O/T - general election 2019

[KerrAvon]

Put an extra penny on income tax but let us have some choice where our tax goes. All we hear is what extra revenue will be raised and where it will be spent. Let the tax payer decide where the extra money is spent?

Let's see where the appetite lies to spend the extra money, from the people who generate it.

If income tax goes up a penny and raises £40b, let's choose where it goes. Especially the top 5%, who Corbyn wants to pay for the lot)

Education
Health
Immigration
Services
Environment
Benefits
Social Care
Wellbeing
Transport
Energy
Defence
etc etc.

Give us 15 to 20 choices and let us fill a percentage (increments of 5%) against some (max 25%) or all of the boxes.


Be a lot more palatable than anything currently suggested.

Especially from the raving socialists on here. Those decent chaps with that age old ideology that the world would be a better place, if they were allowed to spend other people's money. To be fair it can be, for 5 minutes, until the that money runs out.

Democratic Socialism is not generosity. it is a political view — and one that has historically had outcomes more despicable than heart warming. Fact.

If income tax goes up by 1% across the board, it would only raise about £5bn per year - compare that to Labour's increased non-investment spending of around £80bn and you can see the little problemette that they prefer not to talk about.

[KerrAvon]

You don't like the Labour Manifesto Kerr?!

Noooooooooo

Your response is no more effective than that of Chakrabati's and McDonnell's and only slightly more entertaining.

On the subject of being ineffective, where is Abbott this campaign? Surely the woman you would have as Home Secretary should be front and centre?

[KerrAvon]

i don't mind paying more tax if it goes in the right areas as well by the way but would still argue the richer you are the more tax you should pay.

You may find this illuminating:

https://fullfact.org/economy/guide-economy-taxes/

[ragingpup]

If income tax goes up by 1% across the board, it would only raise about £5bn per year - compare that to Labour's increased non-investment spending of around £80bn and you can see the little problemette that they prefer not to talk about.

In fairness Kerr, Labour aren't proposing 1%across the board I presume for that very reason. Even with the proposed rises on high earners, the tax increase is only a small proportion of what they have costed.

In short it would take us from an average investor in public services into the top band along with Germany, with tax rates on income and corporates being the same. As I've said many times, you can say money will fly, but it needs to be able to fly to that is cheaper, and not many countries are cheaper than what Labour are proposing for any tax payers.

I have several issues with the labour manifesto. The broadband, free higher education for higher income families, free dental treatment for the same. If like to see those means tested and less on tax if that would make a realistic difference.

But speaking as someone whose every family member now works in the public sector or charities, something radical has to be done as services are desperately short. I'm all for you dissecting suggestions that any party puts forward, but if like to hear more from you about how the huge finances can be raised to improve services? Even the government have given up on the idea of tax cuts for corporations as a means of raising money (although they will once voted in I'm sure) so how else do you think we can do it?

[ragingpup]

Your response is no more effective than that of Chakrabati's and McDonnell's and only slightly more entertaining.

On the subject of being ineffective, where is Abbott this campaign? Surely the woman you would have as Home Secretary should be front and centre?

I personally would rather she wasn't, for obvious reasons of being crap!

[KerrAvon]

In fairness Kerr, Labour aren't proposing 1%across the board I presume for that very reason. Even with the proposed rises on high earners, the tax increase is only a small proportion of what they have costed.

In short it would take us from an average investor in public services into the top band along with Germany, with tax rates on income and corporates being the same. As I've said many times, you can say money will fly, but it needs to be able to fly to that is cheaper, and not many countries are cheaper than what Labour are proposing for any tax payers.

I have several issues with the labour manifesto. The broadband, free higher education for higher income families, free dental treatment for the same. If like to see those means tested and less on tax if that would make a realistic difference.

But speaking as someone whose every family member now works in the public sector or charities, something radical has to be done as services are desperately short. I'm all for you dissecting suggestions that any party puts forward, but if like to hear more from you about how the huge finances can be raised to improve services? Even the government have given up on the idea of tax cuts for corporations as a means of raising money (although they will once voted in I'm sure) so how else do you think we can do it?

If were quoting from your Momentum issue doorstep crib sheet, you are at risk of misleading the folk of Chingford.

You are just plain wrong, raging. The increased day to day spending that labour are proposing will increase the overall tax burden on companies to the point where they are the highest in the G7 and well in excess of both Germany and France (my earlier question was rhetorical - I prefer the views of the IFS to John 'Venezuela - socialism in action' McDonnell).

https://www.ifs.org.uk/election/2019...fs-researchers

What would I do? As I start, I would not drive jobs and tax revenues out of the country with punitive taxes, anti-business rhetoric and ideologically driven nationalisations.

[wrinkly]

You may find this illuminating:

https://fullfact.org/economy/guide-economy-taxes/

I realise that you are merely demonstrating to Roly that you actually do pay more tax the richer you are. Fair enough.
I assume that he, and everyone else, would already know that and ,perhaps, his argument is that the rich should pay even more.

Nothing really mind-boggling on the article you link to but the fact that the lowest income households pay a bigger percentage of total income on direct plus indirect taxes is a bit of a concern.

I would also guess that the income of lower income households is not net of any amounts in pension schemes, avoidance schemes etc.

[KerrAvon]

I realise that you are merely demonstrating to Roly that you actually do pay more tax the richer you are. Fair enough.
I assume that he, and everyone else, would already know that and ,perhaps, his argument is that the rich should pay even more.

Nothing really mind-boggling on the article you link to but the fact that the lowest income households pay a bigger percentage of total income on direct plus indirect taxes is a bit of a concern.

I would also guess that the income of lower income households is not net of any amounts in pension schemes, avoidance schemes etc.

I never like to make assumptions about what Roly means. I enjoy surprises.

I think that the notion that the top 1% of earning households pay about 27% of the total income tax paid, and the top 10% of earners pay about 59% should at least be a reason to stop and think for a moment before demonising the wealthy and treating them like cash cows in the way that the current Labour set up seems to want to do.

Tax avoidance is often painted as being the preserve of the rich and I would agree that it is very hard for someone who is on PAYE to avoid what is due. The 'black economy' is spread across society, however. Only yesterday, I had some dealings with a gentleman who was running a car repair business from his (Social Housing) home, whilst claiming Universal Credit and also engaging in a somewhat more lucrative and serous illegal activity. HMRC confirmed that he hadn't paid a penny in tax for over six years. I was offered a 'cash price' by a heating engineer a couple of years ago.

People don't like paying tax, but as I pointed out a few days ago, it if costs £1 or more to recover £1 in avoided tax, then enforcing against tax dodgers isn't a way of paying for public services.

[ragingpup]

If were quoting from your Momentum issue doorstep crib sheet, you are at risk of misleading the folk of Chingford.

You are just plain wrong, raging. The increased day to day spending that labour are proposing will increase the overall tax burden on companies to the point where they are the highest in the G7 and well in excess of both Germany and France (my earlier question was rhetorical - I prefer the views of the IFS to John 'Venezuela - socialism in action' McDonnell).

https://www.ifs.org.uk/election/2019...fs-researchers

What would I do? As I start, I would not drive jobs and tax revenues out of the country with punitive taxes, anti-business rhetoric and ideologically driven nationalisations.

Yes, the ifs have their opinion. But other financial institutions have theirs :and put over opposing arguments to the ifs. Why should you only quote the ifs? Because it mirrors your own views? We can all do that. And do. Just some are more willing to accept it, but instead you write their opinion as fact.

So again, you are saying what you would not do as opposed to other parties. What would you actually do was my question?

[CASPER-64-FRANK]

If income tax goes up by 1% across the board, it would only raise about £5bn per year - compare that to Labour's increased non-investment spending of around £80bn and you can see the little problemette that they prefer not to talk about.

Didn't make myself clear again ( my bad )
1p on average income earners to around 90k and then raise the tax bands like they are proposing to do.
Won't be enough but every little counts.
Have a look at Amazon, Google, Facebook. Especially Amazon, unless it's changed the shares they're giving to their employees is offsetting Corporation Tax and I'm not sure if they're still using Luxembourg or if that's ceased.
Stop people squirreling mega cash in off-shore accounts.
Still won't be enough but it's a start.