the snap general election thread

GreatApe

kinger101 wrote: »

Current IT receipts are about £176B.

Council Tax (poss £30B)
Fuel Duty (£28)
VAT (£119B)
IHT (£4B)

So you'd need to double the amount of income tax collected, and still collect NI.

Don't think it's workable.

Its simply not possible

Lots of people who do not work pay taxes, think of pensioners who pay council tax, fuel duty, Vat etc

It would simply be impossible to shift the burden of all taxes to just working people. The only possible way to do it would require you to at the same time reduce pensions both state and private by introducing an additional tax on pensions it would be complicated and messy and simply wont happen.

The only tax I can think of that could be increased substantially is fuel duty. That should be increased 20% and road tax and InsurancePremumTax should be removed. It would be roughly neutral overall, and it would help in that removing those two taxes is removing admin burden and resources to administer those taxes.

CKhalvashi

GreatApe wrote: »

There is a balance to be had, you can not go to 0% state or 100% state both would be a disaster.

If we look at functioning developed larger economies we have the USA at about 35% and France at closer to 55% so that can be seen as a functional range with the UK in the middle of the two at about 45% of GDP as government spending

I think we are about where we should be

I'm in agreement with you here.

I want to fund more spending, but I want to fund that through sustained growth rather than anything else.

I'm in favour of increasing income tax by the NI amounts and removing national insurance, with a rebate from the 65th birthday on the difference (requiring one action in a lifetime, can be computerised and makes sense due to admin). Anyone who owns a buy to let property probably doesn't agree with me though.

I'm also in favour of paying 1p for the NHS, on the condition that it goes purely to fund the NHS and local government social care, with the strict condition that this is run directly by either a County Council or the NHS, and not Virgin Care etc.

On IHT, I'd go for £100k per person tax free, plus a house of up to 25% more than County average for the previous year rounded to the next £1000, with the latter strictly for a house. This is with a proviso that it's been lived in for the majority of ownership rather than rented out, which takes into account the flexible circumstances of the modern world. I'd go for 25% above this, plus a 5% surtax for social housing on excess property values (although not anything else).

From Rightmove for my county:

Hertfordshire, with an overall average price of £444,127 was more expensive than nearby Bedfordshire (£281,092), Essex (£330,947) and Cambridgeshire (£287,371).

This would mean the tax free bands would be as follows:

Herts: £556000
Beds: £352000
Essex: £414000
Cambs: £360000

Divide by 2 for a couple and create a new status for unmarried partners to avoid tax avoidance between the two, allowing transfers between both the two and married couples on any residue.

This isn't the policy of any party, however is what a theoretical CK government would do, solely for the purpose of debate.

GreatApe

CKhalvashi wrote: »

I'm in agreement with you here.

I want to fund more spending, but I want to fund that through sustained growth rather than anything else.

I'm in favour of increasing income tax by the NI amounts and removing national insurance, with a rebate from the 65th birthday on the difference (requiring one action in a lifetime, can be computerised and makes sense due to admin). Anyone who owns a buy to let property probably doesn't agree with me though.

I'm also in favour of paying 1p for the NHS, on the condition that it goes purely to fund the NHS and local government social care, with the strict condition that this is run directly by either a County Council or the NHS, and not Virgin Care etc.

On IHT, I'd go for £100k per person tax free, plus a house of up to 25% more than County average for the previous year rounded to the next £1000, with the latter strictly for a house. This is with a proviso that it's been lived in for the majority of ownership rather than rented out, which takes into account the flexible circumstances of the modern world. I'd go for 25% above this, plus a 5% surtax for social housing on excess property values (although not anything else).

From Rightmove for my county:



This would mean the tax free bands would be as follows:

Herts: £556000
Beds: £352000
Essex: £414000
Cambs: £360000

Divide by 2 for a couple and create a new status for unmarried partners to avoid tax avoidance between the two, allowing transfers between both the two and married couples on any residue.

This isn't the policy of any party, however is what a theoretical CK government would do, solely for the purpose of debate.

You've probably just added 3% points to how much of the economy is the government. Why did you do that if at the beginning you started by agreeing we were about where we should be?

That 3% is a significant shift considering the range of plausible outcomes is only 35%-55%

There is also another problem. As our country ages as it inevitable will the figure of government expenditure relative to economy size will have to grow. We probably have some headroom here for now but what about countries like France. How will they go from 55% state to 65% state as their nation ages? I don't feel we should put ourselves in the same situation. 40-45% is OK with the acceptance that this will probably rise as the population ages. Fly close to the edge today and what spare space do you have for the future?

France will see a lot of social problems as the Baby boomers retire and those after them begin to retire. They like the UK have delayed the problem by importing a lot of migrants but it will come.


PS it's interesting to have a different IHT level depending on location but you are just complicating things. For instance under those rules I'd probably move to London and get divorced or never have married in the first place or just mitigate the tax in other ways. Personally I'd get rid of it all together all it does is give jobs to tax planners and accountants and financial advisors. We would lose what £4 billion a year but we would have fewer people leaving to avoid it and perhaps even more rich billionaires deciding to make zero IHT UK their home.
The truely rich never pay it anyway nor does anyone who knows anything about the tax. It falls mostly on the I'll informed or people who sadly have tragic sudden deaths so didn't get their affairs in order. Its really a low IQ and or poor luck tax not an Inheritences tax or death tax. Is it fair to have a low IQ / bad luck tax?

fun4everyone

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p7iUYWMD77w

Chrysalis

kinger101 wrote: »

Current IT receipts are about £176B.

Council Tax (poss £30B)
Fuel Duty (£28)
VAT (£119B)
IHT (£4B)

So you'd need to double the amount of income tax collected, and still collect NI.

Don't think it's workable.

Remember with things like petrol not taxed, and no VAT cost of living will go down, things will be cheaper in the shops, electricity, gas bills would be lower amongst other benefits.

In addition you are blinded by the view that income tax is nasty, its easy to think that all other taxes in comparison are not relevant but they are, the likes of council tax and VAT, hit the poor dis proportionally and affects them quite badly. Income tax is tiered to income and as such is very much linked to affordability. So if it means e.g. the middle class would be worse off ( I done no specific calculations to verify this), then really it means they under contributing now.

Many people now probably pay more in other taxes than they do in income tax.

It is easy to think economic booms are down to lower taxes, I think there is no proven link, in addition in periods of low income taxation you tend to find more wealthier people are happy, those same people tend to also be more influential so gives the impression everyone is better off, but in reality the poorer of society are normally worse of in such times. Right now we are actually taxed more than in 1981 even tho back then income tax was much higher.

The difference is how the burden is spread (spending related taxes tend to favour the rich), and that people dont really know where they stand as so many different things in life get taxed.

I did think there was room for compromise when seeing the "I dont like paying into the state out of inheritance" posts, but the responses I have got seem to indicate its more down to just wanting to keep more money aka looking after one self and family.

No proposals of alternatives rather just "keep the same" or "it wouldnt work". Even claims that we apparently have the size of the state right when we have a massive NHS funding crisis and huge shortage of state built properties.

If you dont think we need more council houses check the replies from Guest101 in this thread, clearly relying on a market supply thats driven by profit is not the way forward. https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5657677

These sort of comments are probably considered fine when you a homeowner and also if you feel the NHS doesnt have much more to offer you (maybe you can afford private care, or late in life so dont care much for the future, I dont know).

I am too old to benefit from free university, but it doesnt mean I agree with the treatment of young people, I care about the future of the UK even after the point I am expected to die. The amount of help young people get has gradually decreased visible even in the time I have been alive.

We had one bed rates for housing benefit for 25+, now its 35+, presumably in 10 years it will be 45+ its deliberately been moved to keep a certain generation used to less help, now very young adults dont get any housing benefit at all, the current young have no final salary pensions and will have a much later retirement age, and less job security.

All I can say is we not all selfish and some of us do care about the wider society. So not all hope is lost yet.

An example is the proposed tax hike from before the general election, I was one of the people targeted by the hike, and found myself massively outnumbered in supporting it, all other affected people were doing was crying "I will be worse off". Every budget it seems if everyone just checks to see if they better off or worse off and thats it, thats all they care about.

ukcarper

GreatApe wrote: »

Its simply not possible

Lots of people who do not work pay taxes, think of pensioners who pay council tax, fuel duty, Vat etc

It would simply be impossible to shift the burden of all taxes to just working people. The only possible way to do it would require you to at the same time reduce pensions both state and private by introducing an additional tax on pensions it would be complicated and messy and simply wont happen.

The only tax I can think of that could be increased substantially is fuel duty. That should be increased 20% and road tax and InsurancePremumTax should be removed. It would be roughly neutral overall, and it would help in that removing those two taxes is removing admin burden and resources to administer those taxes.

Many pensioners pay income tax.

kinger101

Chrysalis wrote: »

Remember with things like petrol not taxed, and no VAT cost of living will go down, things will be cheaper in the shops, electricity, gas bills would be lower amongst other benefits.

In addition you are blinded by the view that income tax is nasty, its easy to think that all other taxes in comparison are not relevant but they are, the likes of council tax and VAT, hit the poor dis proportionally and affects them quite badly. Income tax is tiered to income and as such is very much linked to affordability. So if it means e.g. the middle class would be worse off ( I done no specific calculations to verify this), then really it means they under contributing now.

Many people now probably pay more in other taxes than they do in income tax.

It is easy to think economic booms are down to lower taxes, I think there is no proven link, in addition in periods of low income taxation you tend to find more wealthier people are happy, those same people tend to also be more influential so gives the impression everyone is better off, but in reality the poorer of society are normally worse of in such times. Right now we are actually taxed more than in 1981 even tho back then income tax was much higher.

The difference is how the burden is spread (spending related taxes tend to favour the rich), and that people dont really know where they stand as so many different things in life get taxed.

I did think there was room for compromise when seeing the "I dont like paying into the state out of inheritance" posts, but the responses I have got seem to indicate its more down to just wanting to keep more money aka looking after one self and family.

No proposals of alternatives rather just "keep the same" or "it wouldnt work". Even claims that we apparently have the size of the state right when we have a massive NHS funding crisis and huge shortage of state built properties.

If you dont think we need more council houses check the replies from Guest101 in this thread, clearly relying on a market supply thats driven by profit is not the way forward. https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5657677

These sort of comments are probably considered fine when you a homeowner and also if you feel the NHS doesnt have much more to offer you (maybe you can afford private care, or late in life so dont care much for the future, I dont know).

I am too old to benefit from free university, but it doesnt mean I agree with the treatment of young people, I care about the future of the UK even after the point I am expected to die. The amount of help young people get has gradually decreased visible even in the time I have been alive.

We had one bed rates for housing benefit for 25+, now its 35+, presumably in 10 years it will be 45+ its deliberately been moved to keep a certain generation used to less help, now very young adults dont get any housing benefit at all, the current young have no final salary pensions and will have a much later retirement age, and less job security.

All I can say is we not all selfish and some of us do care about the wider society. So not all hope is lost yet.

An example is the proposed tax hike from before the general election, I was one of the people targeted by the hike, and found myself massively outnumbered in supporting it, all other affected people were doing was crying "I will be worse off". Every budget it seems if everyone just checks to see if they better off or worse off and thats it, thats all they care about.

It will result in a much smaller subsection of society paying tax.

Lower working classes would be more likely to leave work altogether as it would no longer pay. Those that can live off capital will no longer work at they would viewing as being not worthwhile.

gfplux

Conrad wrote: »

Does anyone have a view on the young supposedly being guaranteed to vote left? I know the polls indicate this, but I do wonder if this is an accurate summation?

Many commentators are suggesting that together with the oft repeated "but on the day they don't go out and vote"
When possibly +/- 30% of possible voters will not be bothered on Thursday that comment could apply across all age groups.

gfplux

Enterprise_1701C wrote: »

If we go to another country that does not speak English then we have to pay for translation etc . Our NHS alone has to spend £59K a day on translation.

OK, there are some expat communities that have grown in other countries, but they normally include things like schools, doctors etc. It normally involves people that have no intention of staying in that country long term.

Of course the difference is that a lot of people in other countries speak English, whatever the desire of Tusk.

If I go to a foreign country I make sure I can get by in the local language but often get spoken to in English.

What i am talking about is the people that come here and will not allow their families to speak English for fear of them integrating into the community. I know for a fact that Nepalese men of the older generation will not allow the women to speak English. This means they have no life of their own outside the Nepalese community.

Amazing, we have common ground.
I can not for the life of me understand how this strange practice has grown up in Britain. The NHS hog tied by the "free at delivery " mantra making ANY discussion about money impossible and then the NHS ADD to the costs by providing free official, expensive, translation in a number of languages. (How many can someone tell us)
Britain must be the only country in the world that provides this service.

gfplux

ukcarper wrote: »

I will probably not vote on Thursday first time for years, but I'm a long term Labour voter.

Please vote. It does not matter who you vote for but you should vote. You live in a Democracy take part in it.