REFERENDUM RESULTS AND DISCUSSION THREAD

[Paul]

Isn't that just pretty much increasing working tax credits.

When I work through Penkridge I find it a shame that virtually every other shop is now a charity shop.

As is most Staffordshire villages now I'm afraid !
ps. there always a bookies as well !!

 

[Penk Wolf]

OK next hand grenade as we seem to have some cracking views and real debate is going on here now

There is an argument for those who earn more pay more so why don't we introduce better tax bands? Here is my stab

12k nothing

Up to 20k 20%
Up to 40k 25%
Up to 50k 30%
Up to 60k 35%
Up to 100k 40%
Over 100k 45%

Married allowance double so 20 k before you pay views?

I'm all for giving the Government more to spend on the things they shouldn't be.

 

[Penk Wolf]

As is most Staffordshire villages now I'm afraid !
ps. there always a bookies as well !!

No, business rates, which gives them an advantage. I wonder how much of what they make actually goes to the charities?

 

[Paddingtonwolf]

Sorry but cutting the marginal tax rate of the vast majority of upper rate tax payers (not that many earn more than 100k) and paying for it by increasing the basic rate of tax from 22 to 25% is fucking mentalist.

 

[Deutsch Wolf]

Bit odd.

You would be really pissing off those just under the 40% barrier by putting their tax rate up from 22% to 25%, while rewarding those the other side of it hugely. Not a fan. At all

The problem is that 1980s capitalism and trickle down economics are now both proven failures. We either do or don't want properly funded public services - now I'll argue long and hard that the Tories could and should do more with the pot that's available, but further investment through a higher tax take would be extremely welcome. And if the extra money has to come from somewhere, I'd rather it come from taking an extra 3% from people on £35-40k a year than stripping benefit claimants of £70 odd quid a week or indulging in blatant ageism whereby the under 25s bizarrely earn less than everyone else, even if they're doing the exact same job.

Johnny's point about this money being expressly directed to the NHS is a good one and could be rigorously policed through FOI, I would go further and have explicit targets about what portion funds what.

 

[Paddingtonwolf]

Do that and a lot of voters will lose homes. And their mates down the road will be toasting being thousands a year better off. You can't do this. It is fucking inequitable.

 

[Deutsch Wolf]

3% of £40k is £1,200 (and in reality people wouldn't lose that much because your first £12k is free from tax etc etc). You think that is going to cause fairly well-off people to lose their homes?

Interest rates could rise 3% in a fairly short space of time, would that have a similarly apocalyptic end result?

 

[Deleted Cyber]

I don't have a problem with that in principle (adjusted), would prefer the higher rate tax earners (over £250K) to look at an 'investment tax' where they have to invest in a capital project either with other like minded folks or some sort of non-profit vehicle where the primary aim is to build infrastructure projects. This is not instead of their normal taxation, they are still liable for that, purely an extra tax (this is twice in 1 day Tredman).

I would also split the tax take into the old version of normal taxation and health tax (NI) whereby a percentage goes directly to the health service and can be tracked via freedom of information acts.

Good shout!

 

[MARKakaJIM]

3% of £40k is £1,200 (and in reality people wouldn't lose that much because your first £12k is free from tax etc etc). You think that is going to cause fairly well-off people to lose their homes?

Interest rates could rise 3% in a fairly short space of time, would that have a similarly apocalyptic end result?

I suppose it depends how tightly people have budgeted on mortgages/rents and such.

There are probably mates of mine who would probably be buggered by losing £100 a month from their income, not that they earn as much as £40k, judging by the way they're often itching for payday a week before it arrives. I'm sure there are other things they could cut from their spending before it came to losing their homes but I can't imagine it'd be much fun for them either way.

I imagine the interest rate rise could be a lot more damaging for many who've recently taken out a mortgage.

 

[Paddingtonwolf]

The point is why are you punishing a fuckload of people on £35k while rewarding to the tune of 10 fucking grand the people on £60k?

Sorry that is a fucking disgraceful idea.

 

[Tredman]

The rates aren't what I would choose, but the idea of progressive tax rates are a pretty decent idea.

 

[Deutsch Wolf]

The point is why are you punishing a fuckload of people on £35k while rewarding to the tune of 10 fucking grand the people on £60k?

Sorry that is a fucking disgraceful idea.

You can tweak the sums to suit and play with the thresholds, the point is that the era of "this is my money that I have earned, it is mine, everyone else can go swivel" should be over.

Those with the ability to pay more to help fund our services should do so. Unless we want to live in a dystopian right-wing future where inequality grows, companies pay next to nothing to base themselves here and earn profit and people are left destitute and dying.

 

[Paddingtonwolf]

You cannot do it that way though. You are hitting middle income earners horribly. The rates suggested by Cyber are just spectacularly unfair and do not in ANY WAY achieve "you earn more, you pay more"

The starting of the ramp up HAS to be in the upper tax bracket. You can then have further adjustments down from 22% on the basic should you wish.

 

[Paddingtonwolf]

You can tweak the sums to suit and play with the thresholds, the point is that the era of "this is my money that I have earned, it is mine, everyone else can go swivel" should be over.

Those with the ability to pay more to help fund our services should do so. Unless we want to live in a dystopian right-wing future where inequality grows, companies pay next to nothing to base themselves here and earn profit and people are left destitute and dying.

If we had £100 a month higher on our tax bill like that, we would lose the house within six months. AND WE RENT. We could no longer afford the rent. We would not be alone. So fucking cuntish idea.

 

[Deutsch Wolf]

I'm no tax expert and they aren't even my proposals so I'd stop flying off that particular handle.

Do you disagree that someone earning say, £70k a year at the moment could and should pay more in tax?

 

[Deleted Cyber]

The rates aren't what I would choose, but the idea of progressive tax rates are a pretty decent idea.

Cool its just my first stab to encourage debate. Would love to see your numbers.

I believe those who can work should work
I believe those who do work deserve a living wage
I believe those who earn the most pay the most tax.
I believe skivers and dodgers should be hounded
I believe lots of people agree with those sentiments broadly

 

[Paddingtonwolf]

No, not particularly no. They are already a higher rate earner.

 

[Paddingtonwolf]

Cool its just my first stab to encourage debate. Would love to see your numbers.

I believe those who can work should work
I believe those who do work deserve a living wage
I believe those who earn the most pay the most tax.
I believe skivers and dodgers should be hounded
I believe lots of people agree with those sentiments broadly

Well fucking suggest an idea that actually possibly achieves any of that. YOURS DOESNT.

 

[Deleted Cyber]

You cannot do it that way though. You are hitting middle income earners horribly. The rates suggested by Cyber are just spectacularly unfair and do not in ANY WAY achieve "you earn more, you pay more"

The starting of the ramp up HAS to be in the upper tax bracket. You can then have further adjustments down from 22% on the basic should you wish.

First stab in the dark padd! Would love to see your numbers. I just think that someone earning 20k and paying the same rate as someone earning double that is not right and we can do better

 

[Tredman]

Cool its just my first stab to encourage debate. Would love to see your numbers.

I believe those who can work should work
I believe those who do work deserve a living wage
I believe those who earn the most pay the most tax.
I believe skivers and dodgers should be hounded
I believe lots of people agree with those sentiments broadly

Similar to DW I don't know enough to decide where the breaks should be, I do think, though, that people need to accept that if you want better services you have to pay more tax. I'm a 40% tax payer and am willing to pay (slightly) more if required - the days of just considering yourself and your own personal income should be over.

I think you'd need to have tax rates going up to (and past?) 60% to make it work though.