Brexit the economy and house prices part 7: Brexit Harder

Enterprise_1701C

The top 1% of earners pay 28% of all income tax. Were he ever to get in then he would lose a massive amount of income tax. Simple.

The high earners have no objection to paying tax at a reasonable rate, losing half or more of the money you earn tends to be rather discouraging. If you have the option to live elsewhere then you take that option.

Arklight

Tromking wrote: »

This is less about the benefits EU migrants were precluded from claiming (unemployment benefits etc) but more about those they had every right (under FOM rules) to claim like tax credits, child benefit, housing allowance etc. Just like it does for our own workers it incentivised the taking and creation of part time low wage jobs simply in order to access in work benefits. When big U.K. companies were tailoring their employee attendance patterns to suit a workforce dependent on in work benefits, you know it’s a racket.
No wonder EU migrants were adding circa £4bn to the U.K. welfare bill.
The U.K. is better than this.

These assertions are very light on evidence, aren't they?

I do agree that British companies must pay a living wage. There are too many employers fiddling the system with low wage zero hours contracts, knowing the taxpayer will fund the other half of their employee.

No one in work should need, or be able to claim, additional benefits to top up a working income.

Tromking

Ask yourself why the representative body for the U.K. food and drinks industry is so pro Remain?
Them’s your people Arky.

Arklight

Enterprise_1701C wrote: »

The top 1% of earners pay 28% of all income tax. Were he ever to get in then he would lose a massive amount of income tax. Simple.

The high earners have no objection to paying tax at a reasonable rate, losing half or more of the money you earn tends to be rather discouraging. If you have the option to live elsewhere then you take that option.

Which is a symptom of the disease not a solution. The economy is unbalanced. Real opportunity is not available to the majority, no matter how hard they work.

As you are very well aware, the 1% avoid more tax than they pay, and some cleverly make it appear that they earn nothing at all.

50% income tax for the highest earners is about normal for the wealthiest parts of Europe. Those hell holes like the Netherlands, with their lack of food banks, their clean safe streets, and schools that create adults that area actually educated.

Zero_Sum

Enterprise_1701C wrote: »

Not attacking you Zero Sum, simply more pleasant quoting you than people that believe Corbyn would be good for the country, people that think that list would be a good idea.

Corbyn SAYS he would postpone Brexit and then call a GE. He says it would be a time limited government. BUT he does not say how time limited, he states nothing of time scales. I do not believe he would leave willingly before 2022, he would do anything to get into power. If he was allowed in he would wreck the country. Annual wealth tax? Seriously? Anyone that would be covered by that would leave the country, and we have several clients that would simply close their houses here and disappear to various places such as South Africa and the like.

As for the PFI contracts, the vast majority were taken out under labour, they wanted to look like they were doing something when they could not afford it.


The only one on AG47's list that is any good would be the VAT cuts, everything else is designed to send the country right down the pan. As for Replacing the council tax by local income, wealth, land and property taxes based clearly on the ability to pay, those would not be based on the ability to pay, they would be based on the size of the land owned. That does not equate to ability to pay, that equates to long years of paying a mortgage, getting to the stage where you have actually paid it and then being bankrupted by labour because of the politics of envy, the communist within Khorbyn does not want people to have privately owned houses (or cars come to that if you look up a Corbyn think tank ) https://www.petrolprices.com/news/privately-owned-cars-should-be-banned-by-2030-says-pro-corbyn-think-tank/

I dont even think a national Government would even be headed by Corbyn. More likely be someone like Ken Clarke.

There has to be a compromise to get Lib Dems/SNP/Tory rebels on board. And too many (including many within Labour itself) will just find Corbyn unpallatable to lead.

He may have to settle for a deputy PM (non) role

Enterprise_1701C

file:///C:/Users/janeb/AppData/Local/Packages/Microsoft.MicrosoftEdge_8wekyb3d8bbwe/TempState/Downloads/Common-Wealth-Infrastructure.pdf

If that doesn't work, search "Away With All Cars".

The ban on private cars starts with London, continues to the rest of the metropolitan areas, and would almost certainly involve the whole of the country. So basically stop people living outside cities, probably cover the countryside in inefficient wind farms and solar farms, basically making it a far less pleasant country to live in.

mayonnaise

Enterprise_1701C wrote: »

file:///C:/Users/janeb/AppData/Local/Packages/Microsoft.MicrosoftEdge_8wekyb3d8bbwe/TempState/Downloads/Common-Wealth-Infrastructure.pdf

If that doesn't work, search "Away With All Cars".

No, we don't have access to your C drive, Jane.

Enterprise_1701C

Arklight wrote: »

Which is a symptom of the disease not a solution. The economy is unbalanced. Real opportunity is not available to the majority, no matter how hard they work.

As you are very well aware, the 1% avoid more tax than they pay, and some cleverly make it appear that they earn nothing at all.

50% income tax for the highest earners is about normal for the wealthiest parts of Europe. Those hell holes like the Netherlands, with their lack of food banks, their clean safe streets, and schools that create adults that area actually educated.

It is not unbalanced. You need people at the top to employ people at the bottom.

Oh, and the Netherlands are bringing their tax rates down, The current income tax system has four brackets:

Up to €20,384: 36.65%
€20,384–€68,507: 38.1%
€68,507+: 51.75%

In 2019 these four tax bracket rates (effectively three) will be reduced to:

36.65% for the lowest rate,
38.10% for the two middle bands and
51.75% for the top bracket.

Our tax rates are

Personal allowance Up to £11,850 0%
Basic rate £11,851 to £46,350 20%
Higher rate £46,351 to £150,000 40%
Additional rate Over £150,000 45%.

It looks like The Netherlands do not even have a personal tax allowance before they pay tax!

Our tax rates are far kinder on the low earners. Dutch income tax rates look rather crippling to me.

On top of that they have a social security tax!

Arklight

mayonnaise wrote: »

No, we don't have access to your C drive, Jane.

Omg that's priceless:rotfl::rotfl:

Arklight

Enterprise_1701C wrote: »

It is not unbalanced. You need people at the top to employ people at the bottom.

Oh, and the Netherlands are bringing their tax rates down, The current income tax system has four brackets:

Up to €20,384: 36.65%
€20,384–€68,507: 38.1%
€68,507+: 51.75%

In 2019 these four tax bracket rates (effectively three) will be reduced to:

36.65% for the lowest rate,
38.10% for the two middle bands and
51.75% for the top bracket.

Our tax rates are

Personal allowance Up to £11,850 0%
Basic rate £11,851 to £46,350 20%
Higher rate £46,351 to £150,000 40%
Additional rate Over £150,000 45%.

It looks like The Netherlands do not even have a personal tax allowance before they pay tax!

Our tax rates are far kinder on the low earners. Dutch income tax rates look rather crippling to me.

On top of that they have a social security tax!

Yes of course you do. But executive pay is completely dislocated from workers' salaries, and often from the profitability of the company.

Too many people are employed by companies that don't pay a living wage and who then are forced to claim in work benefits. This is just corporate welfare. The taxpayer is subsiding salaries.

If people earning £1000 an hour won't agree to be paid a bit less so their workers can be paid a bit more, then it makes sense to redistribute it at source.

Incidentally it might surprise you to learn that as an ardent socialist that wants to steal everyone's wealth and ban cars from the entire country, I do have some shareholdings myself.

While I am hardly a big investor, I do share the same concerns as many other shareholders in that the enormous compensation directors receive rarely seems to bear much relationship to the dividends their companies pay.

You do of course get to vote now and again for a new director. Once appointed the first thing (almost invariably) he does is award himself another pay increase based on the alleged dividends you're going to get next year.