Ed Balls pledges to raise taxes if Labour win election

Tancred

lostinrates wrote: »

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

But your husband did, didn't he? Otherwise, what exactly is your issue?

mrginge

Tancred wrote: »

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

Hi

Weren't you encouraging a poster to fudge their f&f to avoid stamp duty the other day?
In fact, didn't you do exactly the same thing?

lostinrates

Tancred wrote: »

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.



What a load of utter rubbish.

Ok, so you could contribute more but you choose not to, whoch is exactly what I am suggesting some people will do, and infact what so e of my husbands peers have chosen to do over the last few years.

Tancred

BillJones wrote: »

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.

I was referring to tax, not optional luxuries and other expenditure.

Tancred

danothy wrote: »

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.

There is reason. Without a progressive system of taxation the burden would fall unfairly on those on low and middle incomes. This is why we need to ensure that those who can more easily bear the burden of higher taxation pay their fair share.

BillJones

Tancred wrote: »

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.

So as I said, low paid, bad degree, probably messed around at school, and now want to see me punished for daring to have done bettter than you.

Your little temper tantrum is not going to convince anyone that your immoral stance is right, you know?

michaels

Made up numbers:
Supose those earning over 150k earn in total 100bn and pay 45bn in income tax. If the increase in rate to 50% did not change behavoiur then it would bring in an extra 5bn of income tax.

In reality it may only bring in 1bn of extra tax as the total earnings of those on the top rate fall to 92bn due to avoidance, emmigration etc. Labour would see this as an extra 1bn in revenue.

Look further though, disposable income has actually fallen by 9bn from 55bn to 46bn. If half of this income would otherwise have been spent then VAT revenue falls by 4.5bn times 20% = 0.9bn so most of the 1bn is already lost.

But then consider that those who have emigrated are no longer employing nannies, gardeners, cleaners or cooks - say this used to be 10% of their incomes, these people will no longer be paying income tax so 9bn (less income) x 10% (share of income on employing staff) x 55% (income tax+NI+employers NI) means another loss of 0.5bn to the exchequer so overall:

Direct income tax take +1bn
Loss of VAT -0.9bn
Loss of indierct income tax from employees -0.5bn

IE nose cut off to spite face / win votes

BillJones

Tancred wrote: »

I was referring to tax, not optional luxuries and other expenditure.

Yes, you said that people who can afford to pay more should, but you seem to only mean other people.

You want to penalise people like me, who already pay vastly more than you do, so that you can keep buying your luxuries.

You have no moral compass whatsoever.

MrRee_2

Tancred wrote: »

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.

I shall post a quote which is as true now as it was when it was first uttered .....

"It took a lot of hard work and dedication to be as lucky as I am"

I am NOT lucky ..... far from it. I am simply rewarded for my graft, for my desire to learn, for my dreams and for the sacrifices I made.

For my night school to study Maths for 3 hours, in the cold and damp - while others went out to the pub!

For my training where I was paid a fraction of others who were working on production lines.

For my decades of climbing the corporate ladder, for my 9pm unpaid nights and 7 day weeks.

Yeah, I've been really LUCKY!!! :wall::wall:

So, why should I pay for those who chose the easy road? The road littered with beer cans and ciggie stubs? The classy tattoo's and the multi-coloured kids?

I shouldn't ........

Tancred

BillJones wrote: »

Yes, you said that people who can afford to pay more should, but you seem to only mean other people.

You want to penalise people like me, who already pay vastly more than you do, so that you can keep buying your luxuries.

You have no moral compass whatsoever.

Not at all. You are richer than me so you can have the same luxuries and more. A little more tax won't change this.