Hey there Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Think tank argues for 15% income tax

Announcements Posted on
    • 8 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    lol @ this idea. Way to create a social underclass that can't afford healthcare, medicine or roads.
    • 6 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MagicNMedicine)
    Interesting report out by the Institute of Economic Affairs, arguing that growth will return to the UK economy through a major tax reduction plan:

    http://www.iea.org.uk/sites/default/...Axes%20web.pdf

    They are recommending a flat rate of income tax at 15%, personal tax allowance of £12000, Corporation tax of 15%, NI reduced to 10% with option to contract out of some of the benefits.

    They argue that those tax rates could be sustainable if the government got serious about cutting the state:

    - Scrapping the NHS and replacing it with a 'catastrophe' insurance system and requiring people to make health savings accounts to finance their healthcare needs (and deter them from overconsuming health services)

    - Making parents of children at state schools pay for a quarter of the cost of the education. Scrapping social engineering mechanisms like the pupil premium, Sure Start and government subsidies of STEM areas in universities(Science Technology Engineering and Maths)

    - Scrapping freebies for pensioners (bus pass, tv licence, winter fuel allowance, married couples allowance for pensioners).

    - Running a more efficient military by reducing Navy personnel from 35000 to 15000, army from 102000 to 62000, RAF from 38000 to 18-23000 and ending "futile military interventions"

    - Scrapping overseas aid

    - Removing middle class benefit entitlements, introducing a flat rate of housing benefit, requiring benefit recipients to work.

    - Rolling out tolls and road pricing and privatising motorways to deter congestion by forcing people to pay for their use.


    Interesting and radical ideas...
    Have that think tank been reading free lunch?
    • 12 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    So a think tank run by wealthy former lawyers, city types and Oxbridge academics leading a life funded entirely by the taxpayer want to drastically impoverish pensioners and remove the NHS from everyone who can't save a large amount and pay the sort of crippling insurance premiums that operate in the US. Nice.

    Mysteriously, funding for Oxford academics and the massive taxpayer support/handouts for the banks are absent from the list. Surprise.
    • 7 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Erich Hartmann)
    That's actually an extremely stupid idea.
    :aetsch:

    (Original post by Erich Hartmann)
    Corporate tax rarely ever change anything, else almost every company would be operating from tax havens or even Ireland.
    It wasn't the idea of bringing in companies in that was behind it, rather the notion of taxing profits that seems absurd to me, seeing as business owners are double taxed, either on their dividend payments or capital gains. Taxing profits to me is the nearest proxy we have to "a tax on enterprise". I would make the tax on dividend/capital gains equivalent and remove the tax shield for debt FYI, but that's a post for another thread.

    (Original post by Erich Hartmann)
    Other than that, vast majority of taxes can be offset by depreciation. without taxes there would be no need for depreciation and then we would see companies not investing in new technologies or machinery. There won't be any incentive for this.
    That's a big leap of faith in judgement. I could equally argue we over invest in machinery due to the tax shield for capital investment and don't put enough money into R&D, say. I don't believe R&D is tax deductible in the same way machinery (depreciation) is? Regardless the tax system at present is distortionary.

    (Original post by Erich Hartmann)
    Taxes also help lower your cost of capital when you have to borrow....remember your finance formulas, interest can always be offset from taxes when calculating the WACC.
    See above.
    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WelshBluebird)
    Why not?
    Army - would you really want to live in a world of private armies?
    Elderly - so how will we fund care for the elderly that many people simply cannot afford?
    Healthcare - again, what about people who cannot afford private healthcare?

    Of course, that is ignoring the idelogical and practical viewpoints of some services being so important that the service needs to be the top concern, not profit.

    Private armies are a bad idea. But vast state owned ones are a waste of resources, we should reduce the size of the armed forces, with our nuclear deterrent we are unlikely to engage in any sort of defensive war any time in the near future, that leaves us with only our UN obligations. No need to get involved in Libya etc.

    It doesn't matter how old someone is, if they are too lazy to work or to stupid to save, then they shouldn't get squat. Those who have paid into current schemes should get what they are promised. But we should stop the state pension altogether, and scrap all this nonsense about winter fuel and free buss passes.

    Healthcare - Why should I pay for another persons healthcare? If I look after myself, keep fit and healthy and pay a lower private premium, whereas people who abuse their body with drink, drugs, tobacco, obesity etc. should have to foot their own bill.

    Of course, Children should be given healthcare as they are not old enough to provide for themselves, and possibly this could be extended to young adults. But certainly anyone in their early twenties should be able to take responsibility for their own lifestyle, and not rely upon a handout. I resent taking money out of my pocket to pay for people who have made themselves obese or otherwise unwell. If they can't afford healthcare, they die.
    • 12 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by obstupefacere)
    Private armies are a bad idea. But vast state owned ones are a waste of resources, we should reduce the size of the armed forces, with our nuclear deterrent we are unlikely to engage in any sort of defensive war any time in the near future, that leaves us with only our UN obligations. No need to get involved in Libya etc.

    It doesn't matter how old someone is, if they are too lazy to work or to stupid to save, then they shouldn't get squat. Those who have paid into current schemes should get what they are promised. But we should stop the state pension altogether, and scrap all this nonsense about winter fuel and free buss passes.

    Healthcare - Why should I pay for another persons healthcare? If I look after myself, keep fit and healthy and pay a lower private premium, whereas people who abuse their body with drink, drugs, tobacco, obesity etc. should have to foot their own bill.

    Of course, Children should be given healthcare as they are not old enough to provide for themselves, and possibly this could be extended to young adults. But certainly anyone in their early twenties should be able to take responsibility for their own lifestyle, and not rely upon a handout. I resent taking money out of my pocket to pay for people who have made themselves obese or otherwise unwell. If they can't afford healthcare, they die.
    Do you have the same opinion about healthcare with regard to your own parents/grandparents, or in this deranged, vicious world you envisage, would you also allow them to die if they did not have the money and you didn't? Just to be clear, what about things like roads - would they be handed over to a bank and sold to each householder and so on? And parks in London and other cities - sold off in parcels and patrolled by security people to keep non-owners off?
    • 17 followers
    Online

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by obstupefacere)
    Private armies are a bad idea. But vast state owned ones are a waste of resources, we should reduce the size of the armed forces, with our nuclear deterrent we are unlikely to engage in any sort of defensive war any time in the near future, that leaves us with only our UN obligations. No need to get involved in Libya etc.
    I'd agree. But it would still require state funding.

    (Original post by obstupefacere)
    It doesn't matter how old someone is, if they are too lazy to work or to stupid to save, then they shouldn't get squat. Those who have paid into current schemes should get what they are promised. But we should stop the state pension altogether, and scrap all this nonsense about winter fuel and free buss passes.
    I awsn't talking about healthy old people. I was talking about those who get illnesses and such. My Gran had alzheimer's. If we did not have the NHS, then my family would have had to have found several hundred thousand pounds to pay for her care. That is just not possible for the vast majority of families, and saving up that kind of money is not possible for most people either.

    (Original post by obstupefacere)
    Healthcare - Why should I pay for another persons healthcare? If I look after myself, keep fit and healthy and pay a lower private premium, whereas people who abuse their body with drink, drugs, tobacco, obesity etc. should have to foot their own bill..
    Because everyone who needs healthcare does it to themselves :rolleyes:
    I suppose you would say my friend who has leukemia should have to get into tens or hundreds of thousands of pounds worth of debt for her treatment?
    Or what about someone who is born with a genetic condition?
    Or what about someone who is severally disabled thanks to an accident and now has to have round the clock care?

    (Original post by obstupefacere)
    Of course, Children should be given healthcare as they are not old enough to provide for themselves, and possibly this could be extended to young adults. But certainly anyone in their early twenties should be able to take responsibility for their own lifestyle, and not rely upon a handout. I resent taking money out of my pocket to pay for people who have made themselves obese or otherwise unwell. If they can't afford healthcare, they die.
    As above, you really think all illnesses are because of someones lifestyle? Really? Talk about being naive.
    • 12 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    One of the things these right-wing psuedo-attacks on "public spending" frequently ignore is the vast largesse directed at private corporations by taxpayers.

    Right now for example:

    - banks obtain free capital from the Bank of England (because of the effectively zero interest rate) which they use to speculate in food and other commodities, driving the price of everything from oil to wheat sky-high and pocketing the proceeds. If their "bets" in the "markets" fail, they come back to the taxpayer to be bailed out.

    - corporations gain many tax breaks, for example by making money here in the UK but sending it abroad to be taxed.

    - the government directly subsidise entire industries, like private aviation, by way of vast hidden subsidies and reduced taxes on kerosene

    - huge amounts are given to private drug companies by the NHS at inflated prices via cosy protectionist deals

    These are just a few of the ways. You won't hear these being brought up in rants against "sponging off the state" but they far, far outweigh the trivial amounts spent on unemployed people and the like.

    Nothing must stop the corporate dole welfare conveyer belt.
    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WelshBluebird)
    I'd agree. But it would still require state funding.

    I awsn't talking about healthy old people. I was talking about those who get illnesses and such. My Gran had alzheimer's. If we did not have the NHS, then my family would have had to have found several hundred thousand pounds to pay for her care. That is just not possible for the vast majority of families, and saving up that kind of money is not possible for most people either.

    Because everyone who needs healthcare does it to themselves :rolleyes:
    I suppose you would say my friend who has leukemia should have to get into tens or hundreds of thousands of pounds worth of debt for her treatment?
    Or what about someone who is born with a genetic condition?
    Or what about someone who is severally disabled thanks to an accident and now has to have round the clock care?

    As above, you really think all illnesses are because of someones lifestyle? Really? Talk about being naive.

    - Yes any army should be state funded.

    - If we didn't have the NHS, then no doubt you would have insurance to cover the cost of any healthcare.

    - Not everyone who gets ill is responsible for their illness, but they should be responsible for providing their own healthcare. If they are too idle to work and put money into insurance, they shouldn't get healthcare. I shouldn't be having to look after other people who are incompetent to look after themselves. Life is hard enough without carrying other people.

    - So your gran, or your friend with leukemia would either fund their treatment with insurance, private funds, or not get treatment. Sorry if that sounds harsh but an appeal to emotion is a fallacy I don't feel like falling for.

    - People who are severely disabled from birth were not able to undertake their own schemes for insurance, and so the state should support them. But anyone who becomes disabled after reaching adulthood is responsible for themselves.
    • 7 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by obstupefacere)
    - So your gran, or your friend with leukemia would either fund their treatment with insurance, private funds, or not get treatment. Sorry if that sounds harsh but an appeal to emotion is a fallacy I don't feel like falling for.
    Having a serious illness shouldn't bankrupt anyone. It's not people's fault if they get cancer, it's not a "choice" like most things are in an economy. Don't be so heartless.
    • 8 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    IEA comes up with stupid idea that basically reads like Thatcherbation.
    In other news, journalists have no conception of privacy, bears sh*t in woods

    EDIT: right, I attempted to give this a look, in the spirit of fairness and debate (read - in order to crush it). I got as far as 'market-based approach to climate change' and was so torn between bursting out laughing and crying with frustration that I had to stop.
    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gradjobplease)
    Having a serious illness shouldn't bankrupt anyone. It's not people's fault if they get cancer, it's not a "choice" like most things are in an economy. Don't be so heartless.
    Heck, we could say having no qualifications shouldn't bankrupt someone, or having no job shouldn't bankrupt someone... I mean we have to draw the line somewhere.

    I draw the line at freedom. I want the free choice what I do with my money, not be strong armed by a nanny state into supporting people who were too daft to buy insurance.

    It is not ethical that people ladle responsibility for their lives onto others, they should take personal responsibility for their choices.

    It is not being heartless, it is being fair.
    • 17 followers
    Online

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by obstupefacere)
    - If we didn't have the NHS, then no doubt you would have insurance to cover the cost of any healthcare.
    And if you couldn't afford insurance? Or if the insurance would not cover you?

    (Original post by obstupefacere)
    - Not everyone who gets ill is responsible for their illness, but they should be responsible for providing their own healthcare. If they are too idle to work and put money into insurance, they shouldn't get healthcare. I shouldn't be having to look after other people who are incompetent to look after themselves. Life is hard enough without carrying other people.
    Read above.
    And I don't see how getting cancer, or being disabled is the same as "being too incompetent to look after yourself".

    (Original post by obstupefacere)
    - So your gran, or your friend with leukemia would either fund their treatment with insurance, private funds, or not get treatment. Sorry if that sounds harsh but an appeal to emotion is a fallacy I don't feel like falling for.
    It wasn't an appeal to emotion. Its an appeal to reason. I certainly do not want to live in a country where millions of people suffer because of selfish bastards. Where we discard the old and ill to fend for themselves just to boost the bank balance of those who are more fortunante.

    In any case, as I said above, what if they could not afford insurance / private care? What if they cannot be insured (health insurance will not cover everything).

    (Original post by obstupefacere)
    - People who are severely disabled from birth were not able to undertake their own schemes for insurance, and so the state should support them. But anyone who becomes disabled after reaching adulthood is responsible for themselves.
    I am sorry, but that is a ****ing vile attitude to have and I am thankful that you are in the minority.
    • 17 followers
    Online

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by obstupefacere)
    It is not being heartless, it is being fair.
    Fair? You are ****ing deluded if you think letting people to suffer and die is called "being fair".
    • 7 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by obstupefacere)
    Heck, we could say having no qualifications shouldn't bankrupt someone, or having no job shouldn't bankrupt someone... I mean we have to draw the line somewhere.

    I draw the line at freedom. I want the free choice what I do with my money, not be strong armed by a nanny state into supporting people who were too daft to buy insurance.

    It is not ethical that people ladle responsibility for their lives onto others, they should take personal responsibility for their choices.

    It is not being heartless, it is being fair.
    No accepted definition for ethical, freedom or fair I'm afraid, so don't use them as an excuse. I'd like the freedom not to die if I found myself in poverty, thanks.

    I'll happily see the rich afford a lesser Mercedes to save someone's life. Let me guess, you're not poor are you? We have to tax the rich because they wouldn't give the equivalent to charity.
    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WelshBluebird)
    And if you couldn't afford insurance? Or if the insurance would not cover you?

    Read above.
    And I don't see how getting cancer, or being disabled is the same as "being too incompetent to look after yourself".

    It wasn't an appeal to emotion. Its an appeal to reason. I certainly do not want to live in a country where millions of people suffer because of selfish bastards. Where we discard the old and ill to fend for themselves just to boost the bank balance of those who are more fortunante.

    In any case, as I said above, what if they could not afford insurance / private care? What if they cannot be insured (health insurance will not cover everything).

    I am sorry, but that is a ****ing vile attitude to have and I am thankful that you are in the minority.

    - If you can't afford insurance then get a job.

    - If you get cancer or any other illness, it was your responsibility to get insurance before you were ill. If you did not think of the future then you get whats coming.

    - I pay more tax than the poor. I don't mind paying for infrastructure, armed forces, justice system etc. But when it comes to healthcare, which they can afford themselves, they contribute less to the pot, I don't know why they should come grasping for even more - they should take some responsibility for their lives.

    - The only people who can't get insured are those who are disabled from birth, as I have said before, they should get state support as they have not had the chance to put into action plans for themselves.

    - What is vile about telling adult human beings to pay for their own products?

    Why don't you go and buy me a new bleeding car? Because it is my bloody responsibility and not yours. The same goes for healthcare products.


    Fair is me paying more tax as I earn more income. Fair is not me paying for absolutely every single thing every single scrounger wants or needs. In the adult world we are meant to look after ourselves, I don't know how someone can feel sorry for lazy and stupid people who can't get jobs, or who refuse to buy insurance.
    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gradjobplease)
    No accepted definition for ethical, freedom or fair I'm afraid, so don't use them as an excuse. I'd like the freedom not to die if I found myself in poverty, thanks.

    I'll happily see the rich afford a lesser Mercedes to save someone's life. Let me guess, you're not poor are you? We have to tax the rich because they wouldn't give the equivalent to charity.

    And why should they give to charity?

    Since when does anyone have a right to a handout. No one gave me a darn handout. And even if they do have a right to one, it's not my responsibility to hold their hand.
    • 8 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MagicNMedicine)
    Interesting report out by the Institute of Economic Affairs, arguing that growth will return to the UK economy through a major tax reduction plan:

    http://www.iea.org.uk/sites/default/...Axes%20web.pdf

    They are recommending a flat rate of income tax at 15%, personal tax allowance of £12000, Corporation tax of 15%, NI reduced to 10% with option to contract out of some of the benefits.

    They argue that those tax rates could be sustainable if the government got serious about cutting the state:

    - Scrapping the NHS and replacing it with a 'catastrophe' insurance system and requiring people to make health savings accounts to finance their healthcare needs (and deter them from overconsuming health services)

    - Making parents of children at state schools pay for a quarter of the cost of the education. Scrapping social engineering mechanisms like the pupil premium, Sure Start and government subsidies of STEM areas in universities(Science Technology Engineering and Maths)

    - Scrapping freebies for pensioners (bus pass, tv licence, winter fuel allowance, married couples allowance for pensioners).

    - Running a more efficient military by reducing Navy personnel from 35000 to 15000, army from 102000 to 62000, RAF from 38000 to 18-23000 and ending "futile military interventions"

    - Scrapping overseas aid

    - Removing middle class benefit entitlements, introducing a flat rate of housing benefit, requiring benefit recipients to work.

    - Rolling out tolls and road pricing and privatising motorways to deter congestion by forcing people to pay for their use.


    Interesting and radical ideas...
    In all honesty I think that sounds like exactly what we need!
    • 7 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MagicNMedicine)
    Interesting report out by the Institute of Economic Affairs, arguing that growth will return to the UK economy through a major tax reduction plan:

    http://www.iea.org.uk/sites/default/...Axes%20web.pdf

    They are recommending a flat rate of income tax at 15%, personal tax allowance of £12000, Corporation tax of 15%, NI reduced to 10% with option to contract out of some of the benefits.

    They argue that those tax rates could be sustainable if the government got serious about cutting the state:

    - Scrapping the NHS and replacing it with a 'catastrophe' insurance system and requiring people to make health savings accounts to finance their healthcare needs (and deter them from overconsuming health services)

    - Making parents of children at state schools pay for a quarter of the cost of the education. Scrapping social engineering mechanisms like the pupil premium, Sure Start and government subsidies of STEM areas in universities(Science Technology Engineering and Maths)

    - Scrapping freebies for pensioners (bus pass, tv licence, winter fuel allowance, married couples allowance for pensioners).

    - Running a more efficient military by reducing Navy personnel from 35000 to 15000, army from 102000 to 62000, RAF from 38000 to 18-23000 and ending "futile military interventions"

    - Scrapping overseas aid

    - Removing middle class benefit entitlements, introducing a flat rate of housing benefit, requiring benefit recipients to work.

    - Rolling out tolls and road pricing and privatising motorways to deter congestion by forcing people to pay for their use.


    Interesting and radical ideas...
    Radical yes, interesting no. Just more idiotic nonsense from the economic far right.
    • 12 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by obstupefacere)
    And why should they give to charity?

    Since when does anyone have a right to a handout. No one gave me a darn handout. And even if they do have a right to one, it's not my responsibility to hold their hand.
    Are you planning to go to university or currently at a university? If so, you will/are enjoying an educational infrastructure built up over many years by the taxpayer. Do you regard that as a crime and if so, will you now please immediately remove yourself from that college and place yourself in a fully private institution for which you must pay in full please.

    Also, can you please stop driving on any roads or using any form of public transportation whatsoever, since all of that was provided out of taxpayer funds and it is quite improper that we taxpayers should allow someone such as yourself, who refused to pay, to have access to our facilities.

Reply

Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?

    this is what you'll be called on TSR

  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?

    never shared and never spammed

  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. By joining you agree to our Ts and Cs, privacy policy and site rules

  2. Slide the button to the right to create your account

    Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: July 18, 2011
New on TSR

Naughtiest thing you did at school

Did you get away with it or were you punished?

Article updates
Useful resources
Reputation gems:
You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.