New Debt Crisis

[Robin-H]

According to Full Fact the top 1% of earners pay 28% of the income tax take...

 

and the top 50% pay 90% of it...

 

https://fullfact.org/economy/do-top-1-earners-pay-28-tax-burden/

 

Which, I might add, is a record percentage, much higher than when Labour were 'squeezing the pips'.

Edited September 5, 2018 by Robin-H

[spilldig]

So you think it's true that.

 

I don't.

 

I think many people do, but to claim that everyone does is ludicrous.

 

I don't like the 60% definition of poverty, but it's a fact that food bank usage under tory austerity has risen from 10's of thousands to millions! And this isn't a case of people using them because they're available, they have to be referred by an agency.

 

Obviously there are those who don't have much and I put most of that down to negative thinking. There is a lot of it about, in fact far too much.

 

---------- Post added 05-09-2018 at 19:08 ----------

 

So you imagine everyone living in those leafy suburbs have had everything given to them, and want to tax them accordingly.

One of my siblings lives in a place like that, they've got two expensive cars and have plenty of foreign holidays, worked for everything they've got, coming from a working class background and there's no jealousy from me and the rest of the family.

As regards contrasts with other areas, there's no reason why anyone with a will to work can't better their standards but unfortunately we've now got a benefit culture with a lot feeling a sense of entitlement, and the left encouraging that.

 

That's about the way I see it. Certainly I was not born with a silver spoon in my mouth. You work your way up.

[I1L2T3]

What point are you actually trying to make with that post. Once again in it Martin Lewis says that it isnt a debt and that people need educating as to what it actually is.

 

What exactly is the "nonsense" that you are going on about and what is your solution to it. You've been very good at posting hysterical reactions calling people idiots throughout this thread but what exactly do you have a a problem with and what is your answer.

 

that way we can discuss it properly instead of reacting with "i dont know whats wrong with you all" after multiple people have presented you with the actual facts of how the loan works, how the loanee pays it back, how much they pay back and the likelihood that they will not pay back the full amount unless they are earning very high wages from day 1.

 

I genuinely cannot see the point you are trying to make or why you cannot see what people are putting so let me ask you some questions so we can discuss in an informed postiion without childish insults.

 

How do you think student university education should be funded?

Do you think that it is right that the student is expected to contribute back some of the loan (bearing in mind 90% will never pay it all back)?

Do you think that it is right that the student can earn £25,000 a year before they have to pay back a penny.?

Do you believe that university students should receive free studies and free accomodation and a living allowance (as given by the maintenance loan)?

If you believe that they should receive the above then who should pick up the bill? should it be the tax payer?

If you believe they should contirbute then should the whole cost be charged to them and payable straightaway as an actual debt would be applied.?

 

The nonsense that is our student loans system.

 

The Money Saving Expert site uses the term debt to describe the product multiple times in the page I posted.

 

The SLC describes it as a debt.

 

What MSE is really trying to say is it’s different to other forms of debt. That is true. I’m not disputing it.

 

One thing it definitely isnt is an official tax. It kind of behaves like one in some ways, but the entire edifice that underpins it is a loan book of debt accruing interest.

 

As I said earlier stop defending it. The system is a joke.

 

---------- Post added 05-09-2018 at 19:18 ----------

 

As far as I can see everyone seems to have plenty of money. All the roads are chock full of cars, every concert booked solid weeks in advance, restaurants so packed you have to make reservations, airports packed with people going on holiday, people queing up for lottery tickets and scratch cards, and spending a fortune down at Bramall Lane and Hillsborough, etc, etc.

 

Spectacular failure there in the context of this thread.

 

People often have these things because of willingness to take on excessive debt.

Edited September 5, 2018 by I1L2T3

[Anna B]

What does 'barely legal' mean? Either the form of tax avoidance is legal or it isn't, in which case it's tax evasion, and a crime.

 

How would an asset tax work exactly?

 

"It is fundamentally unfair that firms focused on the UK economy - especially small businesses - pay their business taxes responsibly while multinational firms create complex schemes to avoid paying what they owe. That's why it (the IIPR Commission) suggests a new form of Corporation tax to close these loopholes."

Archbishop of Canterbury

 

While ever there are loopholes the uncrupulous will do their best to exploit them, (and there will always be loopholes in such a complex system of taxation.) The moral however will do what is right and pay their dues. If we cannot close loopholes we have to make these companies more moral. There should be naming and shaming, stripping of titles, contracts, awards etc. And most important of all sanctions, embargoes and restrictions imposed by government.

 

As for outright tax evasion, they know it happens, they know it's a crime, but too often there is no punishment, just a tap on the wrist, and an invitation to 'come to some arrangement.' That has to stop, and strict prison sentences for perpetrators, no matter how rich and grand, be mandatory.

Edited September 6, 2018 by Anna B

[Obelix]

When did I say that?

 

I want more equality that's all.

 

I think we are at the most equal we have been for thirty years now. Gini is falling, has been falling and looks set to remain falling...

 

I object to your inferrence that this is motivated by jelousy. Nothing could be further from the truth.

 

Your words though, regardless of if you actually feel that way do paint a ratehr green tinged picture though I'm afraid

 

We have to pay more tax, and should have been doing so for years, but politicians (all parties) are too lilly livered to bite the bullet. And yes I want a substantial amount of that tax to come from the substantially rich. Especially those who have been dodging tax and getting richer at everyone else's expense.

 

Theres that jealousy perhaps - yes more tax. Especially if it comes from those that have more than me. Much better.

 

Do you not consider that the substantially rich already pay a massive amount of tax and they might object? Something like 90% of the people in this country cost more than they pay in tax, that means that the top ten percent are carrying all the cost of the rest of us. Just something to consider.

[I1L2T3]

I don’t think we are more equal. Levels of poverty are high and some regions have been neglected for almost 40 years now.

 

The Brexit vote is a massive indicator that something is very wrong and people are seeking change. Some of the biggest Brexit majorities were in neglected regions with high poverty levels.

[Cyclone]

No, virtually all of his points have been about calling it a debt despite being shown that it isn't one. So i was asking how does he see it and what is his answer to funding university education.

 

However if you bother to read that post and previous ones he was definitely making a point about the terms and conditions being retrospectively changed.

It was specifically in relation to possibly selling off parts of the loan book at some point. It's all quite clear, there in black and white.

 

---------- Post added 06-09-2018 at 09:04 ----------

 

You need to read the bit where I said "Admittedly not everyone is able to afford all those things"

 

So you do think that what he said is untrue... You seem to have contradicted yourself by saying the opposite to him, but also saying you don't think he's incorrect.

 

---------- Post added 06-09-2018 at 09:06 ----------

 

We did. At great length including JRF's very dubious definition of "poverty" and their fag packet mathematics on what THEY deem to be some minimum income level that everyone should demand.

 

However, it never stops the regulars on there beating that same old drum.

 

Round and round it goes. JRF publish some report, the papers snip out the jucy bits and publish those and then is trickles down to this forum where posters snip out the headline figures only and state it as fact to suit their agenda.

 

YES. Some people are struggling more than others. YES. Some people earn little whilst others earn a lot..... but "POVERTY". I am not convinced.

 

Spilldig's earlier comment is absolutely valid. Take a look around at what the majority of the population are doing. Even the so called lowest earners.

 

Take a look around your average shopping mall or superstore on a weekend. They are not all high rollers with their gucci store cards and jimmy choos.

 

Take a look around your sports stadia, cinemas, restaurants, pubs and clubs. They are not all balllers popping the champagne corks.

 

Look at the traffic. Look at the trains. All packed with people going about their day.

 

Someone is putting money in the tills and its not all about those nasty disgusting evil "rich" people.

 

Said before and will say again. People need to pull their head out and take a look what real poverty is. This country is nowhere close. With the extreme exceptions of the phyically and mentally disabled through no fault of their own, nobody has a right to scream the word "poverty". Those to do need to take a long hard look at thieir own failures.

 

We have an NHS. We have a minimum wage set in law. We have a universal welfare benefits system for all citizens. We have statutory instruments to provide a bed to sleep in and a roof over someone's head for the night even if they are at their most desprate state.

 

Countries around the world (including some of the richest and most westernised) could only dream of that level of assistance.

 

Wow, talk about a self supporting view of the world.

 

Take a look at the harbour at Monaco, clearly everyone in the world owns at least a small yacht.

You say look around at people spending money as if that proves everyone is spending money, apparently not realising that the people without very much money simply won't be in the very obvious places you're looking!

[Obelix]

Seriously, why would you think that? What possible proof could you have that it's lefty thing? Nobody likes paying more tax. In my experience it's the wealthy, especially those who have more money than they know what to do with, who are most agrieved when they think somebody might be coming for them. Hence their use of barely legal tax dodges.

 

Let's start with the "barely" part - theres no such thing as barely legal, it's an absolute black and white. Either something is an offence and therefore a crime, or it's legal. You dont get to class things you dislike as barely legal.

 

In my experience the wealthy don't object to paying tax at all. What they do object to is paying excessive tax. An example of that would be the somewhat large exodus of people and capital from France when Hollonde thought a 75% tax rate would be fair and people would pay..

 

Also in the 1990's when Lamont dropped the top tax rate from 60% to 40% and the tax take went UP because people repatriated funds from overseas as the 40% rate was considered more reasonable.

 

I have said before, tax should be paid by all but those at the very bottom, at a standard rate, but everybody must pay it in full on everything including assetts, no tax evasion, no taxavoidance, no dodgy accountants. The tax take would be so high everybody would end up paying a lower standard rate than now.

 

So how are you going to tax assets then? Everyone going to pay are they? Or is this another screw the rich scheme - because with a tax rate well north of 65% overall a lot of people are starting to get to do a Hollonde and they will be leaving. Thats money you are never going to have. Something like the goose and golden egg?

 

---------- Post added 06-09-2018 at 09:22 ----------

 

I don’t think we are more equal. Levels of poverty are high and some regions have been neglected for almost 40 years now.

 

We can all be equal in our poverty... but regardless of the overall wealth the Gini coefficient is lower than it's been for some time. It's not as low as it has been but to be honest if the overall standard of living is higher than it was in the 1970's is that really such a problem? If we have an unequal sharing of wealth but that still brings us in way above the more equal sharing of not very much in the 1970's then is equality a goat worth sacrificing?

[sheffbag]

The nonsense that is our student loans system.

 

The Money Saving Expert site uses the term debt to describe the product multiple times in the page I posted.

 

The SLC describes it as a debt.

 

What MSE is really trying to say is it’s different to other forms of debt. That is true. I’m not disputing it.

 

One thing it definitely isnt is an official tax. It kind of behaves like one in some ways, but the entire edifice that underpins it is a loan book of debt accruing interest.

 

As I said earlier stop defending it. The system is a joke.

 

---------- Post added 05-09-2018 at 19:18 ----------

 

 

Spectacular failure there in the context of this thread.

 

People often have these things because of willingness to take on excessive debt.

 

Of which any outstanding after 30 years is wiped off so any interest or outstanding amount is neither here or there.

 

So you get asked simple questions and do not answer any of them? I never said it was a tax. Its taken out of your pay check in the form of a tax but in turn it is no different then taking out a pension contribution.

 

Its not a willingness to accept debt, i'd love my daughter to come out with no loan payments after getting a degree but who should pay for her voluntary education that she has chosen to do? If I go and do a course to better my knowledge or for professional reasons then i pay for it myself. If i cant afford it then i either seek assistance or i dont do it.

 

As someone who cannot pay for it in her instance then the government enables the higher education but expects to receive some form of payment back for it. Whats wrong with that? If we didn't have this assistance then she wouldnt be able to afford university and all the additional fees of living that come with it and you would have a situation where only the wealthy could afford to go.

 

So whats your answer, how do we break this corrupt and unfair system?

 

I may not agree with Anna B on her views (what rate of tax would you set Anna?) but at least she offers a solution that we can debate and have a rational over, instead of not responding to simple questions to offer your views.

[alchresearch]

A bit of good news on the bills front:

 

Energy price cap to save households £75, Ofgem says

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-45422218

 

This was covered on the news this morning. It said that millions were still on the more expensive tariffs because they were too lazy to switch suppliers. Why? Is bad household money management part of the problem?