2010: Percentage of total income tax take from each bracket:
Top 1%: 26% Bottom 50%: 12%
2015:
Top 1%: 30% Bottom 50%: 9%
So over the course of this coalition Government, the top earners have taken on 4% more of the tax burden, whereas 3% of the total burden has been lifted off the poorest 50%.
But those figures are meaningless without knowing what percentage of national incomes they're getting. If the top 1% have got 10% more of the income in 2015, taking on 4% more of the tax burden would be an absolute bargain.
2010: Percentage of total income tax take from each bracket:
Top 1%: 26% Bottom 50%: 12%
2015:
Top 1%: 30% Bottom 50%: 9%
So over the course of this coalition Government, the top earners have taken on 4% more of the tax burden, whereas 3% of the total burden has been lifted off the poorest 50%.
But those figures are meaningless without knowing what percentage of national incomes they're getting. If the top 1% have got 10% more of the income in 2015, taking on 4% more of the tax burden would be an absolute bargain.
I refer the right honourable gentleman to the comments I made some moments ago :-)
And still he says "I genuinely believed I hadn't done anything wrong." Nah, of course, why would you try to pay for something with money you haven't got?
And still he says "I genuinely believed I hadn't done anything wrong." Nah, of course, why would you try to pay for something with money you haven't got?
Labour candidate doesn't understand how debt works shocker.
But those figures are meaningless without knowing what percentage of national incomes they're getting. If the top 1% have got 10% more of the income in 2015, taking on 4% more of the tax burden would be an absolute bargain.
Fiiish has simply pointed to evidence that the rich have paid an increasing proportion of the tax burden. Nothing more nothing less. What is meaningless is saying the rich do not pay a fair share of taxes without being able to say what "fair" is.
A possible definition would be paying for what is needed to cover whatever politicians want to spend in order to keep in power.
And still he says "I genuinely believed I hadn't done anything wrong." Nah, of course, why would you try to pay for something with money you haven't got?
Labour candidate doesn't understand how debt works shocker.
The Labour money tree obviously wasn't in bloom that day.
But those figures are meaningless without knowing what percentage of national incomes they're getting. If the top 1% have got 10% more of the income in 2015, taking on 4% more of the tax burden would be an absolute bargain.
I refer the right honourable gentleman to the comments I made some moments ago :-)
No one seems to note the fact that the top 1% are shouldering 3 times the tax burden of the poorest half of those currently paying income tax. Bear in mind a proportion of those won't be net taxpayers (ie the state spends more on them than they pay in tax) and won't include the millions who pay no tax at all.
Does this point to the fact that the top 1% will have a lot of money? Like, A LOT? Yes, it does. But the fact that one person earns minimum wage whereas another will earn several times that person's annual salary in the month isn't necessarily bad. There are negative effects of large gaps in wealth distribution but the tax system is the least effective way of reducing these negative effects. The idea that the wealthy don't pay their fair share is absolute rubbish. The politicians are just horrible at spending it fairly and efficiently.
It's quite interesting reading some of the comments on this thread that the 'I'm alright Jack' attitude that Thatch promoted is alive and well in 2015. If the Torys get in at least we can look forward to more food banks for those less fortunate that ourselves.
It's quite interesting reading some of the comments on this thread that the 'I'm alright Jack' attitude that Thatch promoted is alive and well in 2015. If the Torys get in at least we can look forward to more food banks for those less fortunate that ourselves.
I haven't really noticed this in the thread at all. Most people seem to be aware that this country has more work to do on helping the disadvantaged, there just appears to be disagreement on the best way to proceed on this front.
"What's your name?" "Stig" "Thanks for your point Stig. Let me tell you this - I could work with Covered End or Fiish as a coalition partner but I won't partner with Muttley or Prague, it's simply not going to happen."
since our move havnt been able to find the petrol can in all the old boxes----so brought a new one !!
Old enough to have been through a good few of these here election thingys and have to say this one is way way out there for being weird and boring at that sametime !
The ONLY winners will be the Scots Nats---50+ MPs and will finally piss the English off enough to give them a 2nd independence vote which they will win.
It will be a hung Parliament of some sort. Is that a good thing ? Well if we cant slow down 300,000 net increase of new comers to England every year then what ever shape the new Government is they better find a way to fund the support services, train new GPs/Nurses/teachers and find huge areas to build on--- a growth area in itself !!
Of course any English person voting Labour still needs burning, waiting to see it in a manifesto so i can vote for it.
Could you care to explain how the two are related? And this time, could you perhaps post without hyperbole or giving the impression of hysteria, since it tends to undermine your credibility.
Could you care to explain how the two are related? And this time, could you perhaps post without hyperbole or giving the impression of hysteria, since it tends to undermine your credibility.
Rich being to told to post without hyperbole by you!
If I really need to spell it out for you: you focus on the amount of tax paid by the rich 1% and ask people to feel sorry for the burden they are shouldering, whereas Warren Buffett, when he realised he, one of the richest men in America, was paying an effective rate of tax (amount of tax paid as a percentage of income) that was less than his secretary was paying, concluded that no one should pay a lower percentage of income in taxes than the less-affluent Americans.
Tax burden is when you're on the bones of your arse because of ill health and because your rate is at an all time low and yet you still submit a tax return because you think it's the right thing to do. Then you end up paying it off for the next 3-4 years. That's what a tax burden is from my experience anyway, when alls good and you can afford it, it just called tax..
It becomes a burden when it becomes a debt I suppose. If we didn't have tax, we would all be hoping that charity and philanthropy and benevolence would pay for things...like hoping a rich owner pays for good players.
Could you care to explain how the two are related? And this time, could you perhaps post without hyperbole or giving the impression of hysteria, since it tends to undermine your credibility.
If I really need to spell it out for you: you focus on the amount of tax paid by the rich 1% and ask people to feel sorry for the burden they are shouldering, whereas Warren Buffett, when he realised he, one of the richest men in America, was paying an effective rate of tax (amount of tax paid as a percentage of income) that was less than his secretary was paying, concluded that no one should pay a lower percentage of income in taxes than the less-affluent Americans.
The fact that the richest 1% of taxpayers are paying 3 times more in tax than the bottom 50% of taxpayers is a likely indication that most if not effectively all of them except those evading tax are paying a higher rate of tax than their secretaries. If you could provide some evidence that there is a widespread problem of the top 1% paying less in tax than their secretaries then I would agree that we ought to consider how the tax system could be improved to rectify this. In terms of general tax avoidance and evasion, I'm already fully supportive of measures to limit the loopholes or wheezes the rich use to lower their tax exposure.
I never asked anyone to feel sorry for the rich, I was merely dispelling the myth that the rich have been paying less of the tax burden since 2010. I also oppose using the tax system as a tool to narrow the wealth gap as this tends to have adverse effects as seen in France and other countries that have imposed punitive tax rates and are now feeling the damage to investment, business and the skilled job market that they have caused. I am for narrowing the wealth gap and there are dozens of ways this can be done without hiking up taxes on the top-earners.
Fiish, I'm not sure I understand why you want to "narrow the wealth gap" whatever that means, as an objective of its own. There are valid reasons why some people are more wealthy than others and although I'm not one of the wealthy ones, I don't see a good reason for wanting any rich person to be less rich for the sake of it, which is what you have just said you are "for". I don't believe its the State's role to re-distribute wealth.
Looking out for the poor and needy is a different matter and the state does have a responsibility there. In my view taxation should be about paying for the things society needs to function properly but not a re-distribution tool.
Fiish, I'm not sure I understand why you want to "narrow the wealth gap" whatever that means, as an objective of its own. There are valid reasons why some people are more wealthy than others and although I'm not one of the wealthy ones, I don't see a good reason for wanting any rich person to be less rich for the sake of it, which is what you have just said you are "for". I don't believe its the State's role to re-distribute wealth.
Looking out for the poor and needy is a different matter and the state does have a responsibility there. In my view taxation should be about paying for the things society needs to function properly but not a re-distribution tool.
Fiish, I'm not sure I understand why you want to "narrow the wealth gap" whatever that means, as an objective of its own. There are valid reasons why some people are more wealthy than others and although I'm not one of the wealthy ones, I don't see a good reason for wanting any rich person to be less rich for the sake of it, which is what you have just said you are "for". I don't believe its the State's role to re-distribute wealth.
Looking out for the poor and needy is a different matter and the state does have a responsibility there. In my view taxation should be about paying for the things society needs to function properly but not a re-distribution tool.
I want to narrow it by pushing wages/incomes at the lowest end of the spectrum up, not by taking wealth from the top.
http://bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-32557123 Interesting, I thought, that the BBC managed (at least on the mobile version of their website) to run this story without mentioning the "L" word. Would that have been the case if Joyce had been an ex Tory MP or UKIP councillor do you think?
Comments
bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-england-32545431
And still he says "I genuinely believed I hadn't done anything wrong." Nah, of course, why would you try to pay for something with money you haven't got?
A possible definition would be paying for what is needed to cover whatever politicians want to spend in order to keep in power.
Does this point to the fact that the top 1% will have a lot of money? Like, A LOT? Yes, it does. But the fact that one person earns minimum wage whereas another will earn several times that person's annual salary in the month isn't necessarily bad. There are negative effects of large gaps in wealth distribution but the tax system is the least effective way of reducing these negative effects. The idea that the wealthy don't pay their fair share is absolute rubbish. The politicians are just horrible at spending it fairly and efficiently.
If the Torys get in at least we can look forward to more food banks for those less fortunate that ourselves.
Except Jimmy Cranky
:-)
Are you aware of the Warren Buffet Rule on Fair Taxation? Or is he one of your crazy left wing bogeymen?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffett_Rule
https://whitehouse.gov/economy/buffett-rule
Old enough to have been through a good few of these here election thingys and have to say this one is way way out there for being weird and boring at that sametime !
The ONLY winners will be the Scots Nats---50+ MPs and will finally piss the English off enough to give them a 2nd independence vote which they will win.
It will be a hung Parliament of some sort. Is that a good thing ? Well if we cant slow down 300,000 net increase of new comers to England every year then what ever shape the new Government is they better find a way to fund the support services, train new GPs/Nurses/teachers and find huge areas to build on--- a growth area in itself !!
Of course any English person voting Labour still needs burning, waiting to see it in a manifesto so i can vote for it.
If I really need to spell it out for you: you focus on the amount of tax paid by the rich 1% and ask people to feel sorry for the burden they are shouldering, whereas Warren Buffett, when he realised he, one of the richest men in America, was paying an effective rate of tax (amount of tax paid as a percentage of income) that was less than his secretary was paying, concluded that no one should pay a lower percentage of income in taxes than the less-affluent Americans.
If we didn't have tax, we would all be hoping that charity and philanthropy and benevolence would pay for things...like hoping a rich owner pays for good players.
I never asked anyone to feel sorry for the rich, I was merely dispelling the myth that the rich have been paying less of the tax burden since 2010. I also oppose using the tax system as a tool to narrow the wealth gap as this tends to have adverse effects as seen in France and other countries that have imposed punitive tax rates and are now feeling the damage to investment, business and the skilled job market that they have caused. I am for narrowing the wealth gap and there are dozens of ways this can be done without hiking up taxes on the top-earners.
Looking out for the poor and needy is a different matter and the state does have a responsibility there. In my view taxation should be about paying for the things society needs to function properly but not a re-distribution tool.
Interesting, I thought, that the BBC managed (at least on the mobile version of their website) to run this story without mentioning the "L" word. Would that have been the case if Joyce had been an ex Tory MP or UKIP councillor do you think?
Tuesday - UKIP
Wednesday - Labour #milibrand
Thursday - Green
Friday -
Here's a graph, showing spending. From this, you can draw your own conclusions as to which parties spend more when in office.