Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    We're all in this together ey!

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2...s-save-tax-cut
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    For 155 of the 156 months that Labour was in power it was 40p! Now all the lefties are kicking up a fuss over it being reduced to 45p from the 50p is was raised to as soon as Brown knew he would lose the election. Labour is lying to you. Just look at what's happening in France where they've had to scrap plans to indroduce high tax for the rich, because they were all leaving, meaning less tax revenue than when they started.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Lies

    Name:  Tax+Rates+20092010-20122013[1].jpg
Views: 132
Size:  67.9 KB

    The rich pay more than they did under labour.

    Labour raised the top rate in their last few months, knowing full well that it would result in lower tax revenues. They knew it would have to be lowered by whoever won the election.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    It is worth noting the top rate is still higher than most of the period Labour were in charge.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    If Labour were that concerned about bankers' bonuses and wages they would have allowed the likes of RBS to go bust instead of bailing them out to the tune of £bns with taxpayers' cash.

    Labour were presented with the ideal opportunity to stop the bonus culture dead in it's tracks (something that I as a right-winger support) but they chose to prolong it with unlimited guarantees because Brown didn't have the guts to make the City reap what it sewed.

    It's a bit rich for Labour to now turn around and complain about the banking contracts they signed us up to, are they suffering from an acute form of collective amnesia?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mclean)
    Lies

    Name:  Tax+Rates+20092010-20122013[1].jpg
Views: 132
Size:  67.9 KB

    The rich pay more than they did under labour.

    Labour raised the top rate in their last few months, knowing full well that it would result in lower tax revenues. They knew it would have to be lowered by whoever won the election.
    I like your graph dude, can I have the source so I can rub it in some uneducated left wing faces, and also check its valid.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    I'm very left wing, at least in my own eyes.
    But when you drive more millionares away and lose money as a result, because you're taxing fewer of the rich, you've got to wonder, is the policy...effective?
    There's a lot of talk of being fair, but at a price of being pragmatic. If we were talking about civil liberties (libertarians of course would often argue we are here, that tax is theft, though I disagree) then that would be one thing, equality would be very important.

    But fairness in taxing the rich that drives them away and brings less in is stupid.

    Look at what happened in France?
    Thank God we got some of them after we drove so many of our own away.

    And implementing that at the same time as bringing multiple idiotic tax reforms against the welfare state? That was the stupidest PR move I've actually seen this country do. I do genuinely believe this government have it in for the poor. That they are hoping to dis-ensemble the welfare state. Which is what many of the lefties think.
    But this tax cut is unrelated to that.
    edit:
    And to vent some frustration:
    Labour, what the actual **** are you doing?
    "We hate trident" "no no, lets keep it".

    "we want the 50p tax...no wait we don't, no we do, no we don't" "tory scum!"

    At least they didn't have rebellion against gay marriage like the tories did.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    Tax the rich and they'll move their money elsewhere. Tax bank(er)s and they'll move to other competitive financial cities. Are lower taxes necessary for money? Most likely. Is it fair? Most likely not. Each individual will have their own opinion to which one is more important.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rcummins1)
    Tax the rich and they'll move their money elsewhere. Tax bank(er)s and they'll move to other competitive financial cities. Are lower taxes necessary for money? Most likely. Is it fair? Most likely not. Each individual will have their own opinion to which one is more important.
    I think you'll agree though, if it's about fairness surely it's about trying to benefit the poor. Taxing the rich too much will lead to less money for the state, which could hit welfare, the NHS, anything that's state run.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Frube)
    I like your graph dude, can I have the source so I can rub it in some uneducated left wing faces, and also check its valid.
    I can't remember exactly where I found it, but I think Guido Fawkes' blog uses the same data here:
    http://order-order.com/2012/12/12/la...han-coalition/
    The source is given as HMRC.

    It only takes income tax into account. It would be interesting but quite complicated to make a similar graph that takes other taxes into account, such as the rise in VAT and the cut in fuel duty.

    I suspect you would find that those on benefits are worse off, low paid workers are better off and the rich are much worse off than they would have been under Labour.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Please tell me you don't believe Labour rhetoric? Gee whizz, we've really got some educating to do! I'm no Conservative defender, but it's pretty much known truth that under this Government, the wealthy are paying more than they did do in 13 years of Labour.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Blimey, you all throw these Labour facts at me insisting that i'm a Labour supporter?

    Also, you point out this idea that reducing or taxing the wages of the top banking professionals would drive them away? Really? Is it not just them throwing out empty threats to uphold their pay-package? Even if that was the case i'm almost certain there are many other banking professionals out there who would undertake those jobs if the current lot did 'scarper'. Not as if you can exactly say the current lot have the best record...

    Also, I accept we live in a globalised economy and internationalism, I accept that - although fair - strong progressive tax does backfire. But all i'm stating is that the Tories do live up to this belief that 'we're all in this together'. Yes there have been measures against the rich but they have not been affected to any extent like the poor have, look at some of the cases with welfare it's sickening.

    Like I said, i'm not wanting full scale socialist measures as we do live in this globalised economy etc however this blatant unfairness is just wrong.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mclean)
    I can't remember exactly where I found it, but I think Guido Fawkes' blog uses the same data here:
    http://order-order.com/2012/12/12/la...han-coalition/
    The source is given as HMRC.

    It only takes income tax into account. It would be interesting but quite complicated to make a similar graph that takes other taxes into account, such as the rise in VAT and the cut in fuel duty.

    I suspect you would find that those on benefits are worse off, low paid workers are better off and the rich are much worse off than they would have been under Labour.
    Thanks
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rcummins1)
    Tax the rich and they'll move their money elsewhere. Tax bank(er)s and they'll move to other competitive financial cities. Are lower taxes necessary for money? Most likely. Is it fair? Most likely not. Each individual will have their own opinion to which one is more important.
    At least if they go elsewhere they'll not be able to take our money anymore, in their inflated salaries and bonuses, which they stash away in their off shore accounts. I'm not sure how this can qualify as needing 'the rich to create jobs'. Most jobs in this country are created by small business people.

    Wish I had a job where I earned millions each year for losing my employer billions. And no come back at all. No paying back the bonuses, no fines to pay, no prison for fraud.

    You have to admire their nerve moaning about scroungers on benefits when they are the biggest scroungers of the lot.

    We could do lots and lots with the hundreds of billions we''ll save by not having round 2 of their disasters.

    Just think of the maths. Tax = 45% of £1million

    Not paying them at all we save all of the £1 million.

    And we might get some bright ( qualified even ) young thing who would do a better job ( it could hardly be a worse one) for only £100,000 a year.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pickup)
    At least if they go elsewhere they'll not be able to take our money anymore, in their inflated salaries and bonuses, which they stash away in their off shore accounts. I'm not sure how this can qualify as needing 'the rich to create jobs'. Most jobs in this country are created by small business people.

    Wish I had a job where I earned millions each year for losing my employer billions. And no come back at all. No paying back the bonuses, no fines to pay, no prison for fraud.

    You have to admire their nerve moaning about scroungers on benefits when they are the biggest scroungers of the lot.

    We could do lots and lots with the hundreds of billions we''ll save by not having round 2 of their disasters.

    Just think of the maths. Tax = 45% of £1million

    Not paying them at all we save all of the £1 million.

    And we might get some bright ( qualified even ) young thing who would do a better job ( it could hardly be a worse one) for only £100,000 a year.
    Such generalisations :/

    A lot of bankers make a LOT of money for their companies, far more than what they get paid. So there are bad apples? I occasionally get ****ty service at McDonalds, a receptionist is occasionally rude to me... Shall I campaign for the entire industry to go?

    YOU do not pay them (You will try argue you pay them via the 2 banks the Government has shares in out of the many that operate in the UK.) Do you have ANY idea how much the finance sector brings in via tax? £63 billion in 2011, yes we might have had to use £100-200 billion bailing some banks out, but that is only 4 years of what they have contributed, you take a greater % of your tax deposits when you withdraw your pension.

    If they all got up and left say goodbye to taxes each year equal to 75% of the Education budget.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Engles)
    We're all in this together ey!

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2...s-save-tax-cut
    That left wing junk fails to state that the stamp duty on homes worth over 2 million was increased simultaneously and is expected to raise from the rich than the top rate tax cut will lose.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.