When will this shit end?

[Dave85radiohead]

7 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

That's just it - plenty of people, myself included, would happily vote for someone who wants to increase the basic rate of income tax from 20 to 21%, the 40% rate to 45%, re-introduce the 50% rate and possibly go even higher for very high earners, plus remove all the tax haven loopholes. Corbyn was never that straight up on how he would actually raise the money to fund all the stuff I he wanted to do, but I could envisage all of that happening.

What I'm increasingly not okay with voting for is a Labour government that says we'll increase the basic rate to 21% and then that's it. 

Not against paying higher taxes, but it needs to part of actually making big changes. 

40 to 45? Go higher than 50 per cent? With national insurance on top you’re asking people to work for free. There has to be some carrot for pushing yourself and building a career. 1 percent across all brackets would raise a lot of money.I have always voted labour but those sorts of policies would never get the public’s backing.

They need to cut out the loopholes , clamp down on tax havens and make sure corporations pay their share.

 

[stuartbert two hats]

1 minute ago, Dave85radiohead said:

40 to 45? Go higher than 50 per cent? With national insurance on top you’re asking people to work for free.

 

No you're not.

[Matt42]

1 hour ago, stuartbert two hats said:

Citation needed

https://taxfoundation.org/corporate-tax-rates-europe-2019/

 

https://taxfoundation.org/tax-burden-labor-europe/

Do these graphs include national insurance, council tax etc?

[Matt42]

28 minutes ago, stuartbert two hats said:

No you're not.

With expense of rent, bills, council tax, and living costs yes raising the basic tax rate hurts the ordinary person more than the well off. This is quite short sighted of you.

Edited May 14, 2020 by Matt42

[stuartbert two hats]

2 minutes ago, Matt42 said:

With expense of rent, bills, council tax, and living costs yes raising the basic tax rate hurts the ordinary person more than the well off. This is quite short sighted of you.

You're not asking them to work for free.

[Matt42]

3 minutes ago, stuartbert two hats said:

You're not asking them to work for free.

Ah excuse me sorry. It’s fine they have less as long as they are not totally working for free.

i’m of the view that even if taxes were sky high we’d still have the same problems. It’s about the management, not those who use the services.

Edited May 14, 2020 by Matt42

[stuartbert two hats]

Just now, Matt42 said:

Ah excuse me sorry. It’s fine they have less as long as they are not totally working for free.

You're responding to some imaginary comments I'm not making.

[stuartbert two hats]

 

[Zoo Music Girl]

The 50% rate would not be for all of the tax that person pays, just on their top earnings. I think people forget that sometimes.

Didn't the upper limit used to be 80 something back in the 60s?

 

[Matt42]

Just now, stuartbert two hats said:

 

This is so short sighted again. The same stupid stuff that made the nation reject corbyn.

The problem is where the government spends money. They’ve got the money. The U.K. has a high tax rate, high property tax, and high national insurance. They get enough for the ordinary worker.

The government have enough money to temporarily put millions of the country on furlough. They’ve got the money. Point the finger about how they spend it, not whether they need more.

[Zoo Music Girl]

Just now, Matt42 said:

This is so short sighted again. The same stupid stuff that made the nation reject corbyn.

The problem is where the government spends money. They’ve got the money. The U.K. has a high tax rate, high property tax, and high national insurance. They get enough for the ordinary worker.

The government have enough money to temporarily put millions of the country on furlough. They’ve got the money. Point the finger about how they spend it, not whether they need more.

You realise that money wasn't just lying around right? We will be facing more austerity measures after this and tax rises are definitely going to be needed.

[Ayrshire Chris]

When the hairdressers finally open up

[Dave85radiohead]

8 minutes ago, Zoo Music Girl said:

The 50% rate would not be for all of the tax that person pays, just on their top earnings. I think people forget that sometimes.

Didn't the upper limit used to be 80 something back in the 60s?

 

I haven’t forgot that but the people who earn the big big one money often get it in the form of dividends etc which are taxed differently. 

Policies like this hurt professionals   who have worked hard to get where they are and often have to work very unsociable hours and take on a lot of responsibility. There are usually a lot of extra insurances etc to pay as well debt in having had the education to get there and there is already no child benefit etc.When the tax gets too high it just isn’t worth taking on that responsibility any more. Like I said there has to be some carrot for people to push themselves as far as they can.

 

Edited May 14, 2020 by Dave85radiohead

[stuartbert two hats]

19 minutes ago, Matt42 said:

Do these graphs include national insurance, council tax etc?

I don't know, probably. You're the one making unsubstantiated claims. Got any sources to back up the idea that this is a high tax country?

[MEGABOWL]

50 minutes ago, Dave85radiohead said:

40 to 45? Go higher than 50 per cent? With national insurance on top you’re asking people to work for free. There has to be some carrot for pushing yourself and building a career. 1 percent across all brackets would raise a lot of money.I have always voted labour but those sorts of policies would never get the public’s backing.

They need to cut out the loopholes , clamp down on tax havens and make sure corporations pay their share.

 

As someone in the 40 per cent bracket I can categorically say going to 45 would not be a problem. I’d vote for that.

[MEGABOWL]

12 minutes ago, Matt42 said:

This is so short sighted again. The same stupid stuff that made the nation reject corbyn.

The problem is where the government spends money. They’ve got the money. The U.K. has a high tax rate, high property tax, and high national insurance. They get enough for the ordinary worker.

The government have enough money to temporarily put millions of the country on furlough. They’ve got the money. Point the finger about how they spend it, not whether they need more.

The UK isn’t a particularly high tax payer. For too long now the UK has deluding itself it can have nice things without paying for them. It’s an illusion.

 

And they’re borrowing the CJRS Money.

Edited May 14, 2020 by MEGABOWL

[Crazyfool01]

26 minutes ago, Ayrshire Chris said:

When the hairdressers finally open up

I seem to have all the hair growth of my friends combined  

[steviewevie]

Well, we'll all be paying more tax soon...

[mattiloy]

8 minutes ago, Matt42 said:

This is so short sighted again. The same stupid stuff that made the nation reject corbyn.

The problem is where the government spends money. They’ve got the money. The U.K. has a high tax rate, high property tax, and high national insurance. They get enough for the ordinary worker.

The government have enough money to temporarily put millions of the country on furlough. They’ve got the money. Point the finger about how they spend it, not whether they need more.

the government doesn't 'have money', it has access to money through borrowing. same as it did after the crisis. growth in the last decade was crippled by tory austerity and tory brexit. 

Heres some econ for ya:

the standard formula for GDP is given as: gdp = consumption + investment + government spending + (export-imports)

brexit scuppered investment so that goes down, austerity scuppers govt spending so that goes down.

consumption is the biggest component and is a function of people's disposable income and what is called the marginal propensity to consume (what % of that disposable income you are gonna spend).

there is also something called multiplier effect. so, i pay for a haircut and that is counted in the gdp but the hairdresser uses that to pay for pints, also counted in gdp, the landlord of the pub then uses that to pay for... etc etc.

in bad times, there are more poor people and poor people spend more of their disposable income. so the marginal propensity to consume is higher on average, multiplier effect is higher, the boost to consumption is higher, the tax revenue from consumption taxes (VAT) is also higher.

the interest rates for govt borrowing have been ridiculously low in the last decade. so the government can borrow super cheap, spend, boost disposable incomes, boost consumption, boost gdp, boost the reciprocal consumption tax receipts. AND there has been very little inflationary pressure. so there has never been a better time to borrow to spend than the last ten years except perhaps right now for the next year.

the proof has been in the pudding, the countries that eschewed austerity performed better post-crisis than those who implemented austerity.

but, an even better solution would be to tax the higher earners or have some small wealth tax, which would boost the coffers without really having a material impact on gdp. a lot of rich folks earnings/wealth is static, dead money, because rich people have a very low propensity to consume, so redistributing that money to the poor is only positive.

oh also that tax burden is an average and inclusive of all that shite you mentioned.

also worth taking a look at the hdi / median gdp/capita /  happiness of the highest tax burden countries on that map and that of the lowest and reconsidering whether high tax, high spend is a bad strategy.

also it'd be fucking delightful if they made dividends taxed at parity to income. i heard on radio 5live the other day some weapon of an MD saying he couldn't put himself on furlough because he'd been paying himself in dividends. boo bloody hoo, big fat snidey business snide.

[worthyraver]

4 hours ago, DeanoL said:

While I think for the younger Corbynists that makes sense, and that was a huge portion of Corbyn's base there's also something more subtle going on - at least for me and I can't imagine I'm the only one. I'm in my late 30s, and I am starting to see why people go Conservative. 

The thing is, my personal politics are pretty far left - I want radical change in society to make things better for everyone. But I'm doing okay - own a house, fairly well paid job. I'm a decent step above the average UK wage but certainly not near the top 10%. I supported Corbyn safe in the knowledge that it would cost me, personally. I would be less well off. I would pay more tax. That was a price I was willing to pay for a radically different and improved society. And I was okay with it because while I would pay more, he would also be dismantling the big business interests, taxing the super rich even more, cutting off the lucrative public transport / utilities contracts - all that stuff. A price worth paying.

My problem is I look at the more centrist point of view - and it lacks that radical change, and it also lacks that focus on actually taxing the really rich even more. Obviously we don't have a Starmer manifesto yet, but if it goes a similar route to Blair, what those changes tend to do is make things a bit better for those at the bottom, while taxing people like me more, and leaving the super-rich and the vested business interests in play. And while it's a sacrifice I would make for a radically better society, I'm not sure it's a sacrifice I want to make for a slight improvement. 

Voting Labour is against my own self-interest. I've always been willing to do that on the promise of actual, significant change. I'm not sure I am willing do that for small, minor fixes. 

And yes there's an argument that we have to take that step first, make the small changes before we can make the big ones, perhaps in a second term, but is that true? Is there actually any appetite for actual radical change? Or the minute Labour start talking about nationalisation again the Tories are voted back in?

I couldn't agree with this more well said.

I am in a very similar situation paid up member of the labour party and voted for JC the last two times now he has gone I have all be given up

[Sasperella]

41 minutes ago, Zoo Music Girl said:

You realise that money wasn't just lying around right? We will be facing more austerity measures after this and tax rises are definitely going to be needed.

Massively agree with this, and your previous point, and a lot of the other posts here. 

Scandinavian countries pay what most Brits would consider to be a "crazy" amount. Do they care? No. Their public services are exceptional. Of course, if you charge high rates of tax, you do have to give people something to show for it and I wouldn't argue with that... But the idea that the UK is a high tax country is just a sign of how far down the neoliberal propaganda-fuelled rabbit hole we've all fallen (or rather, been pushed). Sure, maybe by US tax rates we pay more tax but why the fuck are we comparing ourselves to those clowns?

Also, increasing top earnings to 50% (on anything over something crazy like 150k) or introducing another bracket around 80k at 45% would not hurt working class folk...

[Sasperella]

9 minutes ago, mattiloy said:

the government doesn't 'have money', it has access to money through borrowing. same as it did after the crisis. growth in the last decade was crippled by tory austerity and tory brexit. 

Heres some econ for ya:

I don't have any likes left, but yes, exactly this!!!

[mattiloy]

5 minutes ago, Sasperella said:

Massively agree with this, and your previous point, and a lot of the other posts here. 

Scandinavian countries pay what most Brits would consider to be a "crazy" amount. Do they care? No. Their public services are exceptional. Of course, if you charge high rates of tax, you do have to give people something to show for it and I wouldn't argue with that... But the idea that the UK is a high tax country is just a sign of how far down the neoliberal propaganda-fuelled rabbit hole we've all fallen (or rather, been pushed). Sure, maybe by US tax rates we pay more tax but why the fuck are we comparing ourselves to those clowns?

Also, increasing top earnings to 50% (on anything over something crazy like 150k) or introducing another bracket around 80k at 45% would not hurt working class folk...

I also dont have likes left but yes to all of this n all

[Crazyfool01]

you can both have my likes  

[priest17]

49 minutes ago, crazyfool1 said:

I seem to have all the hair growth of my friends combined  

Nice to see your new hat is Flight Of The Concords inspired