx 117k). If that effective marginal tax band still exists, I didn't hear any reference to it today, so I assume that it does.

N1AK

spadoosh wrote: »

I take it your benefiting from this tax reduction. Here lies the difference in our opinions.

Why does someone have to personally benefit from the budget to support it? The governments arguement is that the change will increase the taxation on the 'super-rich' in practice. We'll know if they're right soon enough and can judge them accordingly.

Personally I do think there is something wrong with people having more than half the money they earn taken away in taxation. If someone is paying £2,000,000 in tax then I'm not going to begrudge them the ~£50,000 they just got back; they've already contributed a huge amount.

FTBFun

chucknorris wrote: »

No, not at all. I am not even in the 60% tax band (between 100k and approx 117k). If that effective marginal tax band still exists, I didn't hear any reference to it today, so I assume that it does.

I believe they've kept that around.

FTBFun

spadoosh wrote: »

Highlighted the keyword for you.


The 50p rate generated an extra £1billion pound last year even when most companies were legally hiding it. Fair enough its down on expected of £3billion but its earning £1billion more than the 45p rate, throwing away money.

How? Are you insinuating they weren't operating PAYE correctly?