Ed Balls pledges to raise taxes if Labour win election

Tancred

lostinrates wrote: »

I'm sitting in my unheated wreck of a house thinking ' this is luxury '? :rotfl:

Up to you where you choose to live.

lostinrates

Tancred wrote: »

Up to you where you choose to live.

Sure, and our budget . If you decide t invest in something that can be a business it impacts on your budget.



Same way as it seems its up to you what you earn?

lostinrates

Tancred wrote: »

£150k is definitely not the 'top end of middle'. It represents the top 1% of UK taxpayers! And it follows that those who have chosen a particular lifestyle of luxury as a result of their very high income should be asked to sacrifice some of it in times of economic hardship. What Balls is suggesting is a lot more modest than what I would advocate. In other European countries the top rate may be slightly less than 50% but it starts to bite much lower down than £150k a year.

150k and above. That's a huge bracket. From people who earn 150 a year, to 150 k a day! There is a substantial difference in that, much greater difference in lifestyle than 15o and 'the rest of the middle'. Who are all mortgage paying wage slaves.

Tancred

lostinrates wrote: »

Sure, and our budget . If you decide t invest in something that can be a business it impacts on your budget.



Same way as it seems its up to you what you earn?

What I'm trying to say is that you have to live within your means. This is the same for everybody. And if you run a business then there are multiple ways to reduce your tax, as any good accountant will tell you.

MrRee_2

Tancred wrote: »

£150k is definitely not the 'top end of middle'. It represents the top 1% of UK taxpayers! And it follows that those who have chosen a particular lifestyle of luxury as a result of their very high income should be asked to sacrifice some of it in times of economic hardship. What Balls is suggesting is a lot more modest than what I would advocate. In other European countries the top rate may be slightly less than 50% but it starts to bite much lower down than £150k a year.

WHAT?

Those who have chosen to work hard, study hard, to attain a certain level of income should be penalised?

Get off with you, that's ridiculous ..... what you are saying is that someone who hasn't two brain cells to rub together should get a hand out from those who have put their brain matter to better use than how to milk the welfare system? That's madness and grossly unfair.

I have worked my socks off to earn what I do, yes I would be hit by Labours suggested tax (they won't actually implement it until their final year in power, of course) .... but it's madness to take off me and to give to the chain smoking low life who hasn't done a days work in their life!

I am happy to pay for improved services, helping the genuine disabled, helping those who have fallen on hard times .... I do NOT want to pay for someones tattoo's, smoking, drinking, drug taking and offspring - if they want to smoke and drink they can get a job to pay for it!

Tancred

lostinrates wrote: »

150k and above. That's a huge bracket. From people who earn 150 a year, to 150 k a day! There is a substantial difference in that, much greater difference in lifestyle than 15o and 'the rest of the middle'. Who are all mortgage paying wage slaves.

Wage slave on £150k a year! :rotfl:

What planet are you from? As I said before, £150k a year and above is 1% of UK taxpayers. Yes, some will earn millions but so what? The super rich are practically untaxable anyway, this is why we need what you so ridiculously call the 'upper middle' to cough up more. Personally I would start the 50% rate at £100k. We still have a deficit and it needs to be eliminated.

danothy

Tancred wrote: »

As I keep repeating, if you can afford to pay more, you should!

I am not sure that there is any inherent truth in that statement. Capability doesn't necessarily equate to obligation.

lostinrates

Tancred wrote: »

What I'm trying to say is that you have to live within your means. This is the same for everybody. And if you run a business then there are multiple ways to reduce your tax, as any good accountant will tell you.

so you are ok with people tax avoiding?

I've already stated we have not sought to evade our responsibility by being very tax efficient, but that if this became a feature of life in uk we would have to consider this option.



At times we have spent thinking somethings would be reclaim able that weren't. For example, when DH was posted to Brussels with no notice we thought we'd be able to reclaim his travel from brussels to london (not london to home) as extra expense considering we were still paying London rent etc, so we did that rather than employ some one at home, because it was obviously preferable for DH and I to be together, though would have been cheaper to employ for that period.

Turns out that was not reclaim able. Ooops.

lostinrates

Tancred wrote: »

Wage slave on £150k a year! :rotfl:

What planet are you from? As I said before, £150k a year and above is 1% of UK taxpayers. Yes, some will earn millions but so what? The super rich are practically untaxable anyway, this is why we need what you so ridiculously call the 'upper middle' to cough up more. Personally I would start the 50% rate at £100k. We still have a deficit and it needs to be eliminated.

Absolutely a wageslave.

You cannot buy a house outright on that salary in the first instance, and you need somewhere to live, for example. You cannot immediately provide for your future on that amount. (Not least because of the amount rightfully subtracted to contribute to everyone else's!)


As a matter of interest, do you car to declare in what fought ball park your income?

Fella

Labour MP Stella Creasy on Daily Politics just now talking about this.

She insisted on repeating as many times as possible that the 45p tax rate was a "tax cut for millionaires".

Labour tried this line frequently when the 45p rate was introduced, and it was pointed out many times that this is not true. The 45p tax rate is not a tax cut for millionaires. This is fact. Simple, unarguable fact.

So I wonder whether Stella Creasy actually doesn't understand that - in which case she's economically illiterate & really ought to be doing remedial sums for beginners instead of appearing on TV. Or she DOES understand that but is wilfully choosing to be lie in the hope that she can fool the public.

Stella Creasy - Moron who can't do sums, or scumbag who wilfully lies on TV to try to fool people into voting for her? You decide.

(and there are only those two choices so it's one or the other....)