[internetguru]

(Original post by prog2djent)
So you don't think there should be restrictions on free speach

but other people will lable you authoritarian right ...

freedom of speach isn't the sole deciding factor, by a long way.

What views do you hold that people would view as being authoritarian?

Wanting a net migration rate of 0 so we can become stable in the long term?

[The Epicurean]

(Original post by Addzter)
That's a fantastic idea actually. I'm not sure how we'd calculate it (not good at maths, come at me bro ) but Wikipedia says the lowest 25% of wage earners earn £10,300 or less, so perhaps that could be our cutoff rate, or 30%.

Might have to go hunting for some data and see if I can find approximately what the bottom 30% earn

The other method which can be used is to measure by the percentage of people who earn less than half the national average income. In which case the percentage of people who earn less than half national average income will be exempt from income tax. Obviously in this case we would not have a set percentage figure but it would vary year upon year. The previous method doesn't take into account income equality whereas this method does. Although I think this method would be more difficult to calculate.

[Leon Trotsky]

(Original post by zedbrar)
Might have to go hunting for some data and see if I can find approximately what the bottom 30% earn

The other method which can be used is to measure by the percentage of people who earn less than half the national average income. In which case the percentage of people who earn less than half national average income will be exempt from income tax. Obviously in this case we would not have a set percentage figure but it would vary year upon year. The previous method doesn't take into account income equality whereas this method does. Although I think this method would be more difficult to calculate.

Brilliant. I'm glad we've got someone interested in tax onboard.

Both seem like excellent methods, and are far better than the fixed figure method I originally proposed. At least with percentages the cutoff rate changes organically as wages go up and down, and politicians can't pretend that they're raising the threshold when in fact they're not in real terms. If the average salary rose by, say, 5% over any given period, a politician could propose raising the income tax threshold by 3% and claim he'd be taking more people out of tax when in fact he wouldn't be.

[prog2djent]

(Original post by internetguru)
Wanting a net migration rate of 0 so we can become stable in the long term?

What else.

[internetguru]

(Original post by prog2djent)
What else.

Wanting to cut transport spending?

[The Epicurean]

(Original post by internetguru)
Wanting to cut transport spending?

Sounds brilliant. I fully sanction this. I'd rather have legions of OAP's with bad eyesight behind the wheel of a car than on a bus.

[Rakas21]

(Original post by internetguru)
Wanting to cut transport spending?

Being fair i would not call you massively authoritarian, just an ultra-Conservative nationalist/isolationist.

[Puritan]

(Original post by zedbrar)
Are you calculating these wages by their figure as before of after tax? They may have higher wages, but they may also suffer from higher living costs.

Anyway, may I see some data which shows this?

He's both factually wrong and he's committing a logical fallacy.

Factual: There's no data cos he's making stuff up. There's no evidence of a negative correlation between immigration and average incomes among western nations.

Logical fallacy: Even if there was a negative correlation between wages and immigration among western nations (which as I said, there isn't), he'd have to show much more than a mere correlation to prove his thesis. He'd have to establish a casual link by arguing that the reason why these countries have higher wages is because of lower immigration. Simply pointing out that certain nations have both higher wages and low immigration does not at all establish that the one (low immigration) is causing the other (higher wages) - or that conversely, higher immigration causes lower average wages.

[The Epicurean]

(Original post by Addzter)
Brilliant. I'm glad we've got someone interested in tax onboard.

Both seem like excellent methods, and are far better than the fixed figure method I originally proposed. At least with percentages the cutoff rate changes organically as wages go up and down, and politicians can't pretend that they're raising the threshold when in fact they're not in real terms. If the average salary rose by, say, 5% over any given period, a politician could propose raising the income tax threshold by 3% and claim he'd be taking more people out of tax when in fact he wouldn't be.

Sorry to have to break the bad news, but I wouldn't say I am interested in tax lol

The actual HRMC data I found lists that in 2009-10, the bottom 25% in the UK earned before tax £12,900 and after tax £11,800, which is near enough to your original proposed cut off figure of £12,000.

So if we were to just propose that the bottom 25% earners (after tax?) would be exempt from paying income tax.

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/stats/income_...le-feb2012.pdf

[Leon Trotsky]

(Original post by zedbrar)
Sorry to have to break the bad news, but I wouldn't say I am interested in tax lol

The actual HRMC data I found lists that in 2009-10, the bottom 25% in the UK earned before tax £12,900 and after tax £11,800, which is near enough to your original proposed cut off figure of £12,000.

So if we were to just propose that the bottom 25% earners (after tax?) would be exempt from paying income tax.

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/stats/income_...le-feb2012.pdf

Ahh, my bad. I thought I'd found someone to do all the party's tax policies for a moment, haha.

Great work! I think saying 25% rather than £12,000 would be far better, not only in practice for the reasons we've talked about, but also because saying that we'll take a quarter of all workers out of paying income tax sounds pretty snappy.

[paperclip]

(Original post by zedbrar)
Might have to go hunting for some data and see if I can find approximately what the bottom 30% earn

The other method which can be used is to measure by the percentage of people who earn less than half the national average income. In which case the percentage of people who earn less than half national average income will be exempt from income tax. Obviously in this case we would not have a set percentage figure but it would vary year upon year. The previous method doesn't take into account income equality whereas this method does. Although I think this method would be more difficult to calculate.

The median income would be better than the average, or mean, because in this context the mean would be inflated by outliers at the high end of the pay scale. Plus, the government classifies anyone earning under 60 percent of the median income as living in poverty, it would be hard to argue that those classed as living in poverty should pay tax

[jesusandtequila]

(Original post by prog2djent)


I agree completely with all of that.

That's why you're in our Party. Narcotics Act 2011, Civil Liberties Act 2011, we consistently oppose war and the Tax Act 2011 and Welfare Act 2012 along with our almost co-sponsoring of the Carbon Tax Act (and indeed our Tax Motion) show that we agree on Tax too.

This seems a Libertarian Party clone.

[jesusandtequila]

(Original post by paperclip)
The median income would be better than the average, or mean, because in this context the mean would be inflated by outliers at the high end of the pay scale. Plus, the government classifies anyone earning under 60 percent of the median income as living in poverty, it would be hard to argue that those classed as living in poverty should pay tax

Unless of course, the classification is wrong. As a whole, everyone in the country could get better off, yet those who previously weren't living in poverty, and who got better off could now be living in poverty? Or (as we see in RL), everyone gets worse off but people who were previously in poverty, who have got worse off are no longer in poverty just because the median has come down...

I mean, I'm not going to argue that it's a pure, unmoving, absolute line, but to use a purely relative measure is just as inaccurate. I think the best thing is as the Joseph Rowntree Foundation do, is find what's needed for a socially adequate lifestyle at any given time and convert that to monetary units. It's a mix of absolute and relative, as poverty should be defined as.

On another point - I'd argue no-one should be paying income tax, least of all the poor, I don't wish to debate that, merely the measures of poverty.

[The Epicurean]

(Original post by paperclip)
The median income would be better than the average, or mean, because in this context the mean would be inflated by outliers at the high end of the pay scale. Plus, the government classifies anyone earning under 60 percent of the median income as living in poverty, it would be hard to argue that those classed as living in poverty should pay tax

I just plucked the 50% figure out of thin air tbh. I was using it as an example rather than as a proposed policy.

It would also be very difficult to calculate the median, unless you have actual figures? Personally, I would like to see the inequality gap reduced, but to implement a really complex income tax method to achieve that is not something I am able to do. I think for simplicity, it is best to just adopt a percentage

[paperclip]

(Original post by zedbrar)
It would also be very difficult to calculate the median, unless you have actual figures? Personally, I would like to see the inequality gap reduced, but to implement a really complex income tax method to achieve that is not something I am able to do. I think for simplicity, it is best to just adopt a percentage

The government already have this figure, as it is collected to measure poverty rates...

[The Epicurean]

(Original post by paperclip)
The government already have this figure, as it is collected to measure poverty rates...

Just found those figures. Since 1979, the proportion of the population in poverty as measure by the 60% below median has only surpassed the 25% figure twice, in 1992 and 1996. Therefore I think it should be fine to leave it at 25% for now.

[chrisawhitmore]

(Original post by Addzter)
I think you'll enjoy our tax on promiscuous, yacht-owning, French fascists.

But I already pay VAT when I buy those, surely an extra tax is just unnecessary.

[tehFrance]

(Original post by chrisawhitmore)
But I already pay VAT when I buy those, surely an extra tax is just unnecessary.

How much did you pay?

[Leon Trotsky]

What do you think about adding an extra, higher tax band for those earning £1m and above? Currently the highest tax band is 150k and above.

[jesusandtequila]

(Original post by Addzter)
What do you think about adding an extra, higher tax band for those earning £1m and above? Currently the highest tax band is 150k and above.

Actually the rates are as follows (in TSR-land):

£0-10K: 0%
£10K-20K: 5%
£20K-100K: 15%
£100K+: 25%

Councils also have the power to levy a local income tax, but council tax is scrapped, VAT is 4%, National Insurance for both employer and employee is gone and the majority of revenue comes from the land value tax, and there's a carbon tax of £30 per ton of carbon.

Just thought that it'd be handy to know the system you want to change.