Ed Balls pledges to raise taxes if Labour win election

Tancred

MrRee wrote: »

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.

This is very offensive, cruel, immoral and also untrue. We have a deficit and it needs to be reduced and eventually eliminated. Your loathsome ranting is utterly irrelevant.

MrRee wrote: »

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!

Ranting and more ranting. Lots of people who earn minimum wage also 'work their socks off' - and much else besides. If you earn in the top 1% you are extremely lucky - there is nothing special about you. You are not a god or a demi-god. You are simply a very fortunate individual.

MrRee wrote: »

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!

What you are happy to pay for is irrelevant. The government decides what it needs to spend and what on. You live in the UK and therefore you are obliged to contribute to the governing costs of the nation. If you don't like it, tough!

And you are very lucky to live in such a free country, which allows you to make offensive and outrageous statements without sending you to a concentration camp. In many other countries you would not be so lucky.

BillJones

Fella wrote: »

Yes, although tbh the overwhelming majority of people I know on £100K+ work very hard indeed.

They'll also tend to have planned ahead, went without foor quite a few extra years of education, and earned quiite a small salary for years as they established themselves.

Most of the people wanting to see us hammered for our success probably messed around at school, left as soon as they could, and then got a job based on wanting instant gratification.

They would have been lording it over people like me as they drove to the chip shop in their XR3i while I walked there and now can't bear the fact that we were proven right in laying down a solid foundation for the future while their wages were splashed around town having a good time.

Most people saying that the rich "should pay more" haven't even bothered to find out how much we already pay. It's a matter of faith not facts, that we should simply always pay "more".

Tancred

danothy wrote: »

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

No, but it makes sense in taxation terms.

Tancred

lostinrates wrote: »

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.

No, I am not OK on tax avoidance - simply pointing out how difficult it is to capture tax from the very richest.

Tancred

lostinrates wrote: »

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?

Since when do you need to be able to buy a house outright in order to be well off? You might not be 'rich' in the traditional sense but you are still very well off all the same when compared to the majority of the population. I go back to statistics - you are in the top 1%.

lostinrates

Tancred wrote: »

Since when do you need to be able to buy a house outright in order to be well off? You might not be 'rich' in the traditional sense but you are still very well off all the same when compared to the majority of the population. I go back to statistics - you are in the top 1%.

I'm not, I didn't earn anything this year. . But I didn't take anything apart from NHs usage either.

Tancred

BillJones wrote: »

They'll also tend to have planned ahead, went without foor quite a few extra years of education, and earned quiite a small salary for years as they established themselves.

Most of the people wanting to see us hammered for our success probably messed around at school, left as soon as they could, and then got a job based on wanting instant gratification.

LOL! :rotfl:

I earn £68k a year and I work in a white collar IT management job. I went to a Russell Group university and graduated with a 2:1.

If I worked freelance I could easily earn £450 a day.

BillJones wrote: »

They would have been lording it over people like me as they drove to the chip shop in their XR3i while I walked there and now can't bear the fact that we were proven right in laying down a solid foundation for the future while their wages were splashed around town having a good time.

Most people saying that the rich "should pay more" haven't even bothered to find out how much we already pay. It's a matter of faith not facts, that we should simply always pay "more".

What a load of utter rubbish.

BillJones

Tancred wrote: »

All this is just twaddle. As I keep repeating, if you can afford to pay more, you should!.

But you don't apply that to yourself, do you? I bet taht you've at some point had a drink, had a holiday, or been to the cinema. If so, yo ucan afford to pay more, and so should.

danothy

Tancred wrote: »

No, but it makes sense in taxation terms.

No, it very much doesn't. There's no reason that capability should equate to obligation in the case of taxation but not in all other cases.

lostinrates

Tancred wrote: »

No, I am not OK on tax avoidance - simply pointing out how difficult it is to capture tax from the very richest.

150 k on paye are not the very richest, Its very easy to get tax paid by people who pay via paye.