Ed Balls pledges to raise taxes if Labour win election

lostinrates

Tancred wrote: »

This doesn't apply only to those earning over £150k. I had to leave home and work in London as a graduate in 1988, earning £12k a year.

Good for you. (I miss the shrug smilie) don't many young people go through this ? Only those whose parents/family live where they want to work don't surely? We started by going to a different country to launch dh's career......

I don't know what the equivalent to that would be for when DH started this career to make a financial comparison. .

ukcarper

lostinrates wrote: »

Yes, all of that has applied as DH has been earning under the 100 k threshold too , but has been worth spending on as part of the longterm plan that it would be worth accruing over it. It would not have been with it on a long term earning threshold below a certain amount.


Its not the five hundred a year, its the fine hundred THAT year plus the rest of the tax,.....its the straw uk carper, on the camels back. Just likewhen we complain about fuel price rises, for example, we aren't complaining about the percentage rise, we complain about the percentage rise plus the amount we already pay plus the political temperature

In the eighties as a child I remember some of the conversations people had a round lunch and supper tables in the tax haven where I lived. Its funny to hear myself thinking some of the same things now.

I don't believe it is the straw that will break the camels back just as I don't see it as a solution to our problems.

Tancred

danothy wrote: »

My lot is not a lot. I am dissatisfied with it. I probably would be not matter what my lot was, as it is human nature to be dissatisfied. I've no desire to make those with more than me pay more than they 'should' though. And there's no clear cut way of deciding what they 'should' pay in the first place, so I don't go round mouthing off about them needing to pay more, like some sort of lunatic.

Ok, so you disagree with me about what is fair and what isn't? No problem.

Let me put this to you:

Is it fairer to have:

(1) A flat income tax rate of 30% for everyone

or

(2) A progressive rate, starting at 20% and rising steadily to 50%.

Assuming you would choose (1), why does this seem fairer to you? It would mean that the poorest, who only spend money on necessities, pay the same rate as those with a lot of spare cash.

Fella

Ionkontrol wrote: »

It always makes me laugh that the most vocal and supportive of top rate tax cuts are from people who are not on £150k+ or could every possible achieve that income.

Why, do you only support policies if they directly benefit you?

The vast majority of policies probably don't affect you either way, do you have no view on them?

I oppose a policy that's wrong (& in this case not only wrong but motivated by the worst kind of politics - that intended to create division & stir up hate) regardless of any direct effect it does or doesn't have.

Are you OK with racism as long as it's against any race other than yours? Or sexism against the opposite sex? etc? Presumably not?

lostinrates

ukcarper wrote: »

I don't believe it is the straw that will break the camels back just as I don't see it as a solution to our problems.

I don't think it will be for every one.

I think it will be for some.


I think the issue is as much about 'environment' and 'temperature' as the amount. Certainly in the heady days at the beginning I am lead to believe by someone close to the coal face we were very close to losing some big tax payers. I know people I know personally who are what I consider wealthy went non dom, (funnily enough one then got caught in another tax issue in cypress) and my husbands employer pulled many uk tax payers back to states to minimise their exposure here and others went elsewhere in Europe. They were still doing work for uk, but from other offices. People don't want to be where they don't feel wanted.

Tancred

danothy wrote: »

If they have a large mortgage they may well worry about it. Either way, there isn't a reason that their discretionary spending should factor into their expected contribution to society.

You have missed the point here. A welathy person can choose what they want to with their cash, because they have lots of it. A poor person cannot. If we are going to have a society which protects the weakest, according to most accepted norms of civilised behaviour and morality, then you will simply need to differentiate between people's wealth when assessing tax rates.
A wealthy person who lives in a £2M mansion could quite easily live in a £400k house. His spending is based on ability to choose a lifestyle for himself. Someone on £20k a year doesn't have that luxury. The problem with you is that you are amoral. You believe that 'greed is good', in the words of the Gordon Gekko character. This is something I cannot agree with.

Bantex_2

Fella wrote: »

Why, do you only support policies if they directly benefit you?

The vast majority of policies probably don't affect you either way, do you have no view on them?

I oppose a policy that's wrong (& in this case not only wrong but motivated by the worst kind of politics - that intended to create division & stir up hate) regardless of any direct effect it does or doesn't have.

Are you OK with racism as long as it's against any race other than yours? Or sexism against the opposite sex? etc? Presumably not?

Racism/sexism etc has victims.
Lowish taxes for high earners does not.

ukcarper

lostinrates wrote: »

I don't think it will be for every one.

I think it will be for some.


I think the issue is as much about 'environment' and 'temperature' as the amount. Certainly in the heady days at the beginning I am lead to believe by someone close to the coal face we were very close to losing some big tax payers. I know people I know personally who are what I consider wealthy went non dom, (funnily enough one then got caught in another tax issue in cypress) and my husbands employer pulled many uk tax payers back to states to minimise their exposure here and others went elsewhere in Europe. They were still doing work for uk, but from other offices. People don't want to be where they don't feel wanted.

I can see it might be the thing that pushes people who are already considering it over the edge but I don't think the numbers would big enough to have a big impact on the economy.

lostinrates

Tancred wrote: »

You have missed the point here. A welathy person can choose what they want to with their cash, because they have lots of it. A poor person cannot. If we are going to have a society which protects the weakest, according to most accepted norms of civilised behaviour and morality, then you will simply need to differentiate between people's wealth when assessing tax rates.
A wealthy person who lives in a £2M mansion could quite easily live in a £400k house. His spending is based on ability to choose a lifestyle for himself. Someone on £20k a year doesn't have that luxury. The problem with you is that you are amoral. You believe that 'greed is good', in the words of the Gordon Gekko character. This is something I cannot agree with.

Actually there is a problem with your plan. A very real moral problem.

There are only so many houses. There aren't enough houses to go round and prices are being driven up ridiculously. So people who 'can afford' to buy (with debt) a more expensive house don't and those on lower incomes are FURTHER Compromised because there are even fewer houses available to them.

On the plus side, the 'rich person' has no debt, so can hoard money and wealth gap increases.

Sound fair?

Tancred

Fella wrote: »

Why, do you only support policies if they directly benefit you?

The vast majority of policies probably don't affect you either way, do you have no view on them?

I oppose a policy that's wrong (& in this case not only wrong but motivated by the worst kind of politics - that intended to create division & stir up hate) regardless of any direct effect it does or doesn't have.

Are you OK with racism as long as it's against any race other than yours? Or sexism against the opposite sex? etc? Presumably not?

I see your point, but in that case you have a very twisted sense of morality. Why does higher taxation for the richest in society stir up hate? Why should it? As for creating division, precisely the opposite: wealth redistribution creates a more equal and united society. It was Thatcher and her misguided philosophy that created division and hatred.