Should the highest rate of income tax be raised to 50%

OP

Original post by fleky6910

Unemployment was LOWER under thatcher than labour , I showed you this!
Labour caused double digit inflation and unemployment. Thatcher fixed this mess. National debt fell , unemployment fell, gdp per rose, gdp per capita rose

that's when her time was over. Throughout her reign unemployment was much greater than the preceeding labour government

Reply 42

Original post by joe cooley

Indeed it is, and that is why i highlighted my use of the word decides.

There have been periods in my life when work was hard to come by,mercifully few and far between so i know how hard it can be.

However, the thought of living off benefits never entered my head.

To suggest that Thatcher somehow turned decent hard working people into parasites happy to live off benefits is ridiculous.

Dont let this deluded leftist brainwash u , look on the previous page and look at the facts I gave

Reply 43

OP

Original post by fleky6910

No it wasn't, look at the graph you blind bat!

yes it was and unemployment peaked in 1983

Reply 44

Original post by RedManc

yes it was and unemployment peaked in 1983

That was labours fault , she had to raise interest rates you moron. The increase was caused by labour, thatcher then cleaned their mess up. They caused double digit unemployment. It peaked thanks to labour and then thatcher reduced it! She inherited a bad economy and turned good by the end of her reign!

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 45

OP

Original post by fleky6910

That was labours fault , she had to raise interest rates you moron. The increase was caused by labour, thatcher then cleaned their mess up

Labour were out of power for 4 years in 1983

Reply 46

joe cooley

1

Original post by RedManc

I know it might sound absurd, but the extent to which Thatcher ruined manufacturing and industry is quite severe.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCOqOLZhemc

Dear God!

How long will the left be obsessed with Maggie?

Wrap your head round these little nuggets......

The Wilson government closed more coal mines than Thatcher.

The Blair government gleefully opened the country up to unlimited cheap E.European labour, in the full knowledge that this cheap labour would drive and hold down the wages of Britain's lowest paid workers.

Whats worse, screwing the working class, or screwing the working class while telling them you're looking after them?

Reply 47

Original post by RedManc

Labour were out of power for 4 years in 1983

Thanks to labour leaving inflation high , interest rates had to be raised , many inefficent industries were shut. Govrnment debt fell and then unemployment fell after the peak in 83. Evethough labour weren't in power, the damage was done in 79 ( their last year , thanks to keynesian economics so it was them who left it in double digits.) Thatcher raised interest rates so unemployment increased a bit and then gradually felll. It was labour who caused this and you have to be an idiot not to see this!

Reply 48

OP

Original post by fleky6910

Thanks to labour leaving inflation high , interest rates had to be raised , many inefficent industries were shut. Govrnment debt fell and then unemployment fell after the peak in 83. Evethough labour weren't in power, the damage was done in 79 ( their last year , thanks to keynesian economics so it was them who left it in double digits.) Thatcher raised interest rates so unemployment increased a bit and then gradually felll. It was labour who caused this and you have to be an idiot not to see this!

Heath was good at controlling inflation wasn't he?

Reply 49

OP

Original post by fleky6910

Thanks to labour leaving inflation high , interest rates had to be raised , many inefficent industries were shut. Govrnment debt fell and then unemployment fell after the peak in 83. Evethough labour weren't in power, the damage was done in 79 ( their last year , thanks to keynesian economics so it was them who left it in double digits.) Thatcher raised interest rates so unemployment increased a bit and then gradually felll. It was labour who caused this and you have to be an idiot not to see this!

The damage was done in 1979, Thatcher was elected

Reply 50

Original post by RedManc

Heath was good at controlling inflation wasn't he?

Don't support heath , he used keynesian economics, LABOUR policy , do your research

Reply 51

OP

Original post by fleky6910

Don't support heath , he used keynesian economics, LABOUR policy , do your research

I was being sarcastic. I meant that both Labour and Conservative could not deal with inflation properly in the 70's. Although, Callaghan did decrease inflation to single-digits

Reply 52

Original post by RedManc

The damage was done in 1979, Thatcher was elected

No , she saved Britain!
Thatcher was elected to clean up labour mess , she was elected after the damage was done and she fixed it!!
She sped up the rise in unemployment but this was inevitable as she raised interest rates.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 53

OP

Original post by fleky6910

No , she saved Britain!
Thatcher was elected to clean up labour mess , she was elected after the damage was done and she fixed it!!

She fixed nothing. She killed our manufacturing jobs, 3 million unemployed, welfare dependancy, multiple recessions, utility companies privatised. Not only did she make people unemployed, she cut their benefits.

Reply 54

cBay

15

Original post by Jammy Duel

It's too high in my opinion, it used to be 10%.

Also it wasn't 97% in the 70s, it was 83% with a 15% surcharge on "investment income" and funnily enough the country experienced a brain drain and the tax didn't raise much money. I'll also present to you this chart (link in "this" :wink:

I'm sure you can spot a trend in there.

Lol with regards to the chart, I've explained to you before why higher levels of inequality leads to the richest paying a higher perecentage of the total tax share, regardless of what the tax rates are.. it's pretty simple mathematics.

Reply 55

Aear

10

Original post by years101

NO. It needs to be 25%. Taking money from hardworking individuals is not the answer. How about we encourage actually force those who sit on the sofa and eat away the the money of HARDWORKING individuals. Laziness should be a crime.

Any socialists and deluded commies thinking of challenging me - shut up and wake up.

Taking what you said, I'm going to assume that you are referring to those who are committing benefit over-payment fraud, and the estimates for the annual cost of benefit over-payment fraud was from 2013/4 (most recent I can find) £1.2bn. That might sound like a lot, but that accounts for 0.7% of the total expenditure of benefits, and even less for the whole income of the UK. Benefits fraud is not an economic problem because it's so small. While I don't have a source for this, I believe the estimated cost of means testing for benefits is >£3bn, so it's actually an economic advantage to keep the status quo, rather than fixing the problem, because it's so small and not a major concern.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/371459/Statistical_Release.pdf

Reply 56