UK tax system

Just the tax cut.

Which of the consequences of the tax cut would they also be voting for after that tax cut leaves a lot less money for public services, or where would the money come from to pay for them instead?

Or is it in fact the case that there'd be no majority interested in voting for it because those are all things which lose votes?

You seem very dogmatic that the public would be voting for things other than the tax cut.

The rise in VAT wasn't in manifestos. QE wasn't in manifestos. The rise in womens state pension age state. The cut in the armed forces budget over the last 30 years wasnt in anyones manefestos. The level of deficit and debt to be incurred have been understated.

Note the promises of Boris and Hunt over the last few weeks. People would vote for the tax cut.

Ask your parents or grandparents what they they think of current tax rates compared to the rates they had to pay. The basic rate of tax was 35% at one time during the 1970s. You have it easy compared to them!

Do you realise that the Boris and Hunt are only talking to the 160,000 Tory members and not the the other 47 million eligible voters who would be voting in a general election?

Whenever any party proposes tax cuts as part of its manifesto, the first question everybody asks is how the country can afford it. Any party who fails to properly cost its manifesto pledges or fails to explain how much funding public services it tends to lose votes.

Of course. That's the reason the Lib Dems formed a government in 2010. Their fully costed manifesto.

Having 10% of the seats in parliament, being the 3rd-largest party, and being the much smaller party in a coalition is not the same as forming a government, and didn't provide any kind of mandate for any of their manifesto pledges. Tories were the laregst party. David Cameron was prime minister, and George Osborne in control of government fiscal policy. Both the Tories and the Labour opposition had many more seats and votes than the Lib Dems

So a fully costed manifesto meant they lost out to the other two which didn't.....?

Your argument is hard to track here.

Simply pointing out that there seems to be no weight to your argument that un-costed tax cuts in a manifesto could win a majority of votes.

You claimed:

The gap between rich and poor says nothing about how many people starve. A productive economy can have a large gap, but provide adequately for most.


Supply and demand. There is a minimum wage to provide some protection, but there also needs to be an incentive to become more skilled.


That's a whole different question. I doubt that there's a definition that everyone would agree on, although I don't like societies that ignore the vulnerable.

If you put in the effort to earn more, should a larger proportion be taken from you? There needs to be an incentive to work harder.

I take it that since you earn significantly less than the average salary you advocate paying more tax?

Then folk like me on £68k taking home £41k can pay much less tax.....

I reckon you'd end up on £12k take home and I'd be on £59k. Much fairer. Good idea.

It's not, it would clobber the poorest of society leaving them with nothing and strangle the economy because there would be less money available to the majority of the country to spend

1. Because it’s not my job to. Even if we had a flat rate tax system, as I would like, I’d still be paying much more than a lower earner. That’s how percentages work...

2. Because they, apparently, took on lower paid work on their own free will. No one is forced to undertake poorly paid positions.

3. We shouldn’t. I’ve never suggested we should. For me this whole argument is about how I have to pay 40% tax on some of my earning whilst others pay half that on theirs.

4. No idea why you’re talking about “fellow countrymen”. I work to pay myself through life, no one else. Would you exclude foreigners who live, work and pay tax in the UK based on your question?

Train drivers are paid well because it is a job that carries a high level of responsibility. They may have hundreds of lives in their hands. Granted, I’m sure it’s not the toughest work out there but a mistake could, potentially, lead to dire consequences.

And how is that my problem, exactly?

Yet you think the guy who earns £14k pays too little tax compared to the one on £21k?

Odd, can you explain?

Yes no problem, because the system has been made less progressive by rising the personal allowance.

If someone living at home with who can live and save 7.5k per year they should paid more tax because they have disposable income. The tax credit system can put this right for those who need it/ are struggling.

Yes no problem, because the system has been made less progressive by rising the personal allowance.

If someone living at home with who can live and save 7.5k per year they should paid more tax because they have disposable income. The tax credit system can put this right for those who need it/ are struggling.

Which of the consequences of the tax cut would they also be voting for after that tax cut leaves a lot less money for public services, or where would the money come from to pay for them instead?

Or is it in fact the case that there'd be no majority interested in voting for it because those are all things which lose votes?

You seem very dogmatic that the public would be voting for things other than the tax cut.

The rise in VAT wasn't in manifestos. QE wasn't in manifestos. The rise in womens state pension age state. The cut in the armed forces budget over the last 30 years wasnt in anyones manefestos. The level of deficit and debt to be incurred have been understated.

Note the promises of Boris and Hunt over the last few weeks. People would vote for the tax cut.