The Tories really are the party of low tax.

[epiphany]

Sometimes I like to see beyond all that. I do often wonder though if you could peel Eric Pickles like an onion would you eventually find Baroness Warsi inside.

 

Well there is a lot to see beyond.

 

 

 

 

The double meaning there was just convenient and honestly unintended.

[percy filth]

Be careful. George Osborne might be looking for you.

 

and why should that worry me?

[percy filth]

An anomoly I always find intesting is how some relatively low paid people get angry that the rich should have to pay more in tax

 

Perhaps it is because taxing the wealth creaters to heavily makes them create that wealth elsewhere.

Someone who earns very little will pay no income tax whatsoever.

Someone who earns £20K might pay 5% of that as income tax.

Someone who earns £5 million might be expected to pay nearly 50% of that as tax. That is a great deal for the rest of us only if the high earner sticks around and pays it. If they don't we collect nothing. But if they would have paid 40% and not 50% that is a better deal for the country particularly as their spending will provide jobs for others, attract VAT and in all likelyhood their business will bring jobs to the country.

[Mister M]

Not only do some people think that the Tories are the party of low tax. But this man thinks that the Tories are the party of the poor

 

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/2011/10/06/iain-duncan-smith-says-tories-are-party-of-the-poor-115875-23469822/

[mj.scuba]

Not only do some people think that the Tories are the party of low tax. But this man thinks that the Tories are the party of the poor

 

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/2011/10/06/iain-duncan-smith-says-tories-are-party-of-the-poor-115875-23469822/

 

I agree with him.

[Mister M]

Perhaps it is because taxing the wealth creaters to heavily makes them create that wealth elsewhere.

Someone who earns very little will pay no income tax whatsoever.

Someone who earns £20K might pay 5% of that as income tax.

Someone who earns £5 million might be expected to pay nearly 50% of that as tax. That is a great deal for the rest of us only if the high earner sticks around and pays it. If they don't we collect nothing. But if they would have paid 40% and not 50% that is a better deal for the country particularly as their spending will provide jobs for others, attract VAT and in all likelyhood their business will bring jobs to the country.

 

Conventional wisdom amongst political apparatchiks is that people will align their own interests to the very wealthy, in the belief that one day they too will be wealthy & so would not want to pay higher taxes.

Unfortunatley social mobility being as it is nowadays, 'rags to riches' happens rarely. And there's evidence in newspapers that the rich employ accountants to exploit loopholes while the low paid can't afford the fees of an accountant.

[Mister M]

I agree with him.

 

I agree with Brendan Barber.

[percy filth]

Conventional wisdom amongst political apparatchiks is that people will align their own interests to the very wealthy, in the belief that one day they too will be wealthy & so would not want to pay higher taxes.

Unfortunatley social mobility being as it is nowadays, 'rags to riches' happens rarely. And there's evidence in newspapers that the rich employ accountants to exploit loopholes while the low paid can't afford the fees of an accountant.

 

A few posts back I did sight Jenson Button as a case in point. He earns around £15 million each year and pays no UK taxes. Do you think he should? If you think he should please tell us why? Also if you think he should pay UK taxes please tell us how you would go about taxing him.

[chem1st]

You're going to use bible quotes to support a rather vague attack on the wealthy by making the implication that they don't already do enough to support those in need through our already progressive tax system? Weak.

How can you argue that a % based PAYE system which starts at 0% and rises through steps to 50% is regressive? Do you have to cross your fingers behind you whilst you type that?

 

0, 20, 40, 50. - Progressive income tax.

 

Alongside NI at 12, 2.

 

NI is regressive and NI is a tax.

 

So we have, 0, 32, 52, 62, 42.

 

That's not progressive.

 

We also haven't considered benefits, and tax credits. Benefits being essentially a basic income. Universal credit be a step towards basic income and a great improvement. But it isn't progressive enough...

[Cyclone]

"Progressive taxation often must be considered as part of an overall system since tax codes have many interdependent variables. For example, when refundable tax credits and other tax incentives are included across the entire income spectrum,"

 

You can't consider isolated parts of the tax burden.

 

You also can't count.

 

0, 32, 52, 62, 52.

 

62 is an anomaly that could be removed by altering the boundaries, then you'd have 0, 32, 52. Progressive.

Benefits are not supposed to be an income, they have little place in a discussion about whether taxation is progressive or not, particularly when the focus is on the higher end of taxation.