The top 40% of UK taxpayers are the only ones who pay more in than they get out in terms of benefits and public spending. The bottom 60% are all net gainers.
But why let facts get in the way of pointless rhetoric?
The top 40% of UK taxpayers are the only ones who pay more in than they get out in terms of benefits and public spending. The bottom 60% are all net gainers.
But why let facts get in the way of pointless rhetoric?
Thats the point though isn't it? Aren't taxes supposed to be redistributive?
The top 40% of UK taxpayers are the only ones who pay more in than they get out in terms of benefits and public spending. The bottom 60% are all net gainers.
But why let facts get in the way of pointless rhetoric?
Thats the point though isn't it? Aren't taxes supposed to be redistributive?
Yes, so in fact the rich fund the poor, not the other way round.
The top 40% of UK taxpayers are the only ones who pay more in than they get out in terms of benefits and public spending. The bottom 60% are all net gainers.
But why let facts get in the way of pointless rhetoric?
Thats the point though isn't it? Aren't taxes supposed to be redistributive?
Yes, so in fact the rich fund the poor, not the other way round.
The reason they are rich however, is because they profit from other people. They aren't entirely brought back to an even keel (nor should they) but the fact that the gap between rich and poor is widening I would suggest that the overall balance is not as you suggest
The top 40% of UK taxpayers are the only ones who pay more in than they get out in terms of benefits and public spending. The bottom 60% are all net gainers.
But why let facts get in the way of pointless rhetoric?
Thats the point though isn't it? Aren't taxes supposed to be redistributive?
Yes, so in fact the rich fund the poor, not the other way round.
The reason they are rich however, is because they profit from other people. They aren't entirely brought back to an even keel (nor should they) but the fact that the gap between rich and poor is widening I would suggest that the overall balance is not as you suggest
The wealth gap is widening but so is the net gain/loss of richest and poorest accordingly. It's obviously not a straightforward question but blanket statements such as 'the poor fund the rich' are not particularly insightful.
The top 40% of UK taxpayers are the only ones who pay more in than they get out in terms of benefits and public spending. The bottom 60% are all net gainers.
But why let facts get in the way of pointless rhetoric?
Thats the point though isn't it? Aren't taxes supposed to be redistributive?
Yes, so in fact the rich fund the poor, not the other way round.
The reason they are rich however, is because they profit from other people. They aren't entirely brought back to an even keel (nor should they) but the fact that the gap between rich and poor is widening I would suggest that the overall balance is not as you suggest
The wealth gap is widening but so is the net gain/loss of richest and poorest accordingly. It's obviously not a straightforward question but blanket statements such as 'the poor fund the rich' are not particularly insightful.
Agreed. It's never going to be simply one way traffic
The top 40% of UK taxpayers are the only ones who pay more in than they get out in terms of benefits and public spending. The bottom 60% are all net gainers.
But why let facts get in the way of pointless rhetoric?
It isn't pointless rhetoric.
Analysis of the budget suggests that 85% of those who benifit are from the richer half of our society and that the money has come from the poorer half. That's redistribution of wealth in the wrong direction?! That's a fact, not rhetoric. Hardly "we're all in it together"!
At the same time as giving tax breaks to the more wealthy and business the Chancellor is taking £4 Billion + from the most disabled - I think that this is unfair - as do a fare few Tories.
As I said before I am not against tax cuts but don't think they should be funded at the expense of the less well off and the most disabled. Apart from anything else it's pretty poor politics .
The top 40% of UK taxpayers are the only ones who pay more in than they get out in terms of benefits and public spending. The bottom 60% are all net gainers.
But why let facts get in the way of pointless rhetoric?
It isn't pointless rhetoric.
Analysis of the budget suggests that 85% of those who benifit are from the richer half of our society and that the money has come from the poorer half. That's redistribution of wealth in the wrong direction?! That's a fact, not rhetoric. Hardly "we're all in it together"!
At the same time as giving tax breaks to the more wealthy and business the Chancellor is taking £4 Billion + from the most disabled - I think that this is unfair - as do a fare few Tories.
As I said before I am not against tax cuts but don't think they should be funded at the expense of the less well off and the most disabled. Apart from anything else it's pretty poor politics .
That was completely different to what I was referring to.
Also that's not how the Budget works. The tax cuts are designed to invoke stimulus. Short term losses to be made up by long term gains. It isn't a simple double entry ledger with 'poor people' on one side and 'rich people' on the other. The redistribution gap in reality is still increasing ie the rich are paying more in and the poorest are receiving more.
The top 40% of UK taxpayers are the only ones who pay more in than they get out in terms of benefits and public spending. The bottom 60% are all net gainers.
But why let facts get in the way of pointless rhetoric?
Thats the point though isn't it? Aren't taxes supposed to be redistributive?
Yes completely, but hardly show the poor funding the rich as some have stated.......
I showed above how an earner of £125k with two children pays £10k more now than a few years back, an indication of the richer making additional contribution and not showing the poor funding the rich.
Even if that hadn't happened I don't see how the poor are funding the rich anyway.....
The top 40% of UK taxpayers are the only ones who pay more in than they get out in terms of benefits and public spending. The bottom 60% are all net gainers.
But why let facts get in the way of pointless rhetoric?
It isn't pointless rhetoric.
Analysis of the budget suggests that 85% of those who benifit are from the richer half of our society and that the money has come from the poorer half. That's redistribution of wealth in the wrong direction?! That's a fact, not rhetoric. Hardly "we're all in it together"!
At the same time as giving tax breaks to the more wealthy and business the Chancellor is taking £4 Billion + from the most disabled - I think that this is unfair - as do a fare few Tories.
As I said before I am not against tax cuts but don't think they should be funded at the expense of the less well off and the most disabled. Apart from anything else it's pretty poor politics .
That was completely different to what I was referring to.
Also that's not how the Budget works. The tax cuts are designed to invoke stimulus. Short term losses to be made up by long term gains. It isn't a simple double entry ledger with 'poor people' on one side and 'rich people' on the other. The redistribution gap in reality is still increasing ie the rich are paying more in and the poorest are receiving more.
Given that the Tory changes to the tax system have been predominantly regressive, this only serves to highlight that the rich have increasingly more than the poor.
As for your nonsense about middle class spending stimulus, as someone that benefits from the tax changes, I am then being offered a 25% return to lock that and more up in a lifetime ISA! Will that provide a 'poor person' with a job? Maybe an extra postman to bring me statements detailing all of my lovely money?
It's bullshit. The vulnerable are hit hardest time after time under Conservative governments. I haven't bothered working out my net position from this budget, a couple of grand a year better off maybe with the lifetime ISA and the tax band changes. Without wanting to sound like a dick, £40 per week is fairly inconsequential to me - I won't suddenly think 'oh, let's go and spend a little bit of extra money'.
Compare that to someone unfit to work and living on paltry benefits to get by for whom that £2k per annum would make a significant difference to their quality of life - and what's more, they will spend the money, genuine spending stimulus - give it to the likes of me and it gets locked up in a tax efficient pension pot or something.
The top 40% of UK taxpayers are the only ones who pay more in than they get out in terms of benefits and public spending. The bottom 60% are all net gainers.
But why let facts get in the way of pointless rhetoric?
It isn't pointless rhetoric.
Analysis of the budget suggests that 85% of those who benifit are from the richer half of our society and that the money has come from the poorer half. That's redistribution of wealth in the wrong direction?! That's a fact, not rhetoric. Hardly "we're all in it together"!
At the same time as giving tax breaks to the more wealthy and business the Chancellor is taking £4 Billion + from the most disabled - I think that this is unfair - as do a fare few Tories.
As I said before I am not against tax cuts but don't think they should be funded at the expense of the less well off and the most disabled. Apart from anything else it's pretty poor politics .
That was completely different to what I was referring to.
Also that's not how the Budget works. The tax cuts are designed to invoke stimulus. Short term losses to be made up by long term gains. It isn't a simple double entry ledger with 'poor people' on one side and 'rich people' on the other. The redistribution gap in reality is still increasing ie the rich are paying more in and the poorest are receiving more.
Given that the Tory changes to the tax system have been predominantly regressive, this only serves to highlight that the rich have increasingly more than the poor.
As for your nonsense about middle class spending stimulus, as someone that benefits from the tax changes, I am then being offered a 25% return to lock that and more up in a lifetime ISA! Will that provide a 'poor person' with a job? Maybe an extra postman to bring me statements detailing all of my lovely money?
It's bullshit. The vulnerable are hit hardest time after time under Conservative governments. I haven't bothered working out my net position from this budget, a couple of grand a year better off maybe with the lifetime ISA and the tax band changes. Without wanting to sound like a dick, £40 per week is fairly inconsequential to me - I won't suddenly think 'oh, let's go and spend a little bit of extra money'.
Compare that to someone unfit to work and living on paltry benefits to get by for whom that £2k per annum would make a significant difference to their quality of life - and what's more, they will spend the money, genuine spending stimulus - give it to the likes of me and it gets locked up in a tax efficient pension pot or something.
I should have made it clear I was talking about national budgets in general, not specifically about this Tory budget. I was stating two facts; that the rich are paying more in tax and receiving less than they have in recent history, and that just because there is a cut in one area of spending and a tax cut does not mean that the spending cut is funding the tax cut.
Also changes have not been predominantly regressive, more people at the bottom have been lifted out of paying tax than they were in 2010.
The top 40% of UK taxpayers are the only ones who pay more in than they get out in terms of benefits and public spending. The bottom 60% are all net gainers.
But why let facts get in the way of pointless rhetoric?
It isn't pointless rhetoric.
Analysis of the budget suggests that 85% of those who benifit are from the richer half of our society and that the money has come from the poorer half. That's redistribution of wealth in the wrong direction?! That's a fact, not rhetoric. Hardly "we're all in it together"!
At the same time as giving tax breaks to the more wealthy and business the Chancellor is taking £4 Billion + from the most disabled - I think that this is unfair - as do a fare few Tories.
As I said before I am not against tax cuts but don't think they should be funded at the expense of the less well off and the most disabled. Apart from anything else it's pretty poor politics .
That was completely different to what I was referring to.
Also that's not how the Budget works. The tax cuts are designed to invoke stimulus. Short term losses to be made up by long term gains. It isn't a simple double entry ledger with 'poor people' on one side and 'rich people' on the other. The redistribution gap in reality is still increasing ie the rich are paying more in and the poorest are receiving more.
As for your nonsense about middle class spending stimulus, as someone that benefits from the tax changes, I am then being offered a 25% return to lock that and more up in a lifetime ISA! Will that provide a 'poor person' with a job? Maybe an extra postman to bring me statements detailing all of my lovely money?
What do you think happens to your money? Do you think it gets counted and popped in a vault somewhere until you ask for it back?
No, it goes out to work by getting itself lent to, say, a business that needs funds to expand. Thus creating more growth and more employment.
The top 40% of UK taxpayers are the only ones who pay more in than they get out in terms of benefits and public spending. The bottom 60% are all net gainers.
But why let facts get in the way of pointless rhetoric?
It isn't pointless rhetoric.
Analysis of the budget suggests that 85% of those who benifit are from the richer half of our society and that the money has come from the poorer half. That's redistribution of wealth in the wrong direction?! That's a fact, not rhetoric. Hardly "we're all in it together"!
At the same time as giving tax breaks to the more wealthy and business the Chancellor is taking £4 Billion + from the most disabled - I think that this is unfair - as do a fare few Tories.
As I said before I am not against tax cuts but don't think they should be funded at the expense of the less well off and the most disabled. Apart from anything else it's pretty poor politics .
That was completely different to what I was referring to.
Also that's not how the Budget works. The tax cuts are designed to invoke stimulus. Short term losses to be made up by long term gains. It isn't a simple double entry ledger with 'poor people' on one side and 'rich people' on the other. The redistribution gap in reality is still increasing ie the rich are paying more in and the poorest are receiving more.
As for your nonsense about middle class spending stimulus, as someone that benefits from the tax changes, I am then being offered a 25% return to lock that and more up in a lifetime ISA! Will that provide a 'poor person' with a job? Maybe an extra postman to bring me statements detailing all of my lovely money?
What do you think happens to your money? Do you think it gets counted and popped in a vault somewhere until you ask for it back?
No, it goes out to work by getting itself lent to, say, a business that needs funds to expand. Thus creating more growth and more employment.
Very droll. Yes, I assumed that I would actually be able to request the gold that my banknote promises to pay the bearer of.
And why would the business need to expand if there is a decrease in demand in the economy because you have taken the money from people that would spend it and given it to someone who will save it (hence, net decrease in demand)?
Are we now going to argue that saving stimulates an economy? That rich people stockpiling vast amounts of wealth (certainly not talking about me now!) helps businesses to expand because the nice old bank manager will lend it out to fledgling businesses?
Even if you could successfully argue as much, to whose benefit? Increasing the wealth of the already wealthy? An increasing GDP has become like the holy grail, it only matters if it is equitably distributed.
I usually stay out of these threads but to claim tax cuts for stimulus with such a significant incentive to save is disingenuous.
Ian Duncan Smith on Andrew Marr today. Talk about shameless hypocrisy, he tries to portray himself as Mother Teresa in it to help people, no political ambition...remind me, did he not fight to become leader of the Tories, and win? Poor love, he must think everybody watching would be reaching for their hankies, or putting on a proper suit, doing up their ties, and holding his hand as together the national anthem is sung. Tell you what Ian, if you care that much, resign and do the 9pm to 7.45am shift in a care home for a couple of years. Good old traditional political hypocrisy from this vomit of a man. FFS this country voted him in, so we are obliged to accept this 'winner'.
I thought the rich were the poor, just having made a bit of cash along the way?
I think you might also find that there are an awful lot of rich people that havn't lifted a finger in all their lives. The wealth they have has just been passed down the generations made easy by the system.
I'm not suggesting that we shouldn't be able to pass on wealth before anybody asks.
I thought the rich were the poor, just having made a bit of cash along the way?
I think you might also find that there are an awful lot of rich people that havn't lifted a finger in all their lives. The wealth they have has just been passed down the generations made easy by the system.
I'm not suggesting that we shouldn't be able to pass on wealth before anybody asks.
Like some of our politicians.
It's a bit hard to see how rich Etonians and those from privileged backgrounds can have true empathy with those on the poverty line / living life with a disability or illness - take IDS' comment when he said that he could easily live on x-amount of pounds per week.
They must indeed be an awful lot. But when a Beckham junior inherits, why should he lift a finger? Where is the motivation? What system could there be, short of a communist style take over?
They must indeed be an awful lot. But when a Beckham junior inherits, why should he lift a finger? Where is the motivation? What system could there be, short of a communist style take over?
Just my opinion but there ought to be a limit to how much is passed on without tax. I don't know. Let's say £3 million. After that any inheritance should attract a progressive tax burden that rises as the figure goes up.
That means that the vast vast numbers of hard working people that do well in their businesses and careers can pass on their hard earned but these dynasties of land owning and property owning individuals. The Duke of Bedford springs to mind cannot just continue to be ridiculously wealthy just because they are ridiculously wealthy.
They must indeed be an awful lot. But when a Beckham junior inherits, why should he lift a finger? Where is the motivation? What system could there be, short of a communist style take over?
The Duke of Bedford springs to mind cannot just continue to be ridiculously wealthy just because they are ridiculously wealthy.
My partner once said to me that when if the landed gentry hit financial problems, they go and live FOC on the Hampton Court estate. Not sure how true that is, but they did make some cryptic comment about some houses related to the Tudor court living in the grounds last time I had a tour.
They must indeed be an awful lot. But when a Beckham junior inherits, why should he lift a finger? Where is the motivation? What system could there be, short of a communist style take over?
Just my opinion but there ought to be a limit to how much is passed on without tax. I don't know. Let's say £3 million. After that any inheritance should attract a progressive tax burden that rises as the figure goes up.
That means that the vast vast numbers of hard working people that do well in their businesses and careers can pass on their hard earned but these dynasties of land owning and property owning individuals. The Duke of Bedford springs to mind cannot just continue to be ridiculously wealthy just because they are ridiculously wealthy.
Am I missing something here - as far as I know this already exists and is called Inheritance Tax! Anything over £325k is taxed at 40%.
There are clever tax ruses to avoid some of this and gifts at least seven years before death do not count - but death taxes do very much exist.
They must indeed be an awful lot. But when a Beckham junior inherits, why should he lift a finger? Where is the motivation? What system could there be, short of a communist style take over?
Just my opinion but there ought to be a limit to how much is passed on without tax. I don't know. Let's say £3 million. After that any inheritance should attract a progressive tax burden that rises as the figure goes up.
That means that the vast vast numbers of hard working people that do well in their businesses and careers can pass on their hard earned but these dynasties of land owning and property owning individuals. The Duke of Bedford springs to mind cannot just continue to be ridiculously wealthy just because they are ridiculously wealthy.
I would agree with that concept. But now we are only talking of what, less than a few thousand people, out of 64 million?
Ian Duncan Smith on Andrew Marr today. Talk about shameless hypocrisy, he tries to portray himself as Mother Teresa in it to help people, no political ambition...remind me, did he not fight to become leader of the Tories, and win? Poor love, he must think everybody watching would be reaching for their hankies, or putting on a proper suit, doing up their ties, and holding his hand as together the national anthem is sung. Tell you what Ian, if you care that much, resign and do the 9pm to 7.45am shift in a care home for a couple of years. Good old traditional political hypocrisy from this vomit of a man. FFS this country voted him in, so we are obliged to accept this 'winner'.
Not sure you listened in enough detail Seth. And the thick layer of bile covering your post made it hard to believe.
He actually said he didn't need to join this government, and was persuaded to on certain conditions (which have now been withdrawn) and that he has no political ambition.
He wasn't talking about when he was a young thrusting politician.
The top 40% of UK taxpayers are the only ones who pay more in than they get out in terms of benefits and public spending. The bottom 60% are all net gainers.
But why let facts get in the way of pointless rhetoric?
It isn't pointless rhetoric.
Analysis of the budget suggests that 85% of those who benifit are from the richer half of our society and that the money has come from the poorer half. That's redistribution of wealth in the wrong direction?! That's a fact, not rhetoric. Hardly "we're all in it together"!
At the same time as giving tax breaks to the more wealthy and business the Chancellor is taking £4 Billion + from the most disabled - I think that this is unfair - as do a fare few Tories.
As I said before I am not against tax cuts but don't think they should be funded at the expense of the less well off and the most disabled. Apart from anything else it's pretty poor politics .
That was completely different to what I was referring to.
Also that's not how the Budget works. The tax cuts are designed to invoke stimulus. Short term losses to be made up by long term gains. It isn't a simple double entry ledger with 'poor people' on one side and 'rich people' on the other. The redistribution gap in reality is still increasing ie the rich are paying more in and the poorest are receiving more.
As for your nonsense about middle class spending stimulus, as someone that benefits from the tax changes, I am then being offered a 25% return to lock that and more up in a lifetime ISA! Will that provide a 'poor person' with a job? Maybe an extra postman to bring me statements detailing all of my lovely money?
What do you think happens to your money? Do you think it gets counted and popped in a vault somewhere until you ask for it back?
No, it goes out to work by getting itself lent to, say, a business that needs funds to expand. Thus creating more growth and more employment.
Very droll. Yes, I assumed that I would actually be able to request the gold that my banknote promises to pay the bearer of.
And why would the business need to expand if there is a decrease in demand in the economy because you have taken the money from people that would spend it and given it to someone who will save it (hence, net decrease in demand)?
Are we now going to argue that saving stimulates an economy? That rich people stockpiling vast amounts of wealth (certainly not talking about me now!) helps businesses to expand because the nice old bank manager will lend it out to fledgling businesses?
Even if you could successfully argue as much, to whose benefit? Increasing the wealth of the already wealthy? An increasing GDP has become like the holy grail, it only matters if it is equitably distributed.
I usually stay out of these threads but to claim tax cuts for stimulus with such a significant incentive to save is disingenuous.
First, of course, you can't ask for gold, no. We came off the gold standard some little while ago. However, the "I promise to pay the bearer on demand the sum of Five Pounds" thing is not an entirely worthless promise. The Bank of England (well, De La Rue on the Bank's behalf actually) don't just print money willy nilly. For each and every note in circulation - the liabilities, if you like, the Bank holds an equivalent value as assets. Most of the assets were acquired as part of the "Loan to Asset Purchase Facility". Commonly but unhelpfully called quantitative easing. So for each of your fivers, the BoE will be holding some form of high grade commercial instrument, bonds or whatever to back it.*
Second, there is not a decrease in demand. The economy is still growing albeit more slowly that hoped. So, lots of businesses need to expand and most likely need to borrow the capital to achieve that. By way of example, Jaguar Land Rover's announcement last year that it will be employing an extra 1,300 people. Or Aston Martin's recent announcement that it will be creating 750 jobs in Wales. Or McClaren's announcement that it will be investing £1bn in a range of 15 new cars and is expanding its facility in Woking which needs an extra 900 parking spaces. All this type of stuff is done with borrowed money. It is wealth creating.
Third, we most certainly are going to argue that saving stimulates the economy. That money works hard. Either as everyday regular savings in a bank which is on-lent to others or maybe as shares or corporate bonds in a company. This equity is the very lifeblood that enables companies to actually exist at all.
Finally, you ask who benefits. Well, of course, the wealthy but also absolutely everybody else. From the 6.9mn households with a mortgage, from the individuals who have benefited from being able to buy stuff using the outstanding personal debt which is around £1.400 trillion. Or the consumer credit of £160bn. Right down to everybody who ever uses a credit card, even if they pay it off each month. All that stuff keeps the economy and industry turning. Without savings, no one could own a house as there'd be no money available to lend to them and we would all be dead in the water.
*The BoE is actually making a very healthy profit on the interest/dividends on all these instruments it is holding. last year it paid £19mn in tax and another £93mn to HMT "in lieu of dividend".
They must indeed be an awful lot. But when a Beckham junior inherits, why should he lift a finger? Where is the motivation? What system could there be, short of a communist style take over?
Just my opinion but there ought to be a limit to how much is passed on without tax. I don't know. Let's say £3 million. After that any inheritance should attract a progressive tax burden that rises as the figure goes up.
That means that the vast vast numbers of hard working people that do well in their businesses and careers can pass on their hard earned but these dynasties of land owning and property owning individuals. The Duke of Bedford springs to mind cannot just continue to be ridiculously wealthy just because they are ridiculously wealthy.
Am I missing something here - as far as I know this already exists and is called Inheritance Tax! Anything over £325k is taxed at 40%.
There are clever tax ruses to avoid some of this and gifts at least seven years before death do not count - but death taxes do very much exist.
Oh I agree it exists already but does anyone actually think that these mega rich people pay even a fraction of that 40% if any at all. It's what I meant by saying the system makes it easy for them.
I also fully accept that a lot of these mega rich are also hard workers but the general concept that there are still thousands and thousands of mega rich wastrels being wealthy beyond most people's dreams just because (some) of their ancestors were bigger crooks and exploiters than the rest of us.
They must indeed be an awful lot. But when a Beckham junior inherits, why should he lift a finger? Where is the motivation? What system could there be, short of a communist style take over?
Just my opinion but there ought to be a limit to how much is passed on without tax. I don't know. Let's say £3 million. After that any inheritance should attract a progressive tax burden that rises as the figure goes up.
That means that the vast vast numbers of hard working people that do well in their businesses and careers can pass on their hard earned but these dynasties of land owning and property owning individuals. The Duke of Bedford springs to mind cannot just continue to be ridiculously wealthy just because they are ridiculously wealthy.
I would agree with that concept. But now we are only talking of what, less than a few thousand people, out of 64 million?
Get up to central London and have a look at the wealth dripping from the property. We're not talking a few thousand people here.
They must indeed be an awful lot. But when a Beckham junior inherits, why should he lift a finger? Where is the motivation? What system could there be, short of a communist style take over?
Just my opinion but there ought to be a limit to how much is passed on without tax. I don't know. Let's say £3 million. After that any inheritance should attract a progressive tax burden that rises as the figure goes up.
That means that the vast vast numbers of hard working people that do well in their businesses and careers can pass on their hard earned but these dynasties of land owning and property owning individuals. The Duke of Bedford springs to mind cannot just continue to be ridiculously wealthy just because they are ridiculously wealthy.
What you suggest sounds very similar to the Belgium (I wonder why I thought of that country?) model. Even a spouse gets clobbered with 30% over a quite small threshold and there's a sliding scale which would hit a non-relative beneficiary getting over €175,000 with a massive 80% tax.
Of course, in reality it's all layers of tax on tax on tax. The tax man gets it all, many times over in the end. Even a regular guy in the UK has to work until the fag end of April each year before he starts to earn money that doesn't go in income tax or NICs. Anyone on more than £150k would have to wait another full month before he started taking home his own money. Anything that's not already taxed and we spend thereafter gets hit for a nice 16.67% slice of VAT. Fuel and booze duty, VAT on power, insurance, then another nice couple of thousand to your local council, car tax, tax on savings interest, capital gains tax, inheritance tax, stamp duty on buying a house or any equities, I'm sure there's more I've left out. Frankly it's a wonder anybody has any money at all.
Comments
But why let facts get in the way of pointless rhetoric?
Analysis of the budget suggests that 85% of those who benifit are from the richer half of our society and that the money has come from the poorer half. That's redistribution of wealth in the wrong direction?! That's a fact, not rhetoric. Hardly "we're all in it together"!
At the same time as giving tax breaks to the more wealthy and business the Chancellor is taking £4 Billion + from the most disabled - I think that this is unfair - as do a fare few Tories.
As I said before I am not against tax cuts but don't think they should be funded at the expense of the less well off and the most disabled. Apart from anything else it's pretty poor politics .
Also that's not how the Budget works. The tax cuts are designed to invoke stimulus. Short term losses to be made up by long term gains. It isn't a simple double entry ledger with 'poor people' on one side and 'rich people' on the other. The redistribution gap in reality is still increasing ie the rich are paying more in and the poorest are receiving more.
I showed above how an earner of £125k with two children pays £10k more now than a few years back, an indication of the richer making additional contribution and not showing the poor funding the rich.
Even if that hadn't happened I don't see how the poor are funding the rich anyway.....
As for your nonsense about middle class spending stimulus, as someone that benefits from the tax changes, I am then being offered a 25% return to lock that and more up in a lifetime ISA! Will that provide a 'poor person' with a job? Maybe an extra postman to bring me statements detailing all of my lovely money?
It's bullshit. The vulnerable are hit hardest time after time under Conservative governments. I haven't bothered working out my net position from this budget, a couple of grand a year better off maybe with the lifetime ISA and the tax band changes. Without wanting to sound like a dick, £40 per week is fairly inconsequential to me - I won't suddenly think 'oh, let's go and spend a little bit of extra money'.
Compare that to someone unfit to work and living on paltry benefits to get by for whom that £2k per annum would make a significant difference to their quality of life - and what's more, they will spend the money, genuine spending stimulus - give it to the likes of me and it gets locked up in a tax efficient pension pot or something.
Also changes have not been predominantly regressive, more people at the bottom have been lifted out of paying tax than they were in 2010.
No, it goes out to work by getting itself lent to, say, a business that needs funds to expand. Thus creating more growth and more employment.
And why would the business need to expand if there is a decrease in demand in the economy because you have taken the money from people that would spend it and given it to someone who will save it (hence, net decrease in demand)?
Are we now going to argue that saving stimulates an economy? That rich people stockpiling vast amounts of wealth (certainly not talking about me now!) helps businesses to expand because the nice old bank manager will lend it out to fledgling businesses?
Even if you could successfully argue as much, to whose benefit? Increasing the wealth of the already wealthy? An increasing GDP has become like the holy grail, it only matters if it is equitably distributed.
I usually stay out of these threads but to claim tax cuts for stimulus with such a significant incentive to save is disingenuous.
Talk about shameless hypocrisy, he tries to portray himself as Mother Teresa in it to help people, no political ambition...remind me, did he not fight to become leader of the Tories, and win?
Poor love, he must think everybody watching would be reaching for their hankies, or putting on a proper suit, doing up their ties, and holding his hand as together the national anthem is sung.
Tell you what Ian, if you care that much, resign and do the 9pm to 7.45am shift in a care home for a couple of years.
Good old traditional political hypocrisy from this vomit of a man. FFS this country voted him in, so we are obliged to accept this 'winner'.
I'm not suggesting that we shouldn't be able to pass on wealth before anybody asks.
It's a bit hard to see how rich Etonians and those from privileged backgrounds can have true empathy with those on the poverty line / living life with a disability or illness - take IDS' comment when he said that he could easily live on x-amount of pounds per week.
But when a Beckham junior inherits, why should he lift a finger? Where is the motivation?
What system could there be, short of a communist style take over?
That means that the vast vast numbers of hard working people that do well in their businesses and careers can pass on their hard earned but these dynasties of land owning and property owning individuals. The Duke of Bedford springs to mind cannot just continue to be ridiculously wealthy just because they are ridiculously wealthy.
There are clever tax ruses to avoid some of this and gifts at least seven years before death do not count - but death taxes do very much exist.
But now we are only talking of what, less than a few thousand people, out of 64 million?
And the thick layer of bile covering your post made it hard to believe.
He actually said he didn't need to join this government, and was persuaded to on certain conditions (which have now been withdrawn) and that he has no political ambition.
He wasn't talking about when he was a young thrusting politician.
Second, there is not a decrease in demand. The economy is still growing albeit more slowly that hoped. So, lots of businesses need to expand and most likely need to borrow the capital to achieve that. By way of example, Jaguar Land Rover's announcement last year that it will be employing an extra 1,300 people. Or Aston Martin's recent announcement that it will be creating 750 jobs in Wales. Or McClaren's announcement that it will be investing £1bn in a range of 15 new cars and is expanding its facility in Woking which needs an extra 900 parking spaces. All this type of stuff is done with borrowed money. It is wealth creating.
Third, we most certainly are going to argue that saving stimulates the economy. That money works hard. Either as everyday regular savings in a bank which is on-lent to others or maybe as shares or corporate bonds in a company. This equity is the very lifeblood that enables companies to actually exist at all.
Finally, you ask who benefits. Well, of course, the wealthy but also absolutely everybody else. From the 6.9mn households with a mortgage, from the individuals who have benefited from being able to buy stuff using the outstanding personal debt which is around £1.400 trillion. Or the consumer credit of £160bn. Right down to everybody who ever uses a credit card, even if they pay it off each month. All that stuff keeps the economy and industry turning. Without savings, no one could own a house as there'd be no money available to lend to them and we would all be dead in the water.
*The BoE is actually making a very healthy profit on the interest/dividends on all these instruments it is holding. last year it paid £19mn in tax and another £93mn to HMT "in lieu of dividend".
I also fully accept that a lot of these mega rich are also hard workers but the general concept that there are still thousands and thousands of mega rich wastrels being wealthy beyond most people's dreams just because (some) of their ancestors were bigger crooks and exploiters than the rest of us.
Of course, in reality it's all layers of tax on tax on tax. The tax man gets it all, many times over in the end. Even a regular guy in the UK has to work until the fag end of April each year before he starts to earn money that doesn't go in income tax or NICs. Anyone on more than £150k would have to wait another full month before he started taking home his own money. Anything that's not already taxed and we spend thereafter gets hit for a nice 16.67% slice of VAT. Fuel and booze duty, VAT on power, insurance, then another nice couple of thousand to your local council, car tax, tax on savings interest, capital gains tax, inheritance tax, stamp duty on buying a house or any equities, I'm sure there's more I've left out. Frankly it's a wonder anybody has any money at all.