Quote:
|
Originally Posted by foreverwar
"Traditional socialist reasons" - I would call them common-sense reasons, myself, and I have voted Tory all my life.
|
If you think socialist tax policies are common sense I am surprised you have voted Tory all your life, although I suppose it depends on how long a life you have had.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by foreverwar
It's just like running your household - you work out your income, calculate your outgoings, and anything left over, you have to make decisions on what to do with it. You could just go down the pub (tax-cuts), or you could save up the money and invest it in your house, thus investing in the future.
|
Of course.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by foreverwar
If we must have tax-cuts, they should be focussed on the less well paid, and we should raise the tax threshold, and lower the bottom rates of tax to distribute the money to those who need it most - lower-paid working people (you should like this, as the "work-shy scroungers" don't benefit).
|
Of course, but do you think "work shy scroungers" (your words, not mine)
should benefit?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by foreverwar
If we dropped the higher-rate tax to 35%, that means (roughly) someone earning over £37k pa would be £1 per week better off for every thousand pounds they earned over £37k, so if they earned £45k a year, they would be £8 per week better off. Don't you agree this £8 per week would be more useful to someone earning the minimum wage of £5 per hour, £10k per year - it would make a big difference to them, and (usually) only a small difference to someone on £47k pa.
|
Yes, and nor do I disagree with the figures you quoted.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by foreverwar
Before I was made redundant, I earned a reasonable amount of money (well over the higher rate threshold, with company car, fuel, etc) - my monthly total "tax" bill (income tax and NI) was not above 38%, so it would be interesting to see where your "close to half" figure comes from.
|
I was actually thinking of the Labour party under Neil Kinnock who wanted a top tax rate of 50%, and government spending always goes up, never down, and as the Tory Party has said it might put taxes up, I am not confident that in the future it will not reach those dizzy heights! In 2003 total public spending was £456 billion and this year £552 billion, and it is projected to rise to £610 billion for 2008 - 2009.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by foreverwar
I also fail to see your connection between tax cuts and people "scrounging off the state"
|
I would have thought the connection between taxes and benefits fairly obvious. Benefits are paid by tax payers. Less claimants = a lower tax burden. The government's benefits system is now so enormously complicated that even the staff are making millions of pounds worth of mistakes every year. And there are other problems too.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by foreverwar
btw, 12% of tax-payers pay the higher rate of income tax, and when I am working, I am one of them, and proud of it; I see it as paying for the future, for my children, and other's children - I wish sometimes it was spent more wisely, but with rising expectations of the electorate, and short-termism the name of the game in politics and business, that won't be easy to change.
|
Turnouts at the last two elections have been pitifully low (just 61% in 2005) so it seems to me that a great number of voters have given up expecting anything at all. So given that no mainstream party is even trying to change it, I hope you will carry on being proud to pay you tax bill.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by hatedbythemail
im a higher rate tax payer and dont begrudge it. but i watch friends struggle by on minimum wage, or wading through tax credit forms, or battling with the csa to try scrape cash together to support their kids. im ashamed that our country, one of the world's richest, allows such a shabby state of affairs.
|
So should employers be forced to pay lower wage earners more? The tax credit system is a scandal, and the CSA has failed miserably. What's the answer?