Indeed Russia is what it is now because Yeltsin believed those nutters.
Would you care to elaborate on this point? It is just my brother has spent years studying Russian history and modern society and I imagine if I told him the flaws of modern day Russia was entirely down to Thatcher's advisers I imagine the response I get would be along the lines of a single-worded vulgar colloquialism for testes.
As promised, but I'll try not to bang on.
I'm talking about "consultants" with what I would consider an extreme Friedmanite economic credo, and similar so called libertarian views on society. Roger Scruton would be a prime example of the latter (although I don't accuse him of trousering excessive roubles). These people were all around Thatcher. Even as they were discredited as Major moved towards the centre, they saw the opportunity to preach their gospels in CEE. They advised on how to privatize the economies, and it was real hardcore stuff. It usually involved coupon privatization. Citizens were given coupons which could be exchanged for shares in newly privatized companies. Well guess what. The average Czech, and certainly the average Russian, had not the first clue what owning shares was all about. They fell prey to wide boys who previously used to change money on Wenceslas Square, "redeemed" the coupons for peanuts and these wide boys controlled huge enterprises, for a song. With the Western consultants behind them taking their cut. I know this intimately from the Czech example, but only recently discovered that Russia was the same x 100. It brought Yeltsin down, and then brought the whole economy down. Putin came to power on a tidal wave of disgust against the oligarchs who had become insanely rich. That, now, seems like a very bad joke, since he's the biggest one of the lot, or so many people say.
All this is told in Bill Browder's book "Red Notice". EVERYONE should read this book. I'd be interested to know if your brother has, and what he says about it.
Its quite easy, the rich get richer under a Tory government and the poor get poorer. Always been the case and always will be. The question is, do you consider yourselves rich or poor, relative to someone who owns a 500k home and earns 60k + per year?
Except it isn't is it? You don't actually have to look up the facts but just think about all our lifestyles now and compare that to what they were like in, say, the mid 1960s. Do you really think that we've all only got to be more well off in the years that the Labour Party were in power because that's very silly indeed. BTW the "poverty line" in the UK is defined as someone getting less than 60%of the median household income. So, as the country gets generally more well off, the poverty line goes up too. That's not necessarily a true measure of whether someone is actually poor or not. Someone trying to bring up a family would be, but a young single person living at home with their parents could actually think they were quite well off. The definition is open to manipulation.
Er.... it is true, the rich get richer under a Tory government.
I was actually referring to the "poor get poorer" bit. But since you bring it up, as has been referred to in this thread previously, "the rich" whoever they may be are now paying more tax than they did under the last administration. In any event what is wrong with getting richer?
Because the poor get poorer, ergo the majority of the country suffers.........
The FACT is the richer are getting much much richer and the poorer are getting richer but at a very slow rate - The divide is widening.
The Tories have taken some of the poor out the tax loop due to increasing the tax threshold. However, VAT was increased to 20% in 2010 !! VAT is a tax on all Rich and Poor but the poor are hit the most due to their low income.
The Rich (like all of us) have also seen their threshhold increase - again making them richer.
Plus the Rich received a tax cut under the Tory government.
Just a couple of reasons why the Tories are widening the divide. You can agree or disagree with this but the fact remains the Tories are contributing to the trend.
In terms of this divide. Two things can happen. You can vote in a government who will help narrow it, and help the lower earners in society.
Or you can also take on some responsibility to boost your own career and look at ways to increase your own earnings. Its not always someone else's fault.
Just saying.
I don't think ANY Govt. is capable of changing this situation (without destroying the economy).
Here's why: person A has £100. Person B has £10,000,000. They both benefit from improved economic activity and their net worth increases by 10%. So A has £110 and B has £11mn. The difference between the two has just widened by £999,990. Short of a massive and hugely destructive wealth redistribution programme which would just end up making everyone poorer, there's bugger all you can do about that.
But, it is also wrong to suggest (as Labour do, and as some people like to believe), that the coalition Govt. has reduced rates for the wealthy. Take for example those earning between £100,000 and £120,000. For 2014-15 the normal personal allowance of £10,000 was gradually reduced to nil where a person’s income exceeded £100,000. The reduction is £1 for every £2 that income exceeds the threshold. Therefore, a person with income of £120,000 or more is not entitled to any personal allowance (£20,000 (£120,000 – £100,000)/2 = £10,000). The effect of the reduction is that where a person’s income is between £100,000 and £120,000 their effective marginal rate of income tax is 60% (the higher rate of 40% plus a further 20% due to the withdrawal of the personal allowance). Most people will also be paying national insurance contributions at the rate of 2%.
How much more than 62% tax do people want the wealthier to pay, just out of interest?
If a person earning £120,000 per year has no personal allowance and the top rate of tax is 40% how does that person end up paying more than 40% of his earnings (ignoring NI contributions for the moment)?
Interesting debate between @Fiiish and @Chizz on the selfish/altruistic construct versus small state/big state. I think, to a degree, they are a different pair of labels of the same construct.
The state clearly has a part to play in the provision of services such as health, education and welfare - the latter being to those in genuine need but let's not get into the detail. I agree that it should never be better financially for someone to live on welfare rather than work, assuming they are fit to work and work is available. The NHS is an absolute bargain and must remain in public ownership and fully funded out of general taxation - we spend about 9% of GDP on healthcare - the US spend 17% of GDP on healthcare and I know where I would rather be if I needed critical healthcare. The reason the US is so high is because of the profit built in by the healthcare providers. I agree that the state should not get involved in things that don@t need involvement.
When I say general taxation I mean all taxation - particularly corporation tax. Under this coalition government CT has come down from 28% to 21%. There is an argument that low CT rates encourage inward investment - not sure that argument holds up when the US have rates of 40% and Germany 30%. All it encourages is profiteering.
If Labour win the election I personally will be worse off by thousands of pounds a year due to tax rises. Will that stop me voting Labour? No. Don't call me an altruist - call me a socialist!
The fact is left-leaning voters are not more altruistic than right-leaning voters and right-leaning voters are not more selfish than left-leaning voters. It's a completely false proposition with no evidence to support it and I suspect it is was only constructed to make left-wingers feel better about supporting failed parties and policies.
I'm a centrist with both right and left tendencies. I see the place for the state in intervening where these is clear failure by the free market to regulate itself correctly, such as the environment, immigration and housing. I also see the importance of state invention in financial matters to ensure a strong regulatory influence to avoid repeated financial crises and the exploitation of the poor by the rich. However there is a moral and economic case for lower taxes on both the poor and the rich. I would welcome expanding the zero-rate so that those at the bottom could keep more of their hard earned money. Likewise I would support scrapping the failed 50% then 45% punitive rates and returning to the 40% band. Neither of these changes would benefit me, as a middle-earning taxpayer, in the slightest, but I understand that if others in society are better off I will be better off as well.
Those who vote right-wing are certainly not looking out for themselves or thinking 'what can the government do for me?'. Most right-wing voters would be happy for the government to leave them alone and stop meddling in their day-to-day lives. Most right-wing voters are happy to ensure that enough is paid in taxes to ensure those that need a helping hand are fed, clothed and homed. There was an interesting word used before - opportunity. That is essense of right-leaning policy - the equality of opportunity and the fairness of opportunity. If you pursue a left-leaning policy where it would actually cost a person if they decided to choose work over welfare then you are trapping them in a cycle of long-term worklessness that is very difficult to escape from. There is nothing fair about that whatsoever. There are no opportunities available in such a trap. Right-leaning policies promote the equality of opportunity. I'm not talking about what this or previous Tory governments have done, I'm talking about what right-leaning voters believe in and want to see happen. The idea that right-leaning voters want to see their taxes cut at the expense of the country's poorest is, quite frankly, nonsense.
At the end of the day, right-leaning voters understand that if the economy is doing well, we have more money to spend on welfare and on correcting market failures. That's why right-leaning voters vote for the party that can win the economic argument, hence by they abandoned the Tories in 1997 and then went the other way as Brown decided to enact more and more deranged policy.
Completely agree we ALL need to take responsibility. Its not a blame game. Its just different ways of doing things. It all depends on your viewpoint. I'm not sure anyone (Tory, Socialist or whatever) want people in the UK or elsewhere to live in poverty.
Nobody would want people to live in poverty - I agree. But the question surely is more about who wants to do more about changing the fact that some do live in poverty.
Agreed. At the moment, my viewpoint is that it is only Labour who are making the right sounds about tackling poverty and making the country a fairer place to live.
Interesting debate between @Fiiish and @Chizz on the selfish/altruistic construct versus small state/big state. I think, to a degree, they are a different pair of labels of the same construct.
The state clearly has a part to play in the provision of services such as health, education and welfare - the latter being to those in genuine need but let's not get into the detail. I agree that it should never be better financially for someone to live on welfare rather than work, assuming they are fit to work and work is available. The NHS is an absolute bargain and must remain in public ownership and fully funded out of general taxation - we spend about 9% of GDP on healthcare - the US spend 17% of GDP on healthcare and I know where I would rather be if I needed critical healthcare. The reason the US is so high is because of the profit built in by the healthcare providers. I agree that the state should not get involved in things that don@t need involvement.
When I say general taxation I mean all taxation - particularly corporation tax. Under this coalition government CT has come down from 28% to 21%. There is an argument that low CT rates encourage inward investment - not sure that argument holds up when the US have rates of 40% and Germany 30%. All it encourages is profiteering.
If Labour win the election I personally will be worse off by thousands of pounds a year due to tax rises. Will that stop me voting Labour? No. Don't call me an altruist - call me a socialist!
Those who vote right-wing are certainly not looking out for themselves or thinking 'what can the government do for me?'. Most right-wing voters would be happy for the government to leave them alone and stop meddling in their day-to-day lives.
People who think like this are delusional. And usually the same people who shout and whinge the loudest when they dial 999 for an emergency service and don't get an instantaneous response. The response I feel these people deserve in these situations is 'Look, as a government employee I don't want to meddle in your day-to-day life too much so would you mind phoning someone else to deal with this problem?'
Interesting debate between @Fiiish and @Chizz on the selfish/altruistic construct versus small state/big state. I think, to a degree, they are a different pair of labels of the same construct.
The state clearly has a part to play in the provision of services such as health, education and welfare - the latter being to those in genuine need but let's not get into the detail. I agree that it should never be better financially for someone to live on welfare rather than work, assuming they are fit to work and work is available. The NHS is an absolute bargain and must remain in public ownership and fully funded out of general taxation - we spend about 9% of GDP on healthcare - the US spend 17% of GDP on healthcare and I know where I would rather be if I needed critical healthcare. The reason the US is so high is because of the profit built in by the healthcare providers. I agree that the state should not get involved in things that don@t need involvement.
When I say general taxation I mean all taxation - particularly corporation tax. Under this coalition government CT has come down from 28% to 21%. There is an argument that low CT rates encourage inward investment - not sure that argument holds up when the US have rates of 40% and Germany 30%. All it encourages is profiteering.
If Labour win the election I personally will be worse off by thousands of pounds a year due to tax rises. Will that stop me voting Labour? No. Don't call me an altruist - call me a socialist!
Those who vote right-wing are certainly not looking out for themselves or thinking 'what can the government do for me?'. Most right-wing voters would be happy for the government to leave them alone and stop meddling in their day-to-day lives.
People who think like this are delusional. And usually the same people who shout and whinge the loudest when they dial 999 for an emergency service and don't get an instantaneous response. The response I feel these people deserve in these situations is 'Look, as a government employee I don't want to meddle in your day-to-day life too much so would you mind phoning someone else to deal with this problem?'
No, what you're thinking off is called a libertarian, or at least a rather extreme libertarian. Most right-leaning people obviously want decent emergency services, schools and the NHS. What they are opposed to is an overly complicated tax system, a revenue system that picks on little guys whilst big businesses get away with evasion/fraud, and what the SNP are introducing with every child having a state-sponsored snooper to report back to the government on whether you're a capable parent or not.
Its quite easy, the rich get richer under a Tory government and the poor get poorer. Always been the case and always will be. The question is, do you consider yourselves rich or poor, relative to someone who owns a 500k home and earns 60k + per year?
Except it isn't is it? You don't actually have to look up the facts but just think about all our lifestyles now and compare that to what they were like in, say, the mid 1960s. Do you really think that we've all only got to be more well off in the years that the Labour Party were in power because that's very silly indeed. BTW the "poverty line" in the UK is defined as someone getting less than 60%of the median household income. So, as the country gets generally more well off, the poverty line goes up too. That's not necessarily a true measure of whether someone is actually poor or not. Someone trying to bring up a family would be, but a young single person living at home with their parents could actually think they were quite well off. The definition is open to manipulation.
Er.... it is true, the rich get richer under a Tory government.
I was actually referring to the "poor get poorer" bit. But since you bring it up, as has been referred to in this thread previously, "the rich" whoever they may be are now paying more tax than they did under the last administration. In any event what is wrong with getting richer?
Because the poor get poorer, ergo the majority of the country suffers.........
The FACT is the richer are getting much much richer and the poorer are getting richer but at a very slow rate - The divide is widening.
The Tories have taken some of the poor out the tax loop due to increasing the tax threshold. However, VAT was increased to 20% in 2010 !! VAT is a tax on all Rich and Poor but the poor are hit the most due to their low income.
The Rich (like all of us) have also seen their threshhold increase - again making them richer.
Plus the Rich received a tax cut under the Tory government.
Just a couple of reasons why the Tories are widening the divide. You can agree or disagree with this but the fact remains the Tories are contributing to the trend.
In terms of this divide. Two things can happen. You can vote in a government who will help narrow it, and help the lower earners in society.
Or you can also take on some responsibility to boost your own career and look at ways to increase your own earnings. Its not always someone else's fault.
Just saying.
I don't think ANY Govt. is capable of changing this situation (without destroying the economy).
Here's why: person A has £100. Person B has £10,000,000. They both benefit from improved economic activity and their net worth increases by 10%. So A has £110 and B has £11mn. The difference between the two has just widened by £999,990. Short of a massive and hugely destructive wealth redistribution programme which would just end up making everyone poorer, there's bugger all you can do about that.
But, it is also wrong to suggest (as Labour do, and as some people like to believe), that the coalition Govt. has reduced rates for the wealthy. Take for example those earning between £100,000 and £120,000. For 2014-15 the normal personal allowance of £10,000 was gradually reduced to nil where a person’s income exceeded £100,000. The reduction is £1 for every £2 that income exceeds the threshold. Therefore, a person with income of £120,000 or more is not entitled to any personal allowance (£20,000 (£120,000 – £100,000)/2 = £10,000). The effect of the reduction is that where a person’s income is between £100,000 and £120,000 their effective marginal rate of income tax is 60% (the higher rate of 40% plus a further 20% due to the withdrawal of the personal allowance). Most people will also be paying national insurance contributions at the rate of 2%.
How much more than 62% tax do people want the wealthier to pay, just out of interest?
If a person earning £120,000 per year has no personal allowance and the top rate of tax is 40% how does that person end up paying more than 40% of his earnings (ignoring NI contributions for the moment)?
The key word is "marginal". All tax rates are marginal, effecting only that portion of income between certain points. So the effect of gradually reducing the value of the personal allowance to zero means that every £1 between £100,000 and £120,000 is effectively taxed at a rate of 60%. The amusing thing is that Labour's pledge to bring back the 50p rate for those earning more than £150,000 is less than the rate paid at the lower level. How is that "fair"?
Its quite easy, the rich get richer under a Tory government and the poor get poorer. Always been the case and always will be. The question is, do you consider yourselves rich or poor, relative to someone who owns a 500k home and earns 60k + per year?
Except it isn't is it? You don't actually have to look up the facts but just think about all our lifestyles now and compare that to what they were like in, say, the mid 1960s. Do you really think that we've all only got to be more well off in the years that the Labour Party were in power because that's very silly indeed. BTW the "poverty line" in the UK is defined as someone getting less than 60%of the median household income. So, as the country gets generally more well off, the poverty line goes up too. That's not necessarily a true measure of whether someone is actually poor or not. Someone trying to bring up a family would be, but a young single person living at home with their parents could actually think they were quite well off. The definition is open to manipulation.
Er.... it is true, the rich get richer under a Tory government.
I was actually referring to the "poor get poorer" bit. But since you bring it up, as has been referred to in this thread previously, "the rich" whoever they may be are now paying more tax than they did under the last administration. In any event what is wrong with getting richer?
Because the poor get poorer, ergo the majority of the country suffers.........
The FACT is the richer are getting much much richer and the poorer are getting richer but at a very slow rate - The divide is widening.
The Tories have taken some of the poor out the tax loop due to increasing the tax threshold. However, VAT was increased to 20% in 2010 !! VAT is a tax on all Rich and Poor but the poor are hit the most due to their low income.
The Rich (like all of us) have also seen their threshhold increase - again making them richer.
Plus the Rich received a tax cut under the Tory government.
Just a couple of reasons why the Tories are widening the divide. You can agree or disagree with this but the fact remains the Tories are contributing to the trend.
In terms of this divide. Two things can happen. You can vote in a government who will help narrow it, and help the lower earners in society.
Or you can also take on some responsibility to boost your own career and look at ways to increase your own earnings. Its not always someone else's fault.
Just saying.
I don't think ANY Govt. is capable of changing this situation (without destroying the economy).
Here's why: person A has £100. Person B has £10,000,000. They both benefit from improved economic activity and their net worth increases by 10%. So A has £110 and B has £11mn. The difference between the two has just widened by £999,990. Short of a massive and hugely destructive wealth redistribution programme which would just end up making everyone poorer, there's bugger all you can do about that.
But, it is also wrong to suggest (as Labour do, and as some people like to believe), that the coalition Govt. has reduced rates for the wealthy. Take for example those earning between £100,000 and £120,000. For 2014-15 the normal personal allowance of £10,000 was gradually reduced to nil where a person’s income exceeded £100,000. The reduction is £1 for every £2 that income exceeds the threshold. Therefore, a person with income of £120,000 or more is not entitled to any personal allowance (£20,000 (£120,000 – £100,000)/2 = £10,000). The effect of the reduction is that where a person’s income is between £100,000 and £120,000 their effective marginal rate of income tax is 60% (the higher rate of 40% plus a further 20% due to the withdrawal of the personal allowance). Most people will also be paying national insurance contributions at the rate of 2%.
How much more than 62% tax do people want the wealthier to pay, just out of interest?
If a person earning £120,000 per year has no personal allowance and the top rate of tax is 40% how does that person end up paying more than 40% of his earnings (ignoring NI contributions for the moment)?
The key word is "marginal". All tax rates are marginal, effecting only that portion of income between certain points. So the effect of gradually reducing the value of the personal allowance to zero means that every £1 between £100,000 and £120,000 is effectively taxed at a rate of 60%. The amusing thing is that Labour's pledge to bring back the 50p rate for those earning more than £150,000 is less than the rate paid at the lower level. How is that "fair"?
So, in your example the points are zero and £120,000. The rate between these points is 40%, so how does it become 60%?
Then of course, there's the semi-detached house in London tax (or mansion tax as Labour like to call it.) So, if you happen to be lucky enough to own a house in London worth between £2-3mn. Labour will want an extra £3000 a year from you (over and above whatever horrendous council tax you'll be paying once Labour take off the spending shackles of local councils). That's money that will already have been taxed and NIed to within an inch of its life of course. For the avoidance of doubt, Labour have said that anyone earning more than £42,000 per year will have to find that extra money. (If you earn less, then your tax bill will be deferred until the property is sold it seems.) Of course there's no mention of whether you get any discount if the actual owner should happen to be a mortgagor rather than you. Also the concept of being in negative equity seems to be something the Eds have forgotton about. Meanwhile the poor (and they probably will be) mortgagee will have to find their monthly mortgage payments, plus £250 a month to pay to HMT. And Miliband calls that fair!
Its quite easy, the rich get richer under a Tory government and the poor get poorer. Always been the case and always will be. The question is, do you consider yourselves rich or poor, relative to someone who owns a 500k home and earns 60k + per year?
Except it isn't is it? You don't actually have to look up the facts but just think about all our lifestyles now and compare that to what they were like in, say, the mid 1960s. Do you really think that we've all only got to be more well off in the years that the Labour Party were in power because that's very silly indeed. BTW the "poverty line" in the UK is defined as someone getting less than 60%of the median household income. So, as the country gets generally more well off, the poverty line goes up too. That's not necessarily a true measure of whether someone is actually poor or not. Someone trying to bring up a family would be, but a young single person living at home with their parents could actually think they were quite well off. The definition is open to manipulation.
Er.... it is true, the rich get richer under a Tory government.
I was actually referring to the "poor get poorer" bit. But since you bring it up, as has been referred to in this thread previously, "the rich" whoever they may be are now paying more tax than they did under the last administration. In any event what is wrong with getting richer?
Because the poor get poorer, ergo the majority of the country suffers.........
The FACT is the richer are getting much much richer and the poorer are getting richer but at a very slow rate - The divide is widening.
The Tories have taken some of the poor out the tax loop due to increasing the tax threshold. However, VAT was increased to 20% in 2010 !! VAT is a tax on all Rich and Poor but the poor are hit the most due to their low income.
The Rich (like all of us) have also seen their threshhold increase - again making them richer.
Plus the Rich received a tax cut under the Tory government.
Just a couple of reasons why the Tories are widening the divide. You can agree or disagree with this but the fact remains the Tories are contributing to the trend.
In terms of this divide. Two things can happen. You can vote in a government who will help narrow it, and help the lower earners in society.
Or you can also take on some responsibility to boost your own career and look at ways to increase your own earnings. Its not always someone else's fault.
Just saying.
I don't think ANY Govt. is capable of changing this situation (without destroying the economy).
Here's why: person A has £100. Person B has £10,000,000. They both benefit from improved economic activity and their net worth increases by 10%. So A has £110 and B has £11mn. The difference between the two has just widened by £999,990. Short of a massive and hugely destructive wealth redistribution programme which would just end up making everyone poorer, there's bugger all you can do about that.
But, it is also wrong to suggest (as Labour do, and as some people like to believe), that the coalition Govt. has reduced rates for the wealthy. Take for example those earning between £100,000 and £120,000. For 2014-15 the normal personal allowance of £10,000 was gradually reduced to nil where a person’s income exceeded £100,000. The reduction is £1 for every £2 that income exceeds the threshold. Therefore, a person with income of £120,000 or more is not entitled to any personal allowance (£20,000 (£120,000 – £100,000)/2 = £10,000). The effect of the reduction is that where a person’s income is between £100,000 and £120,000 their effective marginal rate of income tax is 60% (the higher rate of 40% plus a further 20% due to the withdrawal of the personal allowance). Most people will also be paying national insurance contributions at the rate of 2%.
How much more than 62% tax do people want the wealthier to pay, just out of interest?
If a person earning £120,000 per year has no personal allowance and the top rate of tax is 40% how does that person end up paying more than 40% of his earnings (ignoring NI contributions for the moment)?
The key word is "marginal". All tax rates are marginal, effecting only that portion of income between certain points. So the effect of gradually reducing the value of the personal allowance to zero means that every £1 between £100,000 and £120,000 is effectively taxed at a rate of 60%. The amusing thing is that Labour's pledge to bring back the 50p rate for those earning more than £150,000 is less than the rate paid at the lower level. How is that "fair"?
So, in your example the points are zero and £120,000. The rate between these points is 40%, so how does it become 60%?
The points are 100,000 to 120,000. During these points the income tax rate is 40%, and the £10K personal allowance is gradually eroded £1 for every £2 of income over 100,000. hence in practice a marginal rate of 60% (62% if you add in NI).
Its quite easy, the rich get richer under a Tory government and the poor get poorer. Always been the case and always will be. The question is, do you consider yourselves rich or poor, relative to someone who owns a 500k home and earns 60k + per year?
Except it isn't is it? You don't actually have to look up the facts but just think about all our lifestyles now and compare that to what they were like in, say, the mid 1960s. Do you really think that we've all only got to be more well off in the years that the Labour Party were in power because that's very silly indeed. BTW the "poverty line" in the UK is defined as someone getting less than 60%of the median household income. So, as the country gets generally more well off, the poverty line goes up too. That's not necessarily a true measure of whether someone is actually poor or not. Someone trying to bring up a family would be, but a young single person living at home with their parents could actually think they were quite well off. The definition is open to manipulation.
Er.... it is true, the rich get richer under a Tory government.
I was actually referring to the "poor get poorer" bit. But since you bring it up, as has been referred to in this thread previously, "the rich" whoever they may be are now paying more tax than they did under the last administration. In any event what is wrong with getting richer?
Because the poor get poorer, ergo the majority of the country suffers.........
The FACT is the richer are getting much much richer and the poorer are getting richer but at a very slow rate - The divide is widening.
The Tories have taken some of the poor out the tax loop due to increasing the tax threshold. However, VAT was increased to 20% in 2010 !! VAT is a tax on all Rich and Poor but the poor are hit the most due to their low income.
The Rich (like all of us) have also seen their threshhold increase - again making them richer.
Plus the Rich received a tax cut under the Tory government.
Just a couple of reasons why the Tories are widening the divide. You can agree or disagree with this but the fact remains the Tories are contributing to the trend.
In terms of this divide. Two things can happen. You can vote in a government who will help narrow it, and help the lower earners in society.
Or you can also take on some responsibility to boost your own career and look at ways to increase your own earnings. Its not always someone else's fault.
Just saying.
I don't think ANY Govt. is capable of changing this situation (without destroying the economy).
Here's why: person A has £100. Person B has £10,000,000. They both benefit from improved economic activity and their net worth increases by 10%. So A has £110 and B has £11mn. The difference between the two has just widened by £999,990. Short of a massive and hugely destructive wealth redistribution programme which would just end up making everyone poorer, there's bugger all you can do about that.
But, it is also wrong to suggest (as Labour do, and as some people like to believe), that the coalition Govt. has reduced rates for the wealthy. Take for example those earning between £100,000 and £120,000. For 2014-15 the normal personal allowance of £10,000 was gradually reduced to nil where a person’s income exceeded £100,000. The reduction is £1 for every £2 that income exceeds the threshold. Therefore, a person with income of £120,000 or more is not entitled to any personal allowance (£20,000 (£120,000 – £100,000)/2 = £10,000). The effect of the reduction is that where a person’s income is between £100,000 and £120,000 their effective marginal rate of income tax is 60% (the higher rate of 40% plus a further 20% due to the withdrawal of the personal allowance). Most people will also be paying national insurance contributions at the rate of 2%.
How much more than 62% tax do people want the wealthier to pay, just out of interest?
If a person earning £120,000 per year has no personal allowance and the top rate of tax is 40% how does that person end up paying more than 40% of his earnings (ignoring NI contributions for the moment)?
The key word is "marginal". All tax rates are marginal, effecting only that portion of income between certain points. So the effect of gradually reducing the value of the personal allowance to zero means that every £1 between £100,000 and £120,000 is effectively taxed at a rate of 60%. The amusing thing is that Labour's pledge to bring back the 50p rate for those earning more than £150,000 is less than the rate paid at the lower level. How is that "fair"?
So, in your example the points are zero and £120,000. The rate between these points is 40%, so how does it become 60%?
The points are 100,000 to 120,000. During these points the income tax rate is 40%, and the £10K personal allowance is gradually eroded £1 for every £2 of income over 100,000. hence in practice a marginal rate of 60% (62% if you add in NI).
OK.
But the statement 'How much more than 62% tax do people want the wealthier to pay, just out of interest' implies that the wealthy are paying 60% tax on their earnings. They are not. They are paying 40%.
Then of course, there's the semi-detached house in London tax (or mansion tax as Labour like to call it.) So, if you happen to be lucky enough to own a house in London worth between £2-3mn. Labour will want an extra £3000 a year from you (over and above whatever horrendous council tax you'll be paying once Labour take off the spending shackles of local councils). That's money that will already have been taxed and NIed to within an inch of its life of course. For the avoidance of doubt, Labour have said that anyone earning more than £42,000 per year will have to find that extra money. (If you earn less, then your tax bill will be deferred until the property is sold it seems.) Of course there's no mention of whether you get any discount if the actual owner should happen to be a mortgagor rather than you. Also the concept of being in negative equity seems to be something the Eds have forgotton about. Meanwhile the poor (and they probably will be) mortgagee will have to find their monthly mortgage payments, plus £250 a month to pay to HMT. And Miliband calls that fair!
Oh come on, the average house price in London is "only" £600k, that is from reports released yesterday. Way down on what the proposed mansion tax is looking to hit. I don't agree with all the points of it but it's hardly likely to affect that many of us and if it does they can more than likely afford it.
Its quite easy, the rich get richer under a Tory government and the poor get poorer. Always been the case and always will be. The question is, do you consider yourselves rich or poor, relative to someone who owns a 500k home and earns 60k + per year?
Except it isn't is it? You don't actually have to look up the facts but just think about all our lifestyles now and compare that to what they were like in, say, the mid 1960s. Do you really think that we've all only got to be more well off in the years that the Labour Party were in power because that's very silly indeed. BTW the "poverty line" in the UK is defined as someone getting less than 60%of the median household income. So, as the country gets generally more well off, the poverty line goes up too. That's not necessarily a true measure of whether someone is actually poor or not. Someone trying to bring up a family would be, but a young single person living at home with their parents could actually think they were quite well off. The definition is open to manipulation.
Er.... it is true, the rich get richer under a Tory government.
I was actually referring to the "poor get poorer" bit. But since you bring it up, as has been referred to in this thread previously, "the rich" whoever they may be are now paying more tax than they did under the last administration. In any event what is wrong with getting richer?
Because the poor get poorer, ergo the majority of the country suffers.........
The FACT is the richer are getting much much richer and the poorer are getting richer but at a very slow rate - The divide is widening.
The Tories have taken some of the poor out the tax loop due to increasing the tax threshold. However, VAT was increased to 20% in 2010 !! VAT is a tax on all Rich and Poor but the poor are hit the most due to their low income.
The Rich (like all of us) have also seen their threshhold increase - again making them richer.
Plus the Rich received a tax cut under the Tory government.
Just a couple of reasons why the Tories are widening the divide. You can agree or disagree with this but the fact remains the Tories are contributing to the trend.
In terms of this divide. Two things can happen. You can vote in a government who will help narrow it, and help the lower earners in society.
Or you can also take on some responsibility to boost your own career and look at ways to increase your own earnings. Its not always someone else's fault.
Just saying.
I don't think ANY Govt. is capable of changing this situation (without destroying the economy).
Here's why: person A has £100. Person B has £10,000,000. They both benefit from improved economic activity and their net worth increases by 10%. So A has £110 and B has £11mn. The difference between the two has just widened by £999,990. Short of a massive and hugely destructive wealth redistribution programme which would just end up making everyone poorer, there's bugger all you can do about that.
But, it is also wrong to suggest (as Labour do, and as some people like to believe), that the coalition Govt. has reduced rates for the wealthy. Take for example those earning between £100,000 and £120,000. For 2014-15 the normal personal allowance of £10,000 was gradually reduced to nil where a person’s income exceeded £100,000. The reduction is £1 for every £2 that income exceeds the threshold. Therefore, a person with income of £120,000 or more is not entitled to any personal allowance (£20,000 (£120,000 – £100,000)/2 = £10,000). The effect of the reduction is that where a person’s income is between £100,000 and £120,000 their effective marginal rate of income tax is 60% (the higher rate of 40% plus a further 20% due to the withdrawal of the personal allowance). Most people will also be paying national insurance contributions at the rate of 2%.
How much more than 62% tax do people want the wealthier to pay, just out of interest?
If a person earning £120,000 per year has no personal allowance and the top rate of tax is 40% how does that person end up paying more than 40% of his earnings (ignoring NI contributions for the moment)?
The key word is "marginal". All tax rates are marginal, effecting only that portion of income between certain points. So the effect of gradually reducing the value of the personal allowance to zero means that every £1 between £100,000 and £120,000 is effectively taxed at a rate of 60%. The amusing thing is that Labour's pledge to bring back the 50p rate for those earning more than £150,000 is less than the rate paid at the lower level. How is that "fair"?
So, in your example the points are zero and £120,000. The rate between these points is 40%, so how does it become 60%?
The points are 100,000 to 120,000. During these points the income tax rate is 40%, and the £10K personal allowance is gradually eroded £1 for every £2 of income over 100,000. hence in practice a marginal rate of 60% (62% if you add in NI).
OK.
But the statement 'How much more than 62% tax do people want the wealthier to pay, just out of interest' implies that the wealthy are paying 60% tax on their earnings. They are not. They are paying 40%.
Between 100,000 to 120,000 they are paying 62% - between 120,000 and 150,000 they are paying 42% - over 150,000 they are paying 47% (likely to rise to 52% if Labour form the next government).
Its quite easy, the rich get richer under a Tory government and the poor get poorer. Always been the case and always will be. The question is, do you consider yourselves rich or poor, relative to someone who owns a 500k home and earns 60k + per year?
Except it isn't is it? You don't actually have to look up the facts but just think about all our lifestyles now and compare that to what they were like in, say, the mid 1960s. Do you really think that we've all only got to be more well off in the years that the Labour Party were in power because that's very silly indeed. BTW the "poverty line" in the UK is defined as someone getting less than 60%of the median household income. So, as the country gets generally more well off, the poverty line goes up too. That's not necessarily a true measure of whether someone is actually poor or not. Someone trying to bring up a family would be, but a young single person living at home with their parents could actually think they were quite well off. The definition is open to manipulation.
Er.... it is true, the rich get richer under a Tory government.
I was actually referring to the "poor get poorer" bit. But since you bring it up, as has been referred to in this thread previously, "the rich" whoever they may be are now paying more tax than they did under the last administration. In any event what is wrong with getting richer?
Because the poor get poorer, ergo the majority of the country suffers.........
The FACT is the richer are getting much much richer and the poorer are getting richer but at a very slow rate - The divide is widening.
The Tories have taken some of the poor out the tax loop due to increasing the tax threshold. However, VAT was increased to 20% in 2010 !! VAT is a tax on all Rich and Poor but the poor are hit the most due to their low income.
The Rich (like all of us) have also seen their threshhold increase - again making them richer.
Plus the Rich received a tax cut under the Tory government.
Just a couple of reasons why the Tories are widening the divide. You can agree or disagree with this but the fact remains the Tories are contributing to the trend.
In terms of this divide. Two things can happen. You can vote in a government who will help narrow it, and help the lower earners in society.
Or you can also take on some responsibility to boost your own career and look at ways to increase your own earnings. Its not always someone else's fault.
Just saying.
I don't think ANY Govt. is capable of changing this situation (without destroying the economy).
Here's why: person A has £100. Person B has £10,000,000. They both benefit from improved economic activity and their net worth increases by 10%. So A has £110 and B has £11mn. The difference between the two has just widened by £999,990. Short of a massive and hugely destructive wealth redistribution programme which would just end up making everyone poorer, there's bugger all you can do about that.
But, it is also wrong to suggest (as Labour do, and as some people like to believe), that the coalition Govt. has reduced rates for the wealthy. Take for example those earning between £100,000 and £120,000. For 2014-15 the normal personal allowance of £10,000 was gradually reduced to nil where a person’s income exceeded £100,000. The reduction is £1 for every £2 that income exceeds the threshold. Therefore, a person with income of £120,000 or more is not entitled to any personal allowance (£20,000 (£120,000 – £100,000)/2 = £10,000). The effect of the reduction is that where a person’s income is between £100,000 and £120,000 their effective marginal rate of income tax is 60% (the higher rate of 40% plus a further 20% due to the withdrawal of the personal allowance). Most people will also be paying national insurance contributions at the rate of 2%.
How much more than 62% tax do people want the wealthier to pay, just out of interest?
If a person earning £120,000 per year has no personal allowance and the top rate of tax is 40% how does that person end up paying more than 40% of his earnings (ignoring NI contributions for the moment)?
The key word is "marginal". All tax rates are marginal, effecting only that portion of income between certain points. So the effect of gradually reducing the value of the personal allowance to zero means that every £1 between £100,000 and £120,000 is effectively taxed at a rate of 60%. The amusing thing is that Labour's pledge to bring back the 50p rate for those earning more than £150,000 is less than the rate paid at the lower level. How is that "fair"?
So, in your example the points are zero and £120,000. The rate between these points is 40%, so how does it become 60%?
No, it's the portion of earnings between £100,000 and £120,000.
Here's how it works for 2014/15 (obviously the triggers have changed for the new tax year): Earnings between zero and £10k no tax paid as there's a personal allowance of £10,000. Earnings between £10,000 and £41,865 taxed at 20% bringing in £6373 in tax giving a marginal tax rate if you are earning £41,865 of 15.22% Earnings between £41,865 and £150,000 are taxed at 40%. So if you are earning £100,000 you will have paid the aforementioned £6373 plus £23,254 = £29,627 - an actual tax rate on all your earnings of 29.6%. But if you earn £120,000, you lose the tax allowance of £10,000. So you'll be paying tax at 20% on the first £31,865 plus 40% on the balance. That's £6373 plus £35,254 giving a total of £41,627. Therefore on the portion of your earnings between £100,000 and £120,000 you've paid the difference between £41,627 and £29,627 extra tax = £12,000. £12k is 60% of £20k. That individual's actual tax rate on total earnings would be 34.69%.
I don't think I explained that very well, but I hope you get the gist.
Its quite easy, the rich get richer under a Tory government and the poor get poorer. Always been the case and always will be. The question is, do you consider yourselves rich or poor, relative to someone who owns a 500k home and earns 60k + per year?
Except it isn't is it? You don't actually have to look up the facts but just think about all our lifestyles now and compare that to what they were like in, say, the mid 1960s. Do you really think that we've all only got to be more well off in the years that the Labour Party were in power because that's very silly indeed. BTW the "poverty line" in the UK is defined as someone getting less than 60%of the median household income. So, as the country gets generally more well off, the poverty line goes up too. That's not necessarily a true measure of whether someone is actually poor or not. Someone trying to bring up a family would be, but a young single person living at home with their parents could actually think they were quite well off. The definition is open to manipulation.
Er.... it is true, the rich get richer under a Tory government.
I was actually referring to the "poor get poorer" bit. But since you bring it up, as has been referred to in this thread previously, "the rich" whoever they may be are now paying more tax than they did under the last administration. In any event what is wrong with getting richer?
Because the poor get poorer, ergo the majority of the country suffers.........
The FACT is the richer are getting much much richer and the poorer are getting richer but at a very slow rate - The divide is widening.
The Tories have taken some of the poor out the tax loop due to increasing the tax threshold. However, VAT was increased to 20% in 2010 !! VAT is a tax on all Rich and Poor but the poor are hit the most due to their low income.
The Rich (like all of us) have also seen their threshhold increase - again making them richer.
Plus the Rich received a tax cut under the Tory government.
Just a couple of reasons why the Tories are widening the divide. You can agree or disagree with this but the fact remains the Tories are contributing to the trend.
In terms of this divide. Two things can happen. You can vote in a government who will help narrow it, and help the lower earners in society.
Or you can also take on some responsibility to boost your own career and look at ways to increase your own earnings. Its not always someone else's fault.
Just saying.
I don't think ANY Govt. is capable of changing this situation (without destroying the economy).
Here's why: person A has £100. Person B has £10,000,000. They both benefit from improved economic activity and their net worth increases by 10%. So A has £110 and B has £11mn. The difference between the two has just widened by £999,990. Short of a massive and hugely destructive wealth redistribution programme which would just end up making everyone poorer, there's bugger all you can do about that.
But, it is also wrong to suggest (as Labour do, and as some people like to believe), that the coalition Govt. has reduced rates for the wealthy. Take for example those earning between £100,000 and £120,000. For 2014-15 the normal personal allowance of £10,000 was gradually reduced to nil where a person’s income exceeded £100,000. The reduction is £1 for every £2 that income exceeds the threshold. Therefore, a person with income of £120,000 or more is not entitled to any personal allowance (£20,000 (£120,000 – £100,000)/2 = £10,000). The effect of the reduction is that where a person’s income is between £100,000 and £120,000 their effective marginal rate of income tax is 60% (the higher rate of 40% plus a further 20% due to the withdrawal of the personal allowance). Most people will also be paying national insurance contributions at the rate of 2%.
How much more than 62% tax do people want the wealthier to pay, just out of interest?
If a person earning £120,000 per year has no personal allowance and the top rate of tax is 40% how does that person end up paying more than 40% of his earnings (ignoring NI contributions for the moment)?
The key word is "marginal". All tax rates are marginal, effecting only that portion of income between certain points. So the effect of gradually reducing the value of the personal allowance to zero means that every £1 between £100,000 and £120,000 is effectively taxed at a rate of 60%. The amusing thing is that Labour's pledge to bring back the 50p rate for those earning more than £150,000 is less than the rate paid at the lower level. How is that "fair"?
So, in your example the points are zero and £120,000. The rate between these points is 40%, so how does it become 60%?
The points are 100,000 to 120,000. During these points the income tax rate is 40%, and the £10K personal allowance is gradually eroded £1 for every £2 of income over 100,000. hence in practice a marginal rate of 60% (62% if you add in NI).
OK.
But the statement 'How much more than 62% tax do people want the wealthier to pay, just out of interest' implies that the wealthy are paying 60% tax on their earnings. They are not. They are paying 40%.
Between 100,000 to 120,000 they are paying 62% - between 120,000 and 150,000 they are paying 42% - over 150,000 they are paying 47% (likely to rise to 52% if Labour form the next government).
But they never end up paying more than 40% in total.
Then of course, there's the semi-detached house in London tax (or mansion tax as Labour like to call it.) So, if you happen to be lucky enough to own a house in London worth between £2-3mn. Labour will want an extra £3000 a year from you (over and above whatever horrendous council tax you'll be paying once Labour take off the spending shackles of local councils). That's money that will already have been taxed and NIed to within an inch of its life of course. For the avoidance of doubt, Labour have said that anyone earning more than £42,000 per year will have to find that extra money. (If you earn less, then your tax bill will be deferred until the property is sold it seems.) Of course there's no mention of whether you get any discount if the actual owner should happen to be a mortgagor rather than you. Also the concept of being in negative equity seems to be something the Eds have forgotton about. Meanwhile the poor (and they probably will be) mortgagee will have to find their monthly mortgage payments, plus £250 a month to pay to HMT. And Miliband calls that fair!
Oh come on, the average house price in London is "only" £600k, that is from reports released yesterday. Way down on what the proposed mansion tax is looking to hit. I don't agree with all the points of it but it's hardly likely to affect that many of us and if it does they can more than likely afford it.
'Cash-rich but asset-poor' i.e. someone on a low income who purchased the house at a more modest price but now owns a house worth millions because of property speculators. It's more common that you're led to believe and Ed Miliband has refused to comment on whether people in such a situation would be protected by his proposed tax.
Also nearly every expert who has offered an opinion of this has said this tax will be expensive to administer, will take years to see any benefit (as all houses will need to be independently assessed and then property owners will appeal), and will raise nowhere near the kind of money that is being stated. There are far better ways of taxing rich people but Ed Miliband is ideologically anchored to this awful policy.
Then of course, there's the semi-detached house in London tax (or mansion tax as Labour like to call it.) So, if you happen to be lucky enough to own a house in London worth between £2-3mn. Labour will want an extra £3000 a year from you (over and above whatever horrendous council tax you'll be paying once Labour take off the spending shackles of local councils). That's money that will already have been taxed and NIed to within an inch of its life of course. For the avoidance of doubt, Labour have said that anyone earning more than £42,000 per year will have to find that extra money. (If you earn less, then your tax bill will be deferred until the property is sold it seems.) Of course there's no mention of whether you get any discount if the actual owner should happen to be a mortgagor rather than you. Also the concept of being in negative equity seems to be something the Eds have forgotton about. Meanwhile the poor (and they probably will be) mortgagee will have to find their monthly mortgage payments, plus £250 a month to pay to HMT. And Miliband calls that fair!
Oh come on, the average house price in London is "only" £600k, that is from reports released yesterday. Way down on what the proposed mansion tax is looking to hit. I don't agree with all the points of it but it's hardly likely to affect that many of us and if it does they can more than likely afford it.
I think you are right to say it won't effect that many of us. 55,000 homes according to Knight Frank (many of which are two-bedroom flats or terraced houses that happen to be in the Chelsea/Kensington area). Knight Frank also reckon that they won't raise anywhere near the money promised by Labour and that to do so they'd have to bring the home value down to around £1mn-£1.25mn. I reckon it will be getting close to costing as much to collect the money as is raised. But it's just a political statement rather than a policy with merit so I don't suppose that matters.
Its quite easy, the rich get richer under a Tory government and the poor get poorer. Always been the case and always will be. The question is, do you consider yourselves rich or poor, relative to someone who owns a 500k home and earns 60k + per year?
Except it isn't is it? You don't actually have to look up the facts but just think about all our lifestyles now and compare that to what they were like in, say, the mid 1960s. Do you really think that we've all only got to be more well off in the years that the Labour Party were in power because that's very silly indeed. BTW the "poverty line" in the UK is defined as someone getting less than 60%of the median household income. So, as the country gets generally more well off, the poverty line goes up too. That's not necessarily a true measure of whether someone is actually poor or not. Someone trying to bring up a family would be, but a young single person living at home with their parents could actually think they were quite well off. The definition is open to manipulation.
Er.... it is true, the rich get richer under a Tory government.
I was actually referring to the "poor get poorer" bit. But since you bring it up, as has been referred to in this thread previously, "the rich" whoever they may be are now paying more tax than they did under the last administration. In any event what is wrong with getting richer?
Because the poor get poorer, ergo the majority of the country suffers.........
The FACT is the richer are getting much much richer and the poorer are getting richer but at a very slow rate - The divide is widening.
The Tories have taken some of the poor out the tax loop due to increasing the tax threshold. However, VAT was increased to 20% in 2010 !! VAT is a tax on all Rich and Poor but the poor are hit the most due to their low income.
The Rich (like all of us) have also seen their threshhold increase - again making them richer.
Plus the Rich received a tax cut under the Tory government.
Just a couple of reasons why the Tories are widening the divide. You can agree or disagree with this but the fact remains the Tories are contributing to the trend.
In terms of this divide. Two things can happen. You can vote in a government who will help narrow it, and help the lower earners in society.
Or you can also take on some responsibility to boost your own career and look at ways to increase your own earnings. Its not always someone else's fault.
Just saying.
I don't think ANY Govt. is capable of changing this situation (without destroying the economy).
Here's why: person A has £100. Person B has £10,000,000. They both benefit from improved economic activity and their net worth increases by 10%. So A has £110 and B has £11mn. The difference between the two has just widened by £999,990. Short of a massive and hugely destructive wealth redistribution programme which would just end up making everyone poorer, there's bugger all you can do about that.
But, it is also wrong to suggest (as Labour do, and as some people like to believe), that the coalition Govt. has reduced rates for the wealthy. Take for example those earning between £100,000 and £120,000. For 2014-15 the normal personal allowance of £10,000 was gradually reduced to nil where a person’s income exceeded £100,000. The reduction is £1 for every £2 that income exceeds the threshold. Therefore, a person with income of £120,000 or more is not entitled to any personal allowance (£20,000 (£120,000 – £100,000)/2 = £10,000). The effect of the reduction is that where a person’s income is between £100,000 and £120,000 their effective marginal rate of income tax is 60% (the higher rate of 40% plus a further 20% due to the withdrawal of the personal allowance). Most people will also be paying national insurance contributions at the rate of 2%.
How much more than 62% tax do people want the wealthier to pay, just out of interest?
If a person earning £120,000 per year has no personal allowance and the top rate of tax is 40% how does that person end up paying more than 40% of his earnings (ignoring NI contributions for the moment)?
The key word is "marginal". All tax rates are marginal, effecting only that portion of income between certain points. So the effect of gradually reducing the value of the personal allowance to zero means that every £1 between £100,000 and £120,000 is effectively taxed at a rate of 60%. The amusing thing is that Labour's pledge to bring back the 50p rate for those earning more than £150,000 is less than the rate paid at the lower level. How is that "fair"?
So, in your example the points are zero and £120,000. The rate between these points is 40%, so how does it become 60%?
No, it's the portion of earnings between £100,000 and £120,000.
Here's how it works for 2014/15 (obviously the triggers have changed for the new tax year): Earnings between zero and £10k no tax paid as there's a personal allowance of £10,000. Earnings between £10,000 and £41,865 taxed at 20% bringing in £6373 in tax giving a marginal tax rate if you are earning £41,865 of 15.22% Earnings between £41,865 and £150,000 are taxed at 40%. So if you are earning £100,000 you will have paid the aforementioned £6373 plus £23,254 = £29,627 - an actual tax rate on all your earnings of 29.6%. But if you earn £120,000, you lose the tax allowance of £10,000. So you'll be paying tax at 20% on the first £31,865 plus 40% on the balance. That's £6373 plus £35,254 giving a total of £41,627. Therefore on the portion of your earnings between £100,000 and £120,000 you've paid the difference between £41,627 and £29,627 extra tax = £12,000. £12k is 60% of £20k. That individual's actual tax rate on total earnings would be 34.69%.
I don't think I explained that very well, but I hope you get the gist.
Ok that makes sense to me now. The maximum amount of tax paid by someone earning £120,000 at the moment is 34.96%. I wasn't taking account of the bands.
It is the vulnerable that get attacked I'm afraid, in this unfair world.
The smallest kid at school, rather than the biggest kid. The woman walking down the street, who's body language says "victim". The house that isn't alarmed. The car that isn't alarmed.
If you make yourself vulnerable, you are more likely to be attacked. It is unfortunately a fact, we do not live in an ideal world.
I'm sorry, but that's just unacceptable. You cannot, in all honesty, be suggesting that the "body language" of a woman makes them "more likely to be attacked". Maybe you posted this by mistake. If so, and if you delete it, I will certainly delete this post. But if you genuinely and deliberately posted that, it's an outrageous suggestion. It's saying "if a woman gets attacked, she might have been culpable, depending on what her body language was". And, by extension, "her attacker's guilt is lessened by the way she was acting before it happened".
I really hope you posted it by mistake and it's not what you really meant to imply.
I've not read this thread for a couple of days. Anyway, Chizz it took me all of 10 seconds to prove that what I said is correct.
Interesting debate between @Fiiish and @Chizz on the selfish/altruistic construct versus small state/big state. I think, to a degree, they are a different pair of labels of the same construct.
The state clearly has a part to play in the provision of services such as health, education and welfare - the latter being to those in genuine need but let's not get into the detail. I agree that it should never be better financially for someone to live on welfare rather than work, assuming they are fit to work and work is available. The NHS is an absolute bargain and must remain in public ownership and fully funded out of general taxation - we spend about 9% of GDP on healthcare - the US spend 17% of GDP on healthcare and I know where I would rather be if I needed critical healthcare. The reason the US is so high is because of the profit built in by the healthcare providers. I agree that the state should not get involved in things that don@t need involvement.
When I say general taxation I mean all taxation - particularly corporation tax. Under this coalition government CT has come down from 28% to 21%. There is an argument that low CT rates encourage inward investment - not sure that argument holds up when the US have rates of 40% and Germany 30%. All it encourages is profiteering.
If Labour win the election I personally will be worse off by thousands of pounds a year due to tax rises. Will that stop me voting Labour? No. Don't call me an altruist - call me a socialist!
The fact is left-leaning voters are not more altruistic than right-leaning voters and right-leaning voters are not more selfish than left-leaning voters. It's a completely false proposition with no evidence to support it and I suspect it is was only constructed to make left-wingers feel better about supporting failed parties and policies.
I'm a centrist with both right and left tendencies. I see the place for the state in intervening where these is clear failure by the free market to regulate itself correctly, such as the environment, immigration and housing. I also see the importance of state invention in financial matters to ensure a strong regulatory influence to avoid repeated financial crises and the exploitation of the poor by the rich. However there is a moral and economic case for lower taxes on both the poor and the rich. I would welcome expanding the zero-rate so that those at the bottom could keep more of their hard earned money. Likewise I would support scrapping the failed 50% then 45% punitive rates and returning to the 40% band. Neither of these changes would benefit me, as a middle-earning taxpayer, in the slightest, but I understand that if others in society are better off I will be better off as well.
Those who vote right-wing are certainly not looking out for themselves or thinking 'what can the government do for me?'. Most right-wing voters would be happy for the government to leave them alone and stop meddling in their day-to-day lives. Most right-wing voters are happy to ensure that enough is paid in taxes to ensure those that need a helping hand are fed, clothed and homed. There was an interesting word used before - opportunity. That is essense of right-leaning policy - the equality of opportunity and the fairness of opportunity. If you pursue a left-leaning policy where it would actually cost a person if they decided to choose work over welfare then you are trapping them in a cycle of long-term worklessness that is very difficult to escape from. There is nothing fair about that whatsoever. There are no opportunities available in such a trap. Right-leaning policies promote the equality of opportunity. I'm not talking about what this or previous Tory governments have done, I'm talking about what right-leaning voters believe in and want to see happen. The idea that right-leaning voters want to see their taxes cut at the expense of the country's poorest is, quite frankly, nonsense.
At the end of the day, right-leaning voters understand that if the economy is doing well, we have more money to spend on welfare and on correcting market failures. That's why right-leaning voters vote for the party that can win the economic argument, hence by they abandoned the Tories in 1997 and then went the other way as Brown decided to enact more and more deranged policy.
If you start musing on the notion of equality of opportunity when considering children, especially in terms of their Education, then the path leads you into a bit of a moral minefield. If you have some surplus money for example you can give opportunities to your children that the more stretched would only dream of. If the right leaning folk could construct equality of opportunity for all children up to the age of 16 then it might fit in with their aspirations, but when push comes to shove only the more fortunate children have the most 'opportunities'.
Interesting debate between @Fiiish and @Chizz on the selfish/altruistic construct versus small state/big state. I think, to a degree, they are a different pair of labels of the same construct.
The state clearly has a part to play in the provision of services such as health, education and welfare - the latter being to those in genuine need but let's not get into the detail. I agree that it should never be better financially for someone to live on welfare rather than work, assuming they are fit to work and work is available. The NHS is an absolute bargain and must remain in public ownership and fully funded out of general taxation - we spend about 9% of GDP on healthcare - the US spend 17% of GDP on healthcare and I know where I would rather be if I needed critical healthcare. The reason the US is so high is because of the profit built in by the healthcare providers. I agree that the state should not get involved in things that don@t need involvement.
When I say general taxation I mean all taxation - particularly corporation tax. Under this coalition government CT has come down from 28% to 21%. There is an argument that low CT rates encourage inward investment - not sure that argument holds up when the US have rates of 40% and Germany 30%. All it encourages is profiteering.
If Labour win the election I personally will be worse off by thousands of pounds a year due to tax rises. Will that stop me voting Labour? No. Don't call me an altruist - call me a socialist!
The fact is left-leaning voters are not more altruistic than right-leaning voters and right-leaning voters are not more selfish than left-leaning voters. It's a completely false proposition with no evidence to support it and I suspect it is was only constructed to make left-wingers feel better about supporting failed parties and policies.
I'm a centrist with both right and left tendencies. I see the place for the state in intervening where these is clear failure by the free market to regulate itself correctly, such as the environment, immigration and housing. I also see the importance of state invention in financial matters to ensure a strong regulatory influence to avoid repeated financial crises and the exploitation of the poor by the rich. However there is a moral and economic case for lower taxes on both the poor and the rich. I would welcome expanding the zero-rate so that those at the bottom could keep more of their hard earned money. Likewise I would support scrapping the failed 50% then 45% punitive rates and returning to the 40% band. Neither of these changes would benefit me, as a middle-earning taxpayer, in the slightest, but I understand that if others in society are better off I will be better off as well.
Those who vote right-wing are certainly not looking out for themselves or thinking 'what can the government do for me?'. Most right-wing voters would be happy for the government to leave them alone and stop meddling in their day-to-day lives. Most right-wing voters are happy to ensure that enough is paid in taxes to ensure those that need a helping hand are fed, clothed and homed. There was an interesting word used before - opportunity. That is essense of right-leaning policy - the equality of opportunity and the fairness of opportunity. If you pursue a left-leaning policy where it would actually cost a person if they decided to choose work over welfare then you are trapping them in a cycle of long-term worklessness that is very difficult to escape from. There is nothing fair about that whatsoever. There are no opportunities available in such a trap. Right-leaning policies promote the equality of opportunity. I'm not talking about what this or previous Tory governments have done, I'm talking about what right-leaning voters believe in and want to see happen. The idea that right-leaning voters want to see their taxes cut at the expense of the country's poorest is, quite frankly, nonsense.
At the end of the day, right-leaning voters understand that if the economy is doing well, we have more money to spend on welfare and on correcting market failures. That's why right-leaning voters vote for the party that can win the economic argument, hence by they abandoned the Tories in 1997 and then went the other way as Brown decided to enact more and more deranged policy.
If you start musing on the notion of equality of opportunity when considering children, especially in terms of their Education, then the path leads you into a bit of a moral minefield. If you have some surplus money for example you can give opportunities to your children that the more stretched would only dream of. If the right leaning folk could construct equality of opportunity for all children up to the age of 16 then it might fit in with their aspirations, but when push comes to shove only the more fortunate children have the most 'opportunities'.
I wouldn't really describe private education as a left/right issue. Plenty of prominent leftists send their kids to private schools. I think the fact is having richer parents automatically grants you better opportunities, or even having both parents raising you to begin with, or a strong family unit, or not being disabled or having parents who are disabled. Unfortunately there isn't really a simple way to resolve this except to improve the standard of state schools themselves.
Its quite easy, the rich get richer under a Tory government and the poor get poorer. Always been the case and always will be. The question is, do you consider yourselves rich or poor, relative to someone who owns a 500k home and earns 60k + per year?
Except as a low income worker I have got richer through tax threshold change under this government.
Comments
I'm talking about "consultants" with what I would consider an extreme Friedmanite economic credo, and similar so called libertarian views on society. Roger Scruton would be a prime example of the latter (although I don't accuse him of trousering excessive roubles). These people were all around Thatcher. Even as they were discredited as Major moved towards the centre, they saw the opportunity to preach their gospels in CEE. They advised on how to privatize the economies, and it was real hardcore stuff. It usually involved coupon privatization. Citizens were given coupons which could be exchanged for shares in newly privatized companies. Well guess what. The average Czech, and certainly the average Russian, had not the first clue what owning shares was all about. They fell prey to wide boys who previously used to change money on Wenceslas Square, "redeemed" the coupons for peanuts and these wide boys controlled huge enterprises, for a song. With the Western consultants behind them taking their cut. I know this intimately from the Czech example, but only recently discovered that Russia was the same x 100. It brought Yeltsin down, and then brought the whole economy down. Putin came to power on a tidal wave of disgust against the oligarchs who had become insanely rich. That, now, seems like a very bad joke, since he's the biggest one of the lot, or so many people say.
All this is told in Bill Browder's book "Red Notice". EVERYONE should read this book. I'd be interested to know if your brother has, and what he says about it.
If someone only takes home 58% then that's nuts.
I'm a centrist with both right and left tendencies. I see the place for the state in intervening where these is clear failure by the free market to regulate itself correctly, such as the environment, immigration and housing. I also see the importance of state invention in financial matters to ensure a strong regulatory influence to avoid repeated financial crises and the exploitation of the poor by the rich. However there is a moral and economic case for lower taxes on both the poor and the rich. I would welcome expanding the zero-rate so that those at the bottom could keep more of their hard earned money. Likewise I would support scrapping the failed 50% then 45% punitive rates and returning to the 40% band. Neither of these changes would benefit me, as a middle-earning taxpayer, in the slightest, but I understand that if others in society are better off I will be better off as well.
Those who vote right-wing are certainly not looking out for themselves or thinking 'what can the government do for me?'. Most right-wing voters would be happy for the government to leave them alone and stop meddling in their day-to-day lives. Most right-wing voters are happy to ensure that enough is paid in taxes to ensure those that need a helping hand are fed, clothed and homed. There was an interesting word used before - opportunity. That is essense of right-leaning policy - the equality of opportunity and the fairness of opportunity. If you pursue a left-leaning policy where it would actually cost a person if they decided to choose work over welfare then you are trapping them in a cycle of long-term worklessness that is very difficult to escape from. There is nothing fair about that whatsoever. There are no opportunities available in such a trap. Right-leaning policies promote the equality of opportunity. I'm not talking about what this or previous Tory governments have done, I'm talking about what right-leaning voters believe in and want to see happen. The idea that right-leaning voters want to see their taxes cut at the expense of the country's poorest is, quite frankly, nonsense.
At the end of the day, right-leaning voters understand that if the economy is doing well, we have more money to spend on welfare and on correcting market failures. That's why right-leaning voters vote for the party that can win the economic argument, hence by they abandoned the Tories in 1997 and then went the other way as Brown decided to enact more and more deranged policy.
So the effect of gradually reducing the value of the personal allowance to zero means that every £1 between £100,000 and £120,000 is effectively taxed at a rate of 60%. The amusing thing is that Labour's pledge to bring back the 50p rate for those earning more than £150,000 is less than the rate paid at the lower level. How is that "fair"?
But the statement 'How much more than 62% tax do people want the wealthier to pay, just out of interest' implies that the wealthy are paying 60% tax on their earnings. They are not. They are paying 40%.
Here's how it works for 2014/15 (obviously the triggers have changed for the new tax year):
Earnings between zero and £10k no tax paid as there's a personal allowance of £10,000.
Earnings between £10,000 and £41,865 taxed at 20% bringing in £6373 in tax giving a marginal tax rate if you are earning £41,865 of 15.22%
Earnings between £41,865 and £150,000 are taxed at 40%. So if you are earning £100,000 you will have paid the aforementioned £6373 plus £23,254 = £29,627 - an actual tax rate on all your earnings of 29.6%. But if you earn £120,000, you lose the tax allowance of £10,000. So you'll be paying tax at 20% on the first £31,865 plus 40% on the balance. That's £6373 plus £35,254 giving a total of £41,627. Therefore on the portion of your earnings between £100,000 and £120,000 you've paid the difference between £41,627 and £29,627 extra tax = £12,000. £12k is 60% of £20k. That individual's actual tax rate on total earnings would be 34.69%.
I don't think I explained that very well, but I hope you get the gist.
Also nearly every expert who has offered an opinion of this has said this tax will be expensive to administer, will take years to see any benefit (as all houses will need to be independently assessed and then property owners will appeal), and will raise nowhere near the kind of money that is being stated. There are far better ways of taxing rich people but Ed Miliband is ideologically anchored to this awful policy.
I await your apology for besmirching my good name
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/extreme-fear/201010/how-psychopaths-choose-their-victims
If you have some surplus money for example you can give opportunities to your children that the more stretched would only dream of.
If the right leaning folk could construct equality of opportunity for all children up to the age of 16 then it might fit in with their aspirations, but when push comes to shove only the more fortunate children have the most 'opportunities'.
Anyway back to the stereotypes.