O/T people on benefits

[animallittle3]

Plus my post is about benefit scroungers. Not millionaires, or despot tyrants. Or fek all else ,so start another thread .

So to be clear , let's say you were burgled twice in one day , one robber stole 60p in loose change and two hours later another helped himself to £500 .

You'd be more pyssed off about the 60p given your logic right !!!!

[Silly-miller]

There’s also people who want to work but no one will employ

This woman on my street apparently her son died horribly at a young age which caused her to have a mental breakdown and had to take a month of work when she went back to work they fired her. She couldn’t find anyone to employ her so she retired early instead on a low pension

[ragingpup]

My comments related to personal taxation levels rather than corporate ones. Companies have a different agenda and collection of responsibilities. Rightly or wrongly, I do believe individuals have an inbuilt sense of fairness and the great majority would dispense with any ideas of avoidance if they perceived it to be a level playing field. I can't pretend to know exactly what flat rate of tax would result in the greatest revenue because there are so many contributing factors. However, in principle, I see no less reason to think that rate is 20% than 25% or 30%.

You make sensible points but very interesting that despite the research article you quoted opining that approx 40% top rate income tax is the 'sweet spot' for max public revenue, you would like to see your IFS report advice ignored and half that rate. I understand your commendable faith in the goodliness of multi millionaires with state of the art accountants, but can the rest of us, dependent on the public services for the well being of our families, afford such a risk??

Why are all these 'risks' we have taken in cuts to income and corporation tax in the last 40 years been in favour of the super rich? Are you happy with the direction it has led us, to the extent you want to make it even more extreme?

Good points raised though.

[Lasterman]

You make sensible points but very interesting that despite the research article you quoted opining that approx 40% top rate income tax is the 'sweet spot' for max public revenue, you would like to see your IFS report advice ignored and half that rate. I understand your commendable faith in the goodliness of multi millionaires with state of the art accountants, but can the rest of us, dependent on the public services for the well being of our families, afford such a risk??

Why are all these 'risks' we have taken in cuts to income and corporation tax in the last 40 years been in favour of the super rich? Are you happy with the direction it has led us, to the extent you want to make it even more extreme?

Good points raised though.

I think most people have the same underlying goal - to create the conditions in which the most people can flourish, and there is the maximum amount available to fund public services and a safety net for those who don't do so well. But the difference of opinion comes in deciding how you think it might be achieved. Some favour confiscation (robbing the rich to give to the poor). Others favour incentive (Creating conditions which encourage creation of wealth which trickles down and spreads). I suspect we come from opposite ends of that discussion.

Given that over 40% of the population are now net beneficiaries of the taxation/benefit system, I'm not convinced that changes to both systems have been in favour of the rich over the past few decades.

[ragingpup]

I think most people have the same underlying goal - to create the conditions in which the most people can flourish, and there is the maximum amount available to fund public services and a safety net for those who don't do so well. But the difference of opinion comes in deciding how you think it might be achieved. Some favour confiscation (robbing the rich to give to the poor). Others favour incentive (Creating conditions which encourage creation of wealth which trickles down and spreads). I suspect we come from opposite ends of that discussion.

Given that over 40% of the population are now net beneficiaries of the taxation/benefit system, I'm not convinced that changes to both systems have been in favour of the rich over the past few decades.

So I come from the opinion of "robbing the rich"? How did you work that out? I am a democrat and at the moment we as a society have democratically decided to ask high earners to pay 40% tax on their earnings. How does that equate to robbing the rich??

You argue in favour of "encouraging creation of wealth which trickles down and spreads" - yes we have been following that direction for the last 40 odd years and from my point of view, as I look around me, I see more people in poverty, using food banks and huge increases in homelessness. I've watched this happen, slowly but surely since Thatcher. What makes you think, from your point of view, that your own theory is working? We've given it a good go!

Can I ask if you are an employer and affected by the higher tax rates? Does the high rate of income tax affect you in any way? I ask only as you have departed from your own research suggestions of what generates the most wealth to suggest that you'd like to see large cuts in income tax for the wealthy. This seems such a huge flight of fancy that even Kerr would hesitate! Just trying to get where you're coming from on this.

[Lasterman]

So I come from the opinion of "robbing the rich"? How did you work that out? I am a democrat and at the moment we as a society have democratically decided to ask high earners to pay 40% tax on their earnings. How does that equate to robbing the rich??

You argue in favour of "encouraging creation of wealth which trickles down and spreads" - yes we have been following that direction for the last 40 odd years and from my point of view, as I look around me, I see more people in poverty, using food banks and huge increases in homelessness. I've watched this happen, slowly but surely since Thatcher. What makes you think, from your point of view, that your own theory is working? We've given it a good go!

Can I ask if you are an employer and affected by the higher tax rates? Does the high rate of income tax affect you in any way? I ask only as you have departed from your own research suggestions of what generates the most wealth to suggest that you'd like to see large cuts in income tax for the wealthy. This seems such a huge flight of fancy that even Kerr would hesitate! Just trying to get where you're coming from on this.

The impact on people here now is only part of the story. The thousands of millionaires clinging to a rock in the Irish Sea aren't there for the weather, they're there because they pay 20% income tax (I may not be up to date with the current rate) Now imagine somewhere where people would actually like to live with a 20% tax rate. How many wealthy people would be attracted to come and pay their taxes here then? It's worth remembering that something like a third of the income tax is paid by less than 1% of taxpayers. You don't need to attract that many people at this level before it starts to make a difference.

To answer your question directly, I used to pay the higher rate of tax (not exactly happily, but without trying to avoid it). But when the rate went up under Gordon Brown it prompted me to look at whether there was an alternative. There was, and as a result I've paid an awful lot less ever since - nothing dodgy, underhand or illegal I hasten to add! I know several other people who did the same thing, which is why I feel so strongly about people who say we should hit the 'rich'. It doesn't work.

[ragingpup]

The impact on people here now is only part of the story. The thousands of millionaires clinging to a rock in the Irish Sea aren't there for the weather, they're there because they pay 20% income tax (I may not be up to date with the current rate) Now imagine somewhere where people would actually like to live with a 20% tax rate. How many wealthy people would be attracted to come and pay their taxes here then? It's worth remembering that something like a third of the income tax is paid by less than 1% of taxpayers. You don't need to attract that many people at this level before it starts to make a difference.

To answer your question directly, I used to pay the higher rate of tax (not exactly happily, but without trying to avoid it). But when the rate went up under Gordon Brown it prompted me to look at whether there was an alternative. There was, and as a result I've paid an awful lot less ever since - nothing dodgy, underhand or illegal I hasten to add! I know several other people who did the same thing, which is why I feel so strongly about people who say we should hit the 'rich'. It doesn't work.

So you consider that the democratically decided 40% is "hitting the rich"?

And even though the report you are quoting from believe that around 40% is the optimum amount for raising public revenues, you would still cut it to half of that for the wealthy?

I understand the logic of what you are saying but this 'experiment' would be a huge risk to take with public revenues when even the financial experts from whom you are quoting for other purposes would disagree with you? Might there be a little bit of self interest here swaying your judgement?! Would you like to see this risk taken if you were on 25K a week?

[animallittle3]

I think most people have the same underlying goal - to create the conditions in which the most people can flourish, and there is the maximum amount available to fund public services and a safety net for those who don't do so well. But the difference of opinion comes in deciding how you think it might be achieved. Some favour confiscation (robbing the rich to give to the poor). Others favour incentive (Creating conditions which encourage creation of wealth which trickles down and spreads). I suspect we come from opposite ends of that discussion.

Given that over 40% of the population are now net beneficiaries of the taxation/benefit system, I'm not convinced that changes to both systems have been in favour of the rich over the past few decades.

Really !!


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-10097038.html

[Lasterman]

Really !!


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-10097038.html

My comments were in the context of the impact of the taxation and benefits system on different groups, rather than the implication of wider economic factors. In addition, that article doesn't really relate to the rich does it....the top fifth who's savings have gone up from £6,000 to £10,000. I know we all have different definitions of rich, but I'm not sure that falls into anyone's.

[sawmiller]

So I come from the opinion of "robbing the rich"? How did you work that out? I am a democrat and at the moment we as a society have democratically decided to ask high earners to pay 40% tax on their earnings. How does that equate to robbing the rich??

You argue in favour of "encouraging creation of wealth which trickles down and spreads" - yes we have been following that direction for the last 40 odd years and from my point of view, as I look around me, I see more people in poverty, using food banks and huge increases in homelessness. I've watched this happen, slowly but surely since Thatcher. What makes you think, from your point of view, that your own theory is working? We've given it a good go!

Can I ask if you are an employer and affected by the higher tax rates? Does the high rate of income tax affect you in any way? I ask only as you have departed from your own research suggestions of what generates the most wealth to suggest that you'd like to see large cuts in income tax for the wealthy. This seems such a huge flight of fancy that even Kerr would hesitate! Just trying to get where you're coming from on this.

I run businesses and am a higher rate payer. I don’t think trickle-down works very well because a lot of the wealth is hoarded and squirrelled away too much of it off shore in my opinion. The current disparity is ultimately bad for everyone. A millionaire spends little more on say clothing than folk earning c 25K I suspect