We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
The Forum now has a brand new text editor, adding a bunch of handy features to use when creating posts. Read more in our how-to guide
Ed Balls pledges to raise taxes if Labour win election
Comments
-
A welcome change (since they're far too scared to put the 45% rate back down to the 40% rate it was under Labour) would be if the Tories at least had the guts not to fall into the trap of using Labour terminology.
But we get Osborne spouting how "it's only fair that those with the broadest shoulders take their fare share of the burden" or whatever. Falling into the trap of playing the oppositions game and using their language.
It would be a refreshing change if instead Osborne/Cameron said something like this:
"All systems of taxation are unfair on someone. Since the richest in society already pay far more than anyone else into the pot, it's unquestionably unfair on them that we ask them to pay even more. But in the current economic straits we have to ask them to dig still deeper to help out the county. However we pledge that as things improve rates will return to previous levels and even lower still, for all taxpayers including those in the highest band".
Or something like that. Even if the pledge was meaningless. If they're going to take chunks of money off people, the least they can do is slowly try to change the national psyche so that it occurs to at least some people to actually be grateful to the people (& corporations) who pay huge taxes, rather than just hating them because they have money.0 -
Or something like that. Even if the pledge was meaningless. .
Just a different lie.
Yep I can see people buying that."If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future.".....
"big business is parasitic, like a mosquito, whereas I prefer the lighter touch, like that of a butterfly. "A butterfly can suck honey from the flower without damaging it," "Arunachalam Muruganantham0 -
Not sure where you get that from, you don't normally just post rubbish.0
-
A welcome change (since they're far too scared to put the 45% rate back down to the 40% rate it was under Labour) would be if the Tories at least had the guts not to fall into the trap of using Labour terminology.
But we get Osborne spouting how "it's only fair that those with the broadest shoulders take their fare share of the burden" or whatever. Falling into the trap of playing the oppositions game and using their language.
It would be a refreshing change if instead Osborne/Cameron said something like this:
"All systems of taxation are unfair on someone. Since the richest in society already pay far more than anyone else into the pot, it's unquestionably unfair on them that we ask them to pay even more. But in the current economic straits we have to ask them to dig still deeper to help out the county. However we pledge that as things improve rates will return to previous levels and even lower still, for all taxpayers including those in the highest band".
Or something like that. Even if the pledge was meaningless. If they're going to take chunks of money off people, the least they can do is slowly try to change the national psyche so that it occurs to at least some people to actually be grateful to the people (& corporations) who pay huge taxes, rather than just hating them because they have money.
I'm not sure your phraselogy is an election winner.
If you advocate lying surely you may as well try and win.
More like 'we have no plans to raise VAT' might work better.0 -
I'm not sure your phraselogy is an election winner.
If you advocate lying surely you may as well try and win.
More like 'we have no plans to raise VAT' might work better.
As you know I didn't advocate lying. The pledge might be meaningless because there's no guarantee the Tories will win the next election and be able to lower taxes.
Try to keep up so I don't have to explain everything to you.0 -
It would be a refreshing change if instead Osborne/Cameron said something like this:
"All systems of taxation are unfair on someone. Since the richest in society already pay far more than anyone else into the pot, it's unquestionably unfair on them that we ask them to pay even more. But in the current economic straits we have to ask them to dig still deeper to help out the county. However we pledge that as things improve rates will return to previous levels and even lower still, for all taxpayers including those in the highest band".
It'd be nice, but I doubt that it will ever happpen.
The argument that seems to have traction now is that in the good times they "benefits" should go to the worse off, and in the hard times, it's only right that the wealthy shoudl shoulder more of the pain.
Taken together, these arguments come down to this "whichever way the economy moves, it should be used as an excuse to ratchet up taxes on the wealthy, and benefits for the poor."
If the argument is independent of the economy, of course, it's dishonest to dress it up as being based on it.0 -
It'd be nice, but I doubt that it will ever happpen.
The argument that seems to have traction now is that in the good times they "benefits" should go to the worse off, and in the hard times, it's only right that the wealthy shoudl shoulder more of the pain.
Taken together, these arguments come down to this "whichever way the economy moves, it should be used as an excuse to ratchet up taxes on the wealthy, and benefits for the poor."
If the argument is independent of the economy, of course, it's dishonest to dress it up as being based on it.
Actually, I think in a lot of cases, at a 'before tipping point taxation level'. Which I don't know what is, I don't think that's a BAD argument. It gives us a niche some where in this middle of middle ground west which is attractive to workers and attractive culturally for leisure and entertainment and investment and settling and homemaking.
Its simply a matter of where the tipping point is that's sensible. Right now we have considerable business but not all. I don't thinks a benefit to lose more ever, but, if there were a compelling argument on numbers for shifting figures I'd listen.
Personally, I like living somewhere where there is ok healthcare and ok education and while I'd like improvements and indeed better interaction with private sector for both, I don't think the current status quo is too heinous.0 -
How have a few of the better off got better off over time?
Yes there is eduction, hard work, saving, prudence, sensible spending etc.
In many cases it has come as a result of improving the efficiency of business. One of the big "efficiencies" has been in reduction in the pay and benefits of employees.Other being de-skilling through process management, automation and importing cheap labour when we already have high levels of unemployment and underemployment.
At the same time forcing up asset values.
It is not surprising that in having forced the income potential down of large numbers of the populace that they become an increasing burden on the few."If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future.".....
"big business is parasitic, like a mosquito, whereas I prefer the lighter touch, like that of a butterfly. "A butterfly can suck honey from the flower without damaging it," "Arunachalam Muruganantham0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 354.5K Banking & Borrowing
- 254.4K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 455.4K Spending & Discounts
- 247.4K Work, Benefits & Business
- 604.2K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 178.5K Life & Family
- 261.7K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards