Quizzes & Puzzles1 min ago
Cutting Tax Rates Increases Tax Receipts....cut The 50% Rate, £8Bn In The Bin! Result!
19 Answers
http://
Must be galling to the lefties who like to use taxation as a weapon. I remember a similar thing happened in the early eighties when TGL was getting the basic rate down from 33% that the socialists had hiked it up to. Is there any reason we even have direct taxation? I mean any tax not paid directly is soon paid indirectly anyway. We'd save billions on admin and it's only a "temporary" 18th century measure anyway!
Must be galling to the lefties who like to use taxation as a weapon. I remember a similar thing happened in the early eighties when TGL was getting the basic rate down from 33% that the socialists had hiked it up to. Is there any reason we even have direct taxation? I mean any tax not paid directly is soon paid indirectly anyway. We'd save billions on admin and it's only a "temporary" 18th century measure anyway!
Answers
1 to 19 of 19
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ToraToraTora. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Folk are always claiming this but they need to look at where any extra revenue comes from if not from the better off.
Income tax is the only fair tax. The only one that links what someone has got out of society with what they are asked for to sustain it. It also allows the State/people to reclaim excessive wealth extracted from the rest of us by overcharging etc.. A right wing paper will tend to abusde the word "punish" when they should be describing it as "equitable".
If anything other taxes should be scrapped as they are paid with money that has already been taxed when it was income. Income tax should rise to cover it. An intended temporary measure that soon proved to be the way it should have be done all along,
Income tax is the only fair tax. The only one that links what someone has got out of society with what they are asked for to sustain it. It also allows the State/people to reclaim excessive wealth extracted from the rest of us by overcharging etc.. A right wing paper will tend to abusde the word "punish" when they should be describing it as "equitable".
If anything other taxes should be scrapped as they are paid with money that has already been taxed when it was income. Income tax should rise to cover it. An intended temporary measure that soon proved to be the way it should have be done all along,
I'm pasting this here for my own benefit. HMRC spending accounts around page 90. I need sleep and can't even pick through the accounting jargon.
Seems to be no such thing as easily digestible as "HMRC gathers X in taxes and costs Y to run", so as to answer T3's admin costs point.
My sole objection to the upper tax band is that, in response to Wilson, if someone wanted a £100p.a. *take-home* raise, they'd threaten to leave, as now, but their employer had to ramp up their salary by £1000. I hold the 90% tax band responsible for out of control, telephone number salaries, in the City of London. When taxes were relaxed, they were quids in!
Also, raises have always been percentages, rather than absolutes, so it works like gearing, for the already-well-paid. Can't quote absolutes in the papers or we'd all be able to work out what it was 5% of (say).
"Differentials, mate"
"We're worth more than them. Strike, Arthur. Strike!"
Seems to be no such thing as easily digestible as "HMRC gathers X in taxes and costs Y to run", so as to answer T3's admin costs point.
My sole objection to the upper tax band is that, in response to Wilson, if someone wanted a £100p.a. *take-home* raise, they'd threaten to leave, as now, but their employer had to ramp up their salary by £1000. I hold the 90% tax band responsible for out of control, telephone number salaries, in the City of London. When taxes were relaxed, they were quids in!
Also, raises have always been percentages, rather than absolutes, so it works like gearing, for the already-well-paid. Can't quote absolutes in the papers or we'd all be able to work out what it was 5% of (say).
"Differentials, mate"
"We're worth more than them. Strike, Arthur. Strike!"
When the economy is faltering then a temporary stimulation from the Government is needed.
Labour cut VAT to 15% when the financial crisis hit. Osborne quickly hiked it to 20% soon after getting into No.11.
If there are to be any tax cuts it should be on the lower rate. The tax collection service spend a fortune trying to recover piddling amounts from people who should really be exempt. A ridiculous number of man hours are wasted on small fry.
Meanwhile, 'sweetheart deals' with big corporations means the likes of Google are paying just a 3% tax rate, losing the exchequer £billions.
So, there should be changes to the tax system, but not the one that cits the tax of the comfortably off like you.
Labour cut VAT to 15% when the financial crisis hit. Osborne quickly hiked it to 20% soon after getting into No.11.
If there are to be any tax cuts it should be on the lower rate. The tax collection service spend a fortune trying to recover piddling amounts from people who should really be exempt. A ridiculous number of man hours are wasted on small fry.
Meanwhile, 'sweetheart deals' with big corporations means the likes of Google are paying just a 3% tax rate, losing the exchequer £billions.
So, there should be changes to the tax system, but not the one that cits the tax of the comfortably off like you.
@Tora
Gah! forgot to paste
https:/
//
"If tax revenue is fed back into the economy, in public spending, their should be jobs and growth. " - Jobs and growth come from people spending their disposible income.
//
Public Servants (recipients of the aforesaid) have disposable income too! Are you not allowing for that.
Sick people cannot work, so funding to hospitals helps get them back to work.
Educators turn our children into high earners. State funding on schools practically pays for itself.
Bad roads means you cannot ship goods efficiently.
I could go on.
If you are rich, it's probably because other people's taxes helped your company every step of the way, in indirect ways such as these.
Corporations are just starting to feel a sense of social responsibility and pay their taxes in the places where they make revenue. Give and take and even some socialists are happy to let you get rich.
Remember that Victorian entrepreneurs were big on philanthropy. It didn't last and social ills (of industrially-fed population expansion) means that we have to use tax as a proxy for generosity.
Gah! forgot to paste
https:/
//
"If tax revenue is fed back into the economy, in public spending, their should be jobs and growth. " - Jobs and growth come from people spending their disposible income.
//
Public Servants (recipients of the aforesaid) have disposable income too! Are you not allowing for that.
Sick people cannot work, so funding to hospitals helps get them back to work.
Educators turn our children into high earners. State funding on schools practically pays for itself.
Bad roads means you cannot ship goods efficiently.
I could go on.
If you are rich, it's probably because other people's taxes helped your company every step of the way, in indirect ways such as these.
Corporations are just starting to feel a sense of social responsibility and pay their taxes in the places where they make revenue. Give and take and even some socialists are happy to let you get rich.
Remember that Victorian entrepreneurs were big on philanthropy. It didn't last and social ills (of industrially-fed population expansion) means that we have to use tax as a proxy for generosity.
Interlewd*
http://
* Obscure reference; not a typo.
http://
* Obscure reference; not a typo.
@ToraToraTora
//
Public sector are paid out of taxation, they pay tax, yes but the money we pay them is already public money
//
I am foxed by the expression "it's already public money". Public money is shared money. Are you saying there is something inherently wrong with pooling our resources?
Does it sound too much like collectivism? Communism?
Shared money is for expenditure on solutions to shared problems.
Time was, taxes were only raised when the king wanted to go to war and needed to pay his army. Do you want to return to a feudal setup like that?
// I prefer too hang on to it.//
Everybody does. But imagine if you had to pay private tarmac gangs to msintain your commuter route and every other public service was run by some profit-hungry, money grubbing crook with sll the integrity of a cowboy builder and a toothless oversight authority, or none at all as they're public bodies, too.
Your precious money would be creamed off in all directions. Prices are not what things cost but "what the market will bear". What it will bear is a divvying up of the sum total of everybody's disposable income.
So, if taxes were set to zero and retailers failed to hike their prices, to take up the slack, they'd be insane. As things stand, lack of disposable income is what keeps prices from spiralling. Everybody wants all the consumer goods within their affordabilty reach and manufacturers want a slice of as many people's income as they can get away with, short of repelling them. So a balance is struck.
I concede that increasing tax dampens consumerism and hurts product makers. The exception is people so rich that they've got everything they want (except the next yacht up the scale) and any tax reduction just goes into a bank account and becomes idle.
I exaggerate, there. They will seek to invest, with a decent rate of return, to get that bit richer.
The only way to ensure they invest in the right places (ie in UK) is to incentivise them with tax breaks. Which is why we have a hideous tax system, practically built out of loopholes.
I do crave a simpler system yet, in an age of spreadsheets, I cannot understand the retention of "tax bands" which seem inspired by the need to do calculations with pen and paper. There is nothing to stop us having a gradual ramp-up, from zero-rated, in steps of 1% or 0.5%. This does away with unfairnesses at the current tax band boundaries. Imagine it going 21,22,23 as your salary creeps up, instead of straight to 40%, above the threshold, as it does now.
//
Public sector are paid out of taxation, they pay tax, yes but the money we pay them is already public money
//
I am foxed by the expression "it's already public money". Public money is shared money. Are you saying there is something inherently wrong with pooling our resources?
Does it sound too much like collectivism? Communism?
Shared money is for expenditure on solutions to shared problems.
Time was, taxes were only raised when the king wanted to go to war and needed to pay his army. Do you want to return to a feudal setup like that?
// I prefer too hang on to it.//
Everybody does. But imagine if you had to pay private tarmac gangs to msintain your commuter route and every other public service was run by some profit-hungry, money grubbing crook with sll the integrity of a cowboy builder and a toothless oversight authority, or none at all as they're public bodies, too.
Your precious money would be creamed off in all directions. Prices are not what things cost but "what the market will bear". What it will bear is a divvying up of the sum total of everybody's disposable income.
So, if taxes were set to zero and retailers failed to hike their prices, to take up the slack, they'd be insane. As things stand, lack of disposable income is what keeps prices from spiralling. Everybody wants all the consumer goods within their affordabilty reach and manufacturers want a slice of as many people's income as they can get away with, short of repelling them. So a balance is struck.
I concede that increasing tax dampens consumerism and hurts product makers. The exception is people so rich that they've got everything they want (except the next yacht up the scale) and any tax reduction just goes into a bank account and becomes idle.
I exaggerate, there. They will seek to invest, with a decent rate of return, to get that bit richer.
The only way to ensure they invest in the right places (ie in UK) is to incentivise them with tax breaks. Which is why we have a hideous tax system, practically built out of loopholes.
I do crave a simpler system yet, in an age of spreadsheets, I cannot understand the retention of "tax bands" which seem inspired by the need to do calculations with pen and paper. There is nothing to stop us having a gradual ramp-up, from zero-rated, in steps of 1% or 0.5%. This does away with unfairnesses at the current tax band boundaries. Imagine it going 21,22,23 as your salary creeps up, instead of straight to 40%, above the threshold, as it does now.
No, I'm saying that any money spent on the public sector is tax money earned by the private sector. Someone has to create wealth for public expenditure. Yes in can be used to temporarily stimulate the economy but in the end it has to be created. The public sector should always be as small as possible. As an analogy, imagine that the private sector generate electricity and the public sector use it, now swap the word electricity with the word money.
Hypo I admire your determined attempt to construct an argument for you points with data and a comprehensible text
give up ! as you will notice - he aint worf it.
3T it is called Laffin's curve
https:/
and yes 3T I reckon you're avin' a laff at us !
give up ! as you will notice - he aint worf it.
3T it is called Laffin's curve
https:/
and yes 3T I reckon you're avin' a laff at us !
1 to 19 of 19
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.