UK General Election 2010 - Exceem POLL.

[Ayo312]

They may have acted late but its better than not acting at all, which is where most people are having problems...the debt, which imo is the lesser of two evils.

What has happened is quite similar to the great depression. Things were going so well many people didnt think it would stop, until it did there was much question about the sustainability of the growth...then after people start to question why x and y wasnt done to prevent it, its not that easy when you are going through it, things are much easier to pick out with hindsight

Not saying im in love with labour, as im certainly not, just don't like to see them bearing the brunt of the blame

[FurbtasticM]

Originally Posted by Ayo312

Not saying im in love with labour, as im certainly not, just don't like to see them bearing the brunt of the blame

That's not what my posts suggested. Assuming some of the blame is credible, assuming none at all certainly isn't.

I'm voting Green or UKIP!

[Ayo312]

Originally Posted by FurbtasticM

That's not what my posts suggested. Assuming some of the blame is credible, assuming none at all certainly isn't.

Agreed

[nim3]

If you look at the manifestos the tories is a load of fluff - no real policies. The tories are and always have ben a party that favour the rich. Vote Lib Dem !

[dhine31]

Originally Posted by nim3

If you look at the manifestos the tories is a load of fluff - no real policies. The tories are and always have ben a party that favour the rich. Vote Lib Dem !

But I still think favouring the British Rich is better than favouring the internationally rich, which in a Country with little to offer on the international stage, you will be doing if you give money to the "poor" and take from the "rich". It will only damage our economy. It works in places like America, where most of the money given to the poor is recycled through their own economy, but if we want to build up our economy again, we have to focus on British industry (most probably in technology, research and services)!

[FurbtasticM]

I lived on the bread line growing up but could never understand why we struggle to accept success in this country. If you do well then people should celibrate that, not try and knock you down in a "them and us" kind of way.

Tax is just one example.

Someone who earns £20K a year will pay £4K in tax at 20%. If you applied the same rate to someone earning £50K, they would pay £10K in tax. The reality is that the £50K earner will actually have a proportion taxed at 40%, so may pay, say, £15K in tax.

Would the two individuals be using a different amount of public services/resources?

Should I pay more for eXceem extra because I have worked hard to earn more greens?

I am all for contributing, it just doesn't make sense to me.

[ainsleee]

Originally Posted by FurbtasticM

I lived on the bread line growing up but could never understand why we struggle to accept success in this country. If you do well then people should celibrate that, not try and knock you down in a "them and us" kind of way.

Tax is just one example.

Someone who earns £20K a year will pay £4K in tax at 20%. If you applied the same rate to someone earning £50K, they would pay £10K in tax. The reality is that the £50K earner will actually have a proportion taxed at 40%, so may pay, say, £15K in tax.

Would the two individuals be using a different amount of public services/resources?

Should I pay more for eXceem extra because I have worked hard to earn more greens?

I am all for contributing, it just doesn't make sense to me.

Maybe they should make it more of an equilbrium between the two points. So say 30%? but keep the 50% tax in place for people earning over 150k.

[Ayo312]

Originally Posted by FurbtasticM

Someone who earns £20K a year will pay £4K in tax at 20%. If you applied the same rate to someone earning £50K, they would pay £10K in tax. The reality is that the £50K earner will actually have a proportion taxed at 40%, so may pay, say, £15K in tax.

There is a £6475 allowance which you dont get taxed on so the 20K earner actually pays about 2.7K and the 50K earner is between the 40% and 20% barrier so the first 20% will be taxed = 6.1K + the 40% over 37.4K (taking to account the personal allowance = 2.6K, so about 8.7K in tax

of course this doesnt included NI, which is another bastard to think about haha.

[FurbtasticM]

Originally Posted by Ayo312

There is a £6475 allowance which you dont get taxed on so the 20K earner actually pays about 2.7K and the 50K earner is between the 40% and 20% barrier so the first 20% will be taxed = 6.1K + the 40% over 37.4K (taking to account the personal allowance = 2.6K, so about 8.7K in tax

of course this doesnt included NI, which is another bastard to think about haha.

I was keeping the maths simple to illustrate the point

[Ayo312]

Originally Posted by FurbtasticM

I was keeping the maths simple to illustrate the point

Haha, fair enough...your gona get me started in another rant though

[nim3]

I dont see the problem in the rich paying slightly more tax than the poor if it goes to fund education, NHS and other services. Seems fair to me, earn more - pay more tax.

[Dunstan]

Originally Posted by FurbtasticM

Would the two individuals be using a different amount of public services/resources?

Should I pay more for eXceem extra because I have worked hard to earn more greens?

I am all for contributing, it just doesn't make sense to me.

In fact it could be argued that rich people use less of the public services as are more likely to use private healthcare and send their children to private schools.

[az87aris]

Originally Posted by nim3

I dont see the problem in the rich paying slightly more tax than the poor if it goes to fund education, NHS and other services. Seems fair to me, earn more - pay more tax.

You would think that would be the case anyway, as your tax is based on your income.

[FurbtasticM]

Originally Posted by nim3

I dont see the problem in the rich paying slightly more tax than the poor if it goes to fund education, NHS and other services. Seems fair to me, earn more - pay more tax.

It's not just "slightly more" though.

Interesting view on the subject:

“Higher taxes for the rich might make for good envy politics, but higher tax rates do not necessarily mean that more tax is paid, or that more revenue is collected. Often, the opposite is true.

Higher tax rates discourage work, discourage investment and discourage production. Less wealth is created as a result, and both the economy and the exchequer suffer. That’s the last thing we need in a recession.

Higher taxes also give people an incentive to avoid tax, either by hiring accountants to find loopholes or by moving somewhere else. Given that the top one per cent of wage earners in the UK pays 23 per cent of its income tax, that’s a real problem.

A better way to make the tax system fairer is to take the poor out of income tax altogether, by raising the personal allowance to at least £12,000.

Raising taxes on the UK’s wealth creators is just counter-productive.”

[bmh16]

Originally Posted by az87aris

How has conservatives got 10 votes in the poll? !

Because 10 people have voted them. Including myself.


Agreeing with Furbs. A lot of people think about taxing the richer people justifiable even if it is something like £50k. The way Furbs explained it was excellent and it annoys me to see people complaining about it, a lot because they don't have much of a clue.

I was reading into the policies of the Lib Dems more today. Things like crime i really strike a chord on. But i really disagree with their opinions on them being anti-Nuclear Power and anti-Trident. Nuclear Power is the only form of renewable power which is worth it, and let's face it oil ain't going to last much longer so we need renewable energy sources. Wind Power and the like do barely anything and are not cost efficient. Nuclear Power is the only way to do it. Also our country needs protection in a growing world of superpowers. Trident is vital imo, and also it leads me that Europe is very important to be at least a part of. We cannot become independent, but at the same time i don't want a federal Europe; a fine line.

[Dunstan]

Nuclear power is not a renewable energy source. It also produces toxic waste which does have to be disposed of.

[bmh16]

Originally Posted by Dunstan

Nuclear power is not a renewable energy source. It produces toxic waste which does have to be disposed of.

Yeah don't know what i was thinking when i said it was just now. But yeah renewable energy sources aren't good enough and efficient enough for us to solely run it. Nuclear Power is the best option to look into and utilise as fossil fuels won't last for ever.

[williamblah]

Originally Posted by FurbtasticM

A better way to make the tax system fairer is to take the poor out of income tax altogether, by raising the personal allowance to at least £12,000.

This is like what the Lib Dems want to do with the £10k threshold. It sounds like a great idea, but it is actually stupid.

It benefits every taxpayer, except for those earning less than the threshold. It benefits everybody EXCEPT the poorest.

It sounds like a brilliant idea for redistributing of wealth, but in fact, it is a REGRESSIVE tax!

Whichever side of the debate you are on, you cannot argue that a regressive tax is a good thing!

[nim3]

Originally Posted by williamblah

This is like what the Lib Dems want to do with the £10k threshold. It sounds like a great idea, but it is actually stupid.

It benefits every taxpayer, except for those earning less than the threshold. It benefits everybody EXCEPT the poorest.

It sounds like a brilliant idea for redistributing of wealth, but in fact, it is a REGRESSIVE tax!

Whichever side of the debate you are on, you cannot argue that a regressive tax is a good thing!

How exactly would it benefit everyone exept the poorest

[az87aris]

Originally Posted by williamblah

This is like what the Lib Dems want to do with the £10k threshold. It sounds like a great idea, but it is actually stupid.

It benefits every taxpayer, except for those earning less than the threshold. It benefits everybody EXCEPT the poorest.

It sounds like a brilliant idea for redistributing of wealth, but in fact, it is a REGRESSIVE tax!

Whichever side of the debate you are on, you cannot argue that a regressive tax is a good thing!

How would it not benefit those below the threshold? They will be paying no tax so can't see how they wouldn't benefit.