Off Topic Great Britain General Election May 7th 2015.

What the **** actually meant was " its going to hurt those on low incomes and benefits, so they had better get used to it"

Divide an conquer is an apt motto for the Conservative Party.

 

Nick Clegg: raising tuition fees has not deterred poor from going to university
Lib Dem leader defends increase as students take to the streets in London but says he has learnt lessons from broken pledge

please log in to view this image

Nick Clegg leaving Global Radio Studios after his LBC phone-in. Photograph: Neil Mockford/Alex Huckle/GC Images
Nick Clegg has defended the rise in tuition fees to a maximum of £9,000 a year as he prepared to become the villain of a large student demonstration in London.
Thousands of students are expected to march through central London on Wednesday calling for free higher education.
Speaking on LBC, the Liberal Democrat leader said he had learnt lessons from his broken pledge to abolish tuition fees, but added: “It is worth remembering the predictions were that people would not go to university, it would discourage kids from poorer backgrounds going to university, but actually what has happened is there are more people on full-time courses than ever before, more youngsters from poorer backgrounds than ever before, and more kids from ethnic minorities than ever before.”

 

In the interests of balance (from Wikipedia):

In July 1974, Labour Chancellor Denis Healey reduced the standard rate of VAT from 10% to 8% but introduced a new higher rate of 12.5% for petrol and some luxury goods.In November 1974 Healey doubled the higher rate of VAT to 25%. Healey reduced the higher rate back to 12.5% in April 1976.

Also Alistair Darling raised VAT from 15% to 17.5% in Dec 2009.

The point I'm trying to make is that both Labour and the Tories are as bad as each other with implementing new revenue streams when it suits.

 

As pointed out previously, from 1997-2010 Labour maintained a 40% higher tax rate and so even their millionaires would have benefitted.

 

Well done.

 

So you mean up until 5 years ago when the credit crunch hit?

There are two completely different financial climates under two completely different governments and your acting like economic conditions were/are the same for both.
Supposedly "we're all in this together" but with the rich not quite in it as much as low paid workers and the poorest in our society.

 

It is proven that a lower top tax rate provides the HRMC with much higher revenue than a higher one: for example we all know that a 50% tax rate provides a lower total return than a 45%. Twenty years ago when the top tax rate was reduced from >70% to 40% the revenue from the top 5% increased 3-4 times. We all know the reasons: tax avoidance (legal), emigration, etc.

So my question is this : assuming that these are proven and absolutely correct and not in dispute, would you favour a reduction in the top rate? Would the fact that a overall increase in revenue sway you to support a decrease in top rate?

 

Tbh Carl I would prefer if those on lower wages got a better deal during austerity, but that isn't going to happen with a Conservative government or a coalition involving them, the extra tax allowance the Tory's unveiled last week gets eaten up by increases in the cost of living, so in reality its a case of Groundhog Day.
There is more than one way to tackle the country's financial problem and targeting those who can afford a slight drop in earnings and everyday life in general is a much fairer way to do it.

 

Just a general one so i know where why are starting from (lot of catching up on this thread)

why is it fairer that those that earn more should more pay more ?

 

Simply because their standard of life won't suffer the same consequences as those at the other end of the scale and because most of the top earners make their money of the backs of those at the other end of the scale.
I don't want to see anyone suffer, but having the only 2 cars instead of 3 is far better than having to go to food banks because your wages don't cover the basic cost of living.

 

right ok, who do you describe as "top earners"?

 

The official start of the new tax year has sparked a fresh battle between Labour and the Conservatives over their respective economic plans.
David Cameron says 94% of working households are better off under tax and benefit changes brought in on Monday.
However, Labour's Ed Balls claims the result is that families are on average £1,100 a year worse off than in 2010.
Both parties say their rivals have secret plans to raise taxes if they win the general election.
The Lib Dems, meanwhile, are angry with the Conservatives for claiming credit for an increase in the personal income tax allowance, which they say they had to force Tory ministers to accept.
The personal allowance - the amount someone can earn before they are taxed - has gone up from £10,000 to £10,600.
Both former coalition partners have both said they want it to go up to £12,500 by 2020, but senior Lib Dem David Laws said his party would implement this "far faster".
In other election news:

• Chief Secretary to the Treasury Danny Alexander says he heard an unnamed senior Tory tell a Lib Dem colleague: "You take care of the workers and we'll take care of the bosses"
• Scottish Labour leader Jim Murphy launched his party's campaign with a series of pledges to end what he called "Tory austerity"
• A centre-left think tank says young people should be forced to vote in the first election after they turn 18
• A "sacked" Conservative parliamentary candidate joined UKIP, amid a row in the Hull West and Hessle constituency
• The Green Party named a new parliamentary candidate for Erewash after Victoria Martindale, who was serving a suspended jail sentence, stepped down

Speaking in Bristol to party members, Mr Cameron said the Conservatives had taken three million of the lowest paid people out of income tax and, overall, 26 million people were getting a tax cut.
"I don't just want people to see Britain's recovery on the TV or hear it on the radio, I want them to feel it in their lives," he said.
"Thanks to today's changes they are."
'Work punished'
He said he was making a "vow to working people", adding: "No income tax raise, no VAT rise, no national insurance rise - that is our vow."
Mr Cameron said there was a "moral case" for low taxes and that the choice at the next election was "clearer than ever".
"Tax cuts with us, tax rises with Ed Miliband and Labour. Work rewarded with us, work punished with them."
Appearing alongside the Tory leader, Chancellor George Osborne described pension changes as "far-reaching reforms" offering "unprecedented freedoms" over pensioners' saving.
Speaking earlier in Leeds, shadow chancellor Ed Balls said: "Families are £1,100 a year worse off on average - that is the true cost of a Tory chancellor."
He cited independent figures from the Institute for Fiscal Studies which he said took into account all of the changes David Cameron and his government had introduced since May 2010 up until Monday, including the change to the personal allowance.
"Their damning conclusion is that low-income households with children lose the most as a percentage of their income from changes implemented by the coalition. While millions are paying more, we know that millionaires are paying less," he said.

please log in to view this image

Analysis, by BBC political correspondent Carole Walker, travelling with David Cameron:
There is another flipside to the commitment to low taxes. The Tories need to save £30bn to eliminate the deficit by 2017-18 and if they won't put up taxes, all the money will have to come from spending cuts.
They have said they will save £5bn by cracking down on tax avoidance, £13bn from departmental spending and £12bn from welfare.
But there remain big unanswered questions on which benefits and which government projects will have to be axed.
Labour faces similar questions about which taxes it would increase and what public spending it would cut to meet its commitment to eliminating the deficit as soon as possible in the next parliament.

please log in to view this image

He repeated Labour's claim that a Conservative government would increase VAT to make their sums add up - something denied again by Mr Cameron on Monday.
The Conservatives claim Labour would be forced to increase National Insurance contributions to pay for their spending plans.

please log in to view this image

Nick Clegg was on the campaign trail in Surbiton on Monday
Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg attacked Labour's policies as "economically illiterate", but also warned that Chancellor George Osborne was "a very dangerous man" because of his plan to balance the books through spending cuts alone.
Raising the income tax threshold had been a flagship Lib Dem policy in 2010, which Mr Cameron had dismissed as "unaffordable". And despite the prime minister's claim that the latest change was "all thanks to the Conservatives", Mr Clegg claimed Tory ministers had opposed the move during coalition talks.
The Lib Dem leader said he had pushed for tax cuts for low and middle-income workers at every one of the coalition's budgets, claiming the Conservatives "were always more interested in tax cuts for people at the top rather than tax cuts for people at the bottom or the middle".
One of the biggest changes which came into force on Monday was the relaxation of pension rules, so that those with a defined contribution pension "pot" can take out as much as they like when they reach the age of 55.
Lib Dem Pensions Minister Steve Webb said the principle was to trust people with their own money - but he urged people to seek advice and not rush into any decisions.

 

This has nothing to do with the fiscal position at either time period, my response was to counter the suggestion that only Labour politicians have the country's interests at heart and set policy that they know will make them worse off. A 40% higher tax rate over the entire period Labour were in office would have clearly advantaged those better off in their own party which invalidates that argument. You also only have to look at the expenses scandal to see that there were individuals across pretty much all parties who didn't have the Nations interests at heart.

 

So it is really a choice between fairness/equity and effectiveness/productivity.

Higher top tax rate=perceived fairer and more equitable= less HMRC tax take(avoidance++) = less money for public services

Lower top tax rate = perceived as less fair and favouring the rich= more HMRC revenue = more money for public services.

As a mid ranking ordinary tax payer (the vast majority) I would prefer to have more money in tax coffers because we will be getting more from these people through a lower top tax band as a group. Because a higher top band will only hammer those who don't escape and do avoidance.

 

Green Party closes gap on Ukip as Tories and Labour lose support

please log in to view this image

 

Top earners are those in the top 1%, and who hit the highest tax bracket i.e. £150,000 plus

 

The 10,000 people who disappeared from the top tax bracket over night in 2010, didn't emigrate, they disguised their income to avoid paying the going rate. Your question should be what should the Govt be doing to ensure that these people pay what they're due to, as the rest of the population does via PAYE. But instead you completely gloss over the fact that they've dodged tax (legally? Says who?) and spun it around to say, oh well it doesn't work, so let's just turn a blind eye and let the millionaires of this land do as they ****ing please, and we should be grateful for it, lol.

 

Anyone earning over £150,000 pa is no longer classified as middle class. The chance of that person supporting labour is zero.

 

Alan Sugar?

 

The Apprentice's Lord Sugar: 'Nigel Farage looks like a bit of a thug boyo'