50p Tax band for high earners - good idea or not?

[I1L2T3]

Ah, clearly you don't understand how it works then.

 

---------- Post added 30-01-2014 at 12:58 ----------

 

 

Have you revised your claim about last March yet?

 

So they don't make mistakes? Of course they make mistakes. They're in the unhappy position of having academics, other researchers, journalists and economists going over everything they do. It's where a lot of challenges to the statistical analysis come from. I follow Hamish McRea's column in the independent and he's spent years in his column challenging ONS output figures and highlighting potential issues.

 

I think this is a case of you wanting to have your cake and eat it. You don't spare any effort talking down public services in your posts. Until that is the output of a public service supports your world view. If Labour was in power and the figures were favourable to them no doubt you'd be telling us that the ONS wasn't fit for purpose.

[Obelix]

So they don't make mistakes? Of course they make mistakes.

 

The original post made by Mecky was that the ONS continually make mistakes all the time. That is simply not true and his just his little witchhunt against them.

 

I think this is a case of you wanting to have your cake and eat it. You don't spare any effort talking down public services in your posts.

 

I rather think someone is being a little blinkered here - you are making unwarranted assumptions on what I say purely on on partisan politics.

 

Until that is the output of a public service supports your world view. If Labour was in power and the figures were favourable to them no doubt you'd be telling us that the ONS wasn't fit for purpose.

 

No, telling people that the ONS isn't fit for purpose is Mecky's job. Please don't tar me with his brush.

[Mecky]

The original post made by Mecky was that the ONS continually make mistakes all the time. That is simply not true and his just his little witchhunt against them.

 

 

 

I rather think someone is being a little blinkered here - you are making unwarranted assumptions on what I say purely on on partisan politics.

 

 

 

No, telling people that the ONS isn't fit for purpose is Mecky's job. Please don't tar me with his brush.

 

You are wong on all accounts. I did not make the orignal post, that honour goes to Anna B. I did not say the ONS continually make mistakes all the time, I said they have be shown to make mistakes.

 

The fact is your behaviour on these boards is pathethic, I don't mind you trying to have a go at me but you've had a fair chip at I1L2T3 too not to mention those attacks against people in the Sheffield section too which I have recently noticed. It's not the fact you have a different opinion to other people, it's because you keep trying to continually grind away on the same line because you've realised your aarguments are weak. Basically you don't like other people who may have a different opinion to yourself and you probably don't even like yourself if you're honest.

[Obelix]

You are wong on all accounts. I did not make the orignal post, that honour goes to Anna B. I did not say the ONS continually make mistakes all the time, I said they have be shown to make mistakes.

 

The fact is your behaviour on these boards is pathethic, I don't mind you trying to have a go at me but you've had a fair chip at I1L2T3 too not to mention those attacks against people in the Sheffield section too which I have recently noticed. It's not the fact you have a different opinion to other people, it's because you keep trying to continually grind away on the same line because you've realised your aarguments are weak. Basically you don't like other people who may have a different opinion to yourself and you probably don't even like yourself if you're honest.

 

IF my arguments are weak then you should be able to easily refute them right? You shouldn't have to come up with wild sounding issues like the economy halving last March and dismissing the ONS when it's convenient and using it when it's convenient right?

 

And whilst we are on the subject - why else make your post on the Ed Balls thread, unless you were having a go at me? Pot, Kettle and black I think.. oh well...

 

Arguments stand on their foundations. Yours are built on sand - or perhaps built in the 50% in March foundation that you tried recently.

 

If you want to knock an argument over, attack the argument. Don't whine about the poster....

[ivanava]

I don't know if there are any figures but I'd be surprised if the vast majority of tax revenue wasn't spent in the UK.

 

But you're right of course on the second point. It's well known that people earning say £10k a year spend most of their money on VAT-exempt items such as their children's school fees, or the annual subscription to their professional body. I've heard that the latter might even be tax deductible, the scoundrels!

 

And, yes, the rest of their money goes on fags and booze. It's common knowledge that they don't spend anything at all on food, housing, heating, transport or clothing.

 

[sorry for the late reply by the way. I'm a hard working man and don't get much time for posting these days.]

 

Most food VAT exempt, housing VAT exempt, domestic fuel 6% tax, children cloths VAT exempt, on £10K a years there won't be much left for items that are taxed at higher rates, and most cheap stuff is made abroad.

[truman]

I guess my point is that all of the £10k gets spent, whereas somebody on £200k a year will (not spend but) save quite a lot of their income, or salt it away in a Swiss bank account or whatever, which is not as good for the economy.

 

Hence it's better for the economy if some of the wealthier people's money, which they wouldn't otherwise spend, is taken as tax and spent by the government.

 

Someone on 200k is already paying over 80k on tax and NI.. how much in tax credits and HB would someone on 10k get.. would they be overall tax payers or not? genuine question by the way..

[RonJeremy]

Someone on 200k is already paying over 80k on tax and NI.. how much in tax credits and HB would someone on 10k get.. would they be overall tax payers or not? genuine question by the way..

 

They would be a net drain on the economy and should be writing a letter to the person on £200k to say thank you for keeping them.

[El Cid]

They would be a net drain on the economy and should be writing a letter to the person on £200k to say thank you for keeping them.

 

But a single person on their own would not qualify for those benefits; its all down to children.

Trouble is, does it get spent on the children?

[I1L2T3]

They would be a net drain on the economy and should be writing a letter to the person on £200k to say thank you for keeping them.

 

Whether they are a net drain on the economy depends on what they do.

 

Likewise the geezer on 200k could be in banking and partly responsible for multi-billion pound losses backstopped by the taxpayer. Much more of a net loss.

[ivanava]

I guess my point is that all of the £10k gets spent, whereas somebody on £200k a year will (not spend but) save quite a lot of their income, or salt it away in a Swiss bank account or whatever, which is not as good for the economy.

 

Hence it's better for the economy if some of the wealthier people's money, which they wouldn't otherwise spend, is taken as tax and spent by the government.

 

More assumptions, what makes you think they will salt it away in a Swiss bank account, many wealthy people spend their money as fast as they earn it, some even use it to build new business that employ people.