Whats the point trying to achieve when Labour just want to tax?

It was 50% bro, learn to read.

It was 40% for the large majority. They upped it to 50% in the final year, the Tories brought it down to 45%.
The Tories charged a higher top rate of tax than Labour did for the majority of Labour's time in office.

Reply 641

illegaltobepoor

19

Original post by billydisco

My point was Government policy isn't morally right...... it can be morally-wrong (or do you like the bedroom "tax"? :wink:

).

You are aware that keeping people in poverty costs us more in the long term?

Reply 642

billydisco

OP

3

Original post by illegaltobepoor

You are aware that keeping people in poverty costs us more in the long term?

How?

Reply 643

jenkinsear

13

Original post by Bornblue

It was 40% for the large majority. They upped it to 50% in the final year, the Tories brought it down to 45%.
The Tories charged a higher top rate of tax than Labour did for the majority of Labour's time in office.

That's not what you said before though is it. Typical Labour: get the facts wrong, try to hide it.

Reply 644

jenkinsear

13

Original post by Donnelly99

I'm from Scotland, I'm quite intrigued by a right-winger, I've never met one up here.

Some of Scotland is actually quite Tory. The borders, parts of Aberdeenshire, Perthshire, Ayrshire & Edinburgh are still areas with substantial Conservative support.

Also factor in the surprisingly high number of UKIP votes in the European election (combined with the increased Tory vote that's 27.7% of the electorate voting for centre right or right wing parties) and it seems the right winger does remain in Scottish politics. That's not including the supporters of other parties who would, if they lived in any other part of the UK, be natural tories.

Reply 645

Donnelly99

1

Of course there are a few areas with a moderate Conservative vote. I find that the majority of Conservative voters in Scotland are in fact English, especially in Aberdeen. of those who voted Con/Ukip in the European elections, a large amount of people won't vote for them in the general election, as in 2010, the right only got 17% of the vote.

Baring in mind, those seats that are up for grabs by the SNP will cause a lot of tactical voting, diminishing the tory vote in most cases.

Reply 646

username878267

15

Original post by jenkinsear

That's not what you said before though is it. Typical Labour: get the facts wrong, try to hide it.

That's exactly what I said before.
Get your facts right.

Reply 647

megaman70

2

Original post by billydisco

Make it 18 then? :rolleyes:

That will not change anything.
A person would have time to GCSEs and Alevels if parents are successfully forced to keep them at home until 18 (as opposed to just GCSEs if it was 16).

Also people whose parents have overcrowded homes or no stable home at all would still be at a disadvantage.

Reply 648

billydisco

OP

3

Original post by megaman70

That will not change anything.
A person would have time to GCSEs and Alevels if parents are successfully forced to keep them at home until 18 (as opposed to just GCSEs if it was 16).

I dont understand your message?

Original post by megaman70

Also people whose parents have overcrowded homes or no stable home at all would still be at a disadvantage.

Then they're ****ed either way, paying them EMA isn't going to change this.

Reply 649

artisha

6

and this is why I don't vote labour
excessive tax for the rich makes them frustrated and more benefits for the unemployed will just make them more lazy

Reply 650

username878267

15

Original post by artisha

and this is why I don't vote labour
excessive tax for the rich makes them frustrated and more benefits for the unemployed will just make them more lazy

Oh yes, giving more money to rich people makes them work harder whilst giving less money to poor people makes them work harder?
Ridiculous logic.

Reply 651

The_Mighty_Bush

3

Original post by Bornblue

Oh yes, giving more money to rich people makes them work harder whilst giving less money to poor people makes them work harder?
Ridiculous logic.

"Giving"? The government does not own all the wealth then give it out at will. The wealth of people is earned on the free market and then the government takes rather than gives.

Reply 652

KingStannis

3

Original post by The_Mighty_Bush

"Giving"? The government does not own all the wealth then give it out at will. The wealth of people is earned on the free market and then the government takes rather than gives.

Except governments provide the whole infrastructure that companies operate, keep labour alive etc. And if the government doesn't have the money it requires to operate, the whole economy which allows companies to create wealth collapses.

Reply 653

Rabbit2

18

Original post by username878267

Oh yes, giving more money to rich people makes them work harder whilst giving less money to poor people makes them work harder?
Ridiculous logic.

I fear this is a perversion of the 'free market economy'. If you tax business owners less, they will have more money. This gives them funding to invest to "grow" their business - potentially making more money & employing more people. By taxing them more, you get the opposite effect. An example of the latter case is Detroit. In the early '60s, the city government went Democratic. On a 'soak the rich' platform, the new government drastically raised the taxes on all businesses in Detroit. They also raised the taxes on real estate - to 'soak' those 'rich' property owners, who were renting houses, and 'exploiting' the poor renters.

The result was that business owners found that they could no longer operate their businesses in Detroit, whilst earning a decent living, sending their kids to uni, and living outside of neighbourhoods that were peopled with gangs. The businesses then packed up, and moved outside of Detroit. Many of the 'lower paid' workers were unable to follow - not having the funds to relocate, and unable to commute. The relocated businesses hired new employees at their new locations, quite a few of which were states away.

Since there were many fewer jobs available locally, the demand for rental housing dried up. This a> forced rental prices down to the point that it was impossible to earn a reasonable return on investment by renting a vacant house. Some were sold, but many (particularly as time went on) were abandoned. Drug gangs moved in, and many of the lower skilled inhabitants - unable to relocate due to lack of skills and lacking the money (or interest) to acquire them, resorted to drug and gang activity to survive. The resulting crime wave drove many of the remaining 'residents' to leave Detroit for their own safety, and because they were being robbed and assaulted daily.

A couple of years ago, Detroit, attempting to raise money, decided to auction off derelict properties that had been sitting on the tax rolls for years. They started off with opening bids of $500. For the vast majority of properties, they were unable to get any bid at all. Most of these properties had been stripped of all copper and metal that could be sold for scrap. It was impossible to 'refurbish' them, because as soon as you replaced the wiring, another mob of strippers would move in, and remove the wiring you just installed. Such is modern civilisation!! Cheers.

Reply 654

Quady

20

Original post by Rabbit2

I fear this is a perversion of the 'free market economy'. If you tax business owners less, they will have more money. This gives them funding to invest to "grow" their business - potentially making more money & employing more people. By taxing them more, you get the opposite effect. An example of the latter case is Detroit. In the early '60s, the city government went Democratic. On a 'soak the rich' platform, the new government drastically raised the taxes on all businesses in Detroit. They also raised the taxes on real estate - to 'soak' those 'rich' property owners, who were renting houses, and 'exploiting' the poor renters.

The result was that business owners found that they could no longer operate their businesses in Detroit, whilst earning a decent living, sending their kids to uni, and living outside of neighbourhoods that were peopled with gangs. The businesses then packed up, and moved outside of Detroit. Many of the 'lower paid' workers were unable to follow - not having the funds to relocate, and unable to commute. The relocated businesses hired new employees at their new locations, quite a few of which were states away.

Since there were many fewer jobs available locally, the demand for rental housing dried up. This a> forced rental prices down to the point that it was impossible to earn a reasonable return on investment by renting a vacant house. Some were sold, but many (particularly as time went on) were abandoned. Drug gangs moved in, and many of the lower skilled inhabitants - unable to relocate due to lack of skills and lacking the money (or interest) to acquire them, resorted to drug and gang activity to survive. The resulting crime wave drove many of the remaining 'residents' to leave Detroit for their own safety, and because they were being robbed and assaulted daily.

A couple of years ago, Detroit, attempting to raise money, decided to auction off derelict properties that had been sitting on the tax rolls for years. They started off with opening bids of $500. For the vast majority of properties, they were unable to get any bid at all. Most of these properties had been stripped of all copper and metal that could be sold for scrap. It was impossible to 'refurbish' them, because as soon as you replaced the wiring, another mob of strippers would move in, and remove the wiring you just installed. Such is modern civilisation!! Cheers.

Detroit made good cars, then made bad cars.

Tax had jack all to do with it.

GM and Ford made plenty enough net profit to have designed and built cars as good as Germany (that low tax economy LOL). But they didn't fear competition and got lazy.

Detroit has gone down with it.

Also, this thread is three years old you know....?

Reply 655

DayneD89

21

I come from a working class background, but in a few years I'll be making more money than I ever expected to make and easily get into the 40%+ tax bracket, which I never thought would apply to me. When I'm making that much money I should be taxed more not less, and those richer still should be taxed more still. Tax is what we pay for our public services, our infrastructure that everyone from the richest to the poorest relies upon, and because we keep electing governments that sell off the services that we and our parents have paid to build with our taxes, forcing us to try and start again our public services desperately need investment. To try and bleed more money out of those who are already struggling is not only cruel, it is pointless. The burden should and must fall on those who have the wealth through taxation.The burden should fall more strongly on wealth than income however.

Reply 656

Rabbit2

18

Original post by billydisco

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11441268/Miliband-accused-of-Russian-roulette-over-tuition-fees-pension-raid.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/property/11419173/Mansion-tax-a-threat-to-the-UK-economy-and-an-appeal-to-envy.html

http://labourlist.org/2015/02/labour-set-out-major-reform-to-the-banking-sector-including-extending-banker-bonus-clawback/

TAX TAX TAX

What the **** is wrong with this party?

Who benefits? Oh, those people who didn't take advantage of the FREE education system in this country- a very worthy cause! :rolleyes:

Well, actually that is a misnomer. Your education is NOT "free", you pay for it with everything you buy. That's why things are so expensive in the Uk [compared to most other places]. Nothing in life is "free" - you pay for it one way or another. Go to any web site - like Tesco for example. Make up a shopping list, and collect the prices for things the average person might buy. A 19 inch colour telly for example. Do the same for vehicles. Check prices in the Uk and other countries. Now one of the reasons for this, is that the entire Uk is about 10% smaller than Nevada. I don't know of any state that has its own air force and navy, but the Uk does. That's impressive!!

Governments get a 'free ride' by constantly inflating the money supply. This allows them to make money out of air. As an example: In 1971 i bought a 3 bedroom 1.5 bath house with a garage in suburban D.C. for $37,800. Today, if you talk to a broker, they will tell you that the same house would 'list' for about $320,000.

Those that are 'financially ignorant' would say: "OH!!! Look at all the money you've made!! In reality, no money has been made at all, because if you take $37,800 in 1971, and run it through an 'inflation program', to find it's value in 2017, you would come out with about $310,000. That is, the house is worth almost exactly what you paid for it in 1971 - no more, no less. You have paid the taxes over the ensuing period, done maintenance & etc, and gotten a 'free place to live' in return.

The thieves in government however, maintain that you have 'gotten rich' and must be 'taxed' to be 'fair'. Converting the value of the house into any commodity [such as bushels of wheat, gallons of fuel, ounces of gold, etc], reveals the crookedness of their approach. Treating the "increase" in value - which isn't an increase at all - allows them to rip off 30 to 40% of it, and spend it on worthless handouts to non-workers and those who refuse to plan for their later years. Surprisingly, they have brainwashed much of the public into supporting their rip-off schemes. Cheers.