Results are out! Find what you need...fast. Get quick advice or join the chat
Hey there! Sign in to have your say on this topicNew here? Join for free to post

Deeper cuts or higher taxes or more borrowing? POLL

Announcements Posted on
Applying to uni this year? Check out our new personal statement advice hub 28-11-2014
  • View Poll Results: Which would you prefer?
    Much deeper cuts and much lower taxes
    25
    24.04%
    Slightly deeper cuts and slightly lower taxes
    27
    25.96%
    No change in spending or taxation
    6
    5.77%
    Slightly more spending and slightly higher taxes
    16
    15.38%
    Much more spending and much higher taxes
    14
    13.46%
    Slightly more spending and slightly more borrowing
    7
    6.73%
    Much more spending and much more borrowing
    8
    7.69%
    Other - specify
    13
    12.50%

    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Virtus May)
    Ironic much? What about the rubbish that you're pulling from your own arse? The tax evasion theory is a complete farce used by the incumbent political party to justify the lowering of additional tax rates. Any tax evasion will persist at the same rate. There's simply no evidence to suggest otherwise. I'm sorry if you're unable to understand the rudimentary calculation that I made, it was made to emphasise a point. Furthermore, so what if the top 1% are being taxed at a greater proportion than what they own? They're still earning significantly more than those earning less than them, so it's perfectly justified. It's mathematically absurd to assume that increasing tax rates on the wealthy will 'more than likely' lead to a decrease in overall tax revenues. Increased tax rates equate to significant increases in tax revenues, obviously. Factors such as tax evasion figures have a negligible impact, there simply isn't any credible evidence to suggest this. It seems that you're being contentious for the sake of it, perhaps we should drop this discussion seeing as you clearly don't understand what's going on.
    No evidence to suggest otherwise? How else do you explain how the tax base actually increases when high tax rates are lowered? And your rudimentary calculation was false, because I already told you the total cost nationwide is £400m. You were flat out wrong.
    Someone else already mentioned the laffer curve, and a study last year by Peter Diamond and Emmanuel Saez, when adapted to the UK, concluded that the optimal higher rate is 42%. But of course, like any leftie just ignore all of that, and attempt to bash the rich for the sake of it. To demand a 60% rate proves all you are interested in is class warfare.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    I went for other, preferring "better cuts and better taxation" Cut the militarism, regulations, and excessive licensing. Once this is done you may not have to diminish any public services or benefits. Though regarding the latter, I would ideally like to replace the entire benefits/taxation system with a flat sales tax and universal prebate up to the poverty line. That is wildly optimistic though.

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?
  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?
  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 to join now Processing…

Updated: May 25, 2012
New on TSR

Exclusive Nick Clegg interview

Your questions answered by the deputy prime minister

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.