Labour policies

[BillyStubbsTears]

Glyn

Further to your reply to Sproty, it's not even true that 90% of even INCOME TAX receipts come from the top 10% of earners. According to the IFS figures for 2017, the top 10% paid about 55% of all income tax receipts. Which sounds about right, given the income levels of the top 10%.

The Right have had a free run at this for years, suggesting and hinting that the overwhelming majority of taxes are paid by a slack handful of rich people, that we should all be grateful, and that we shouldn't squeeze them.

It's b*llocks, right down the line.

[SydneyRover]

Whatever people think about paying tax and it's quite obvious that many haven't a clue how and why, it's no good squeezing stones coz they don't have any more to give. Therefore if you base a tax system on everyone paying an equal %age the system will eventually collapse unless of course you want to big up financial assistance for those in need or to introduce food banks across the country to feed the poor.

[Ldr]

Logic dictates everyone paying the same % is fairer than some paying more

And what percentage rate will it have to be to get the same tax revenues?

You tell me Glyn, obviously higher of course. Always amuses me that the people the fiscally contribute the most (yes yes I hate the ones who dodge tax too) are the ones that are so much derided by socialists but those same socialists are so desperate to keep the high earners paying meaning the lower earners dont pay an equitable amount. Talk about biting the hand that feeds you

[Ldr]

That's not a dig at anyone btw. It's an observation

[big fat yorkshire pudding]

Whatever people think about paying tax and it's quite obvious that many haven't a clue how and why, it's no good squeezing stones coz they don't have any more to give. Therefore if you base a tax system on everyone paying an equal %age the system will eventually collapse unless of course you want to big up financial assistance for those in need or to introduce food banks across the country to feed the poor.

Genuine question what would.you say the rates and bands would be fair set at?

One of the things I fundamentally disagree on is the level people are perceived as well off or rich.

[Glyn_Wigley]

Logic dictates everyone paying the same % is fairer than some paying more

And what percentage rate will it have to be to get the same tax revenues?

You tell me Glyn, obviously higher of course. Always amuses me that the people the fiscally contribute the most (yes yes I hate the ones who dodge tax too) are the ones that are so much derided by socialists but those same socialists are so desperate to keep the high earners paying meaning the lower earners dont pay an equitable amount. Talk about biting the hand that feeds you

Why should I come out with a figure? I'm not the one who's claiming it's 'fair'. You are - so what's your projected tax rate?

[Ldr]

Ah I thought you had it in mind mate. I'm not an economist so wouldn't know exact. Basic maths tells us it would need to be nearer the higher rate than the lower rate though

[Glyn_Wigley]

Ah I thought you had it in mind mate. I'm not an economist so wouldn't know exact. Basic maths tells us it would need to be nearer the higher rate than the lower rate though

Yes, but how much? And what about allowances - would you keep them, change them or abolish them?

[Ldr]

Ah I thought you had it in mind mate. I'm not an economist so wouldn't know exact. Basic maths tells us it would need to be nearer the higher rate than the lower rate though

Yes, but how much? And what about allowances - would you keep them, change them or abolish them?

As above Glyn

[Glyn_Wigley]

Ah I thought you had it in mind mate. I'm not an economist so wouldn't know exact. Basic maths tells us it would need to be nearer the higher rate than the lower rate though

Yes, but how much? And what about allowances - would you keep them, change them or abolish them?

As above Glyn

Then there's benefits and pensions - would you have those fully taxable or exempt?

[Ldr]

Glyn, your pressing for answers I dont have, unlike some on here, if I dont know I'll say I dont know not deflect (and that's not you btw)

[Glyn_Wigley]

Glyn, your pressing for answers I dont have, unlike some on here, if I dont know I'll say I dont know not deflect (and that's not you btw)

Then how do you know what's 'fair' and isn't 'fair' if you haven't taken these questions - and probably several others - into account?

[Ldr]

From a basic premise of equitable. In this case same % rate to all.  You pay x% I pay x% otherwise it becomes inequitable

[Glyn_Wigley]

From a basic premise of equitable. In this case same % rate to all.  You pay x% I pay x% otherwise it becomes inequitable

Should someone on Universal Credit pay x% of their benefits in tax, without any allowance? Is that equitable or inequitable?

[Ldr]

Why would someone on benefits pay paye?

[Glyn_Wigley]

Why would someone on benefits pay paye?

What's PAYE got to do with it? That's a method of collection, nothing to do with the tax rate.

Benefit and pensions are currently taxable after allowances because they are income and therefore subject to Income Tax. I'm just trying to find out what you think is really equitable, so would they be fully taxed like everyone else or would you put an inequality into the system to account for them?

[Ldr]

In theory then have them taxed at the same level but increase the amount they are paid to compensate, therefore removing the proposed inequality.

[big fat yorkshire pudding]

Glyn, an example child benefit. Should someone earning 60k as a one income family pay back child benefit but a family with two earning 50k each pay back nothing?

Given house prices etc is the 40% tax band too low?

[Glyn_Wigley]

In theory then have them taxed at the same level but increase the amount they are paid to compensate, therefore removing the proposed inequality.

Then you have to increase the bureaucracy in order to give with one hand and then take away agan with the other (which has to be paid for) - and the increased welfare payments would mean the tax rate would have to be even higher for everybody else.

[Ldr]

But far more equitable no?

[Glyn_Wigley]

Glyn, an example child benefit. Should someone earning 60k as a one income family pay back child benefit but a family with two earning 50k each pay back nothing?

Given house prices etc is the 40% tax band too low?

Child benefit is to be spent on the child - who as far as I know doesn't have any income and has the same basic need regardless of what their parents earn.

What on earth have house prices got to do with income? They're expenditure.

[Glyn_Wigley]

But far more equitable no?

Perhaps, but you still can't say what you think an equitable tax rate is.

On top of that, you'd greatly harm the economy by reducing disposable income across the swathe of people who suddenly are paying more of their money in tax as well as reducing the circulation of money in the economy overall. Which would probably lead to greater unemployment, and a spiralling welfare bill that needs to be paid for...by increased taxation.

[Ldr]

So, in essence, you want service, but want someone else to bear the brunt of the financial burden?

[Glyn_Wigley]

So, in essence, you want service, but want someone else to bear the brunt of the financial burden?

How about each paying according to their means?

[Ldr]

Wow, now we go beyond socialism and straight to Karl Marx.

And to be picky, that still doesnt rule out everyone paying the same %

[Glyn_Wigley]

Wow, now we go beyond socialism and straight to Karl Marx

But isn't it just as equitable?

[Ldr]

Apols, had nodded my reply as you were replying. (Though I could be a t**t and accuse you of not reading my reply properly as has been done on here before)

[BillyStubbsTears]

There's a far, far bigger issue than tax rates which the next generation needs to address.

It's where the proceeds of growth go.

Back in the 1970s, for every £1 that GDP went up, average wages went up by 90p. The other 10p went into profits for company owners/investors.

Thatcher's revolution changed all that, and we all went along willingly and ignorantly.

By 2015, for every £1 of growth, 57p went into wage growth and 43p into profits.

That is utterly staggering.

Pay rises have been depressed for more than a generation as a result. If pay rises as a proportion of GDP increase had stayed at the 1970s rate, our salaries, on average, would be about 50% higher than they are today.

Effectively, the working and middle classes lost a war in the 1980s and the capitalist class imposed a settlement in us that meant that we'd standstill and they would become fabulously rich from our efforts.

By far the biggest task over the next 40-50 years is to reset that situation and give ordinary workers the share they deserve.

Oh aye. Final point. Thatcher said she had to do this to reward the investors and business owners who drove the economy. She said a rising tide would lift everyone.

Bullshit on two counts.
1) Our GDP growth from 1980-2010 was exactly the same as it was in the 1970s. So rewarding the investors didn't help. And then we had the great crash driven by these finance people, and the idiocy of Austerity, meaning our growth has collapsed since 2010.

2) The rising tide DIDN'T lift everyone. Or at least, it lifted most of us very slightly and shot a tiny number up into the stratosphere.

Got to change folks. For all my criticisms of Labour, they understand this and the Tories have no idea.

[Ldr]

BST weren't tax rates much higher in the 70s? If so wasnt that give with one hand take away with the other

[big fat yorkshire pudding]

Glyn, an example child benefit. Should someone earning 60k as a one income family pay back child benefit but a family with two earning 50k each pay back nothing?

Given house prices etc is the 40% tax band too low?

Child benefit is to be spent on the child - who as far as I know doesn't have any income and has the same basic need regardless of what their parents earn.

What on earth have house prices got to do with income? They're expenditure.

Exactly right, but you are aware the child benefit is reduced pending the parents income and that in the scenario above this is exactly what happens.  A family earning 60k can lose it via repayment, another earning 100k may not.

The point on house prices, given the size of them in modern times and the size subsequently of mortgages, is it not the case that middle incomes pay too much tax?