[Closed] Tories looking after the rich, what a shocker.

mod in posting deliberately provocative subject on forum and using the word shocker... shocker!

[img] [/img]

Thread reported for obvious troll, designed to whip the usual suspects up into a frothing frenzy.

Jealous are we?

Why should people who create jobs for other people, make the UK operate, generally make the UK a richer country pay 50% of every thing they work there arses off for over to the tax man?

To make kittens sad.

Jealous are we?

Errr no, I'll still pay less tax.

pay 50% of every thing they work there arses off for over to the tax man?

You obviously have no idea how PAYE works

Expect more of this: leaks of changes which are unpalatable, then lo and behold in the budget they aren't there, making it all look better than it really is.

Why should people who create jobs for other people, make the UK operate, generally make the UK a richer country pay 50% of every thing they work there arses off for over to the tax man?

Don't be daft! Everyone knows the rich don't pay any tax. So it doesn't matter what the figure is. Its academic. Tax is for proles

Genuine food for thought there CaptJohn.

Can we start and then retract a rumour that they will introduce a (state) school dinner tax that helps pay for Tarquin's school fees? 😀

Why should people who create jobs for other people, make the UK operate, generally make the UK a richer country pay 50% of every thing they work there arses off for over to the tax man?

Because they need an educated healthy workforce, they need roads and transport, they need infrastructure to operate in, and most of all they need people with the wealth to buy their products and services. In short they need all of the opportunities that society provides to create their relative wealth, otherwise they will end up with a garage full of Ferraris and no roads to drive them on.

Look after "the rich" - you bet, it's the future of the country at stake !

The high rate tax payers will be the driving force of economic revival by making money and investing it in jobs.
The doleys don't pay taxes, the illegals don't pay taxes, the cash-in-handers don't pay taxes, the students don't pay taxes - if "the rich" leave the country who will support the lazy poor in their alcohol, nicotine and saturated fat fuelled lives ?

Why should people who create jobs for other people,

Really in this time of austerity and rising bills and stalled wages nothing can improve this economy except for swathing cuts to govt spending [ i call this **** the poor for brevity] and increasing the amount of money the rich get [ i call this the politics of greed]

really who expected anything less from the Tories with their BS pledges on the NHS and everything else they have and will always be the party that makes things better for the minority who are wealthy at the expenses of the majority who are not wealthy

How they manage to persuade many of these poor people to vote for them is the real mystery to me tbh

Once apon a tome The high rate tax payers will be the driving force of economic revival by making money and investing it in jobs and they all lived happily ever after

So unemployment is only rising because tax is so high PMSL

i don't think that many people voted for the Tories, they voted LibDem because they felt cross with Gordon/Tony. Bet they feel good about that now 😉

[quote=fuzzhead said]i don't think that many people voted for the Tories,

10,703,654 people did apparently.

10,703,654 people did apparently.

Whichever whay you spin that number, it isn't an election 'victory' by a long stretch. Yet we seem to have a Conservative government. Perhaps the notion of 'hey, we're not a Conservative government, we're a coalition' is the excuse for doing so much stuff that wasn't in their manifesto. 😆

Junkyard - Member

So unemployment is only rising because tax is so high PMSL

No, because the skanks are better off on the dole.....

Look after "the rich" - you bet, it's the future of the country at stake !

The high rate tax payers will be the driving force of economic revival by making money and investing it in jobs.
The doleys don't pay taxes, the illegals don't pay taxes, the cash-in-handers don't pay taxes, the students don't pay taxes - if "the rich" leave the country who will support the lazy poor in their alcohol, nicotine and saturated fat fuelled lives ?

This sounds like an advert for that extremely crap book "Atlas Shrugged" by Ayn Rand.

[quote=julianwilson said]Whichever whay you spin that number, it isn't an election 'victory' by a long stretch. Yet we seem to have a Conservative government. Perhaps the notion of 'hey, we're not a Conservative government, we're a coalition' is the excuse for doing so much stuff that wasn't in their manifesto.

Have you seen the 2005 results ? If you think 2010 wasn't a victory then 2005 was a travesty!

No, because the skanks are better off on the dole.....

As someone who is rapidly heading to the dole queue for the first time in 30 years, my enquiries suggest I'll be raking in about 20% of what I earn now

jota180 - Member
As someone who is rapidly heading to the dole queue for the first time in 30 years, my enquiries suggest I'll be raking in about 20% of what I earn now

well after 30 years at work you should be able to take early retirement if you've made adequate provisions.....

allthepies, 2005 was a 'victory' in terms of winning a parliamentary majority under (what I consider to be a flawed) FPTP electoral system, which the overwhelming majority of conservatives nevertheless supported at the AV referendum. 😕

And now the solution to their poor 'seat count' in 2010 would seem to be [s]gerrymandering[/s] constituency boundary changes.

Smooth.

If the rich drive the economy (an idea not supported by elementary economics) then it would be a good idea to tax them more to enourage them to increase their income by investing more and working harder. Giving money to the rich(with a high mps) produces little benefit for the economy but a great benefit for them.

The high rate tax payers will be the driving force of economic revival by making money and investing it in jobs.

Is this true ? Surely most rich people have their money and are just trying to keep it.

Surely most innovate companies and products originate from the middle classes, where there are enough resources to provide a good education but there is also a drive and desire to achieve more. I would guess most innovate companies come from the minds of the middle class not people earning over £150,000.

The abolition of the 50% rate is going to go hand in hand with the extension of tax free earnings to £10,000 (which Im in favour of) but guess were the short fall will be made up.

Probably by dropping the 40% tax band even more than planned putting more pressure on the upper middle earners.

I know there is alot of complaining about this child benefit cut but the way the system seems to be going out of kilter with the realities of work.

With a possible £10,000 in tax free, maybe more, it really doesnt make sense for a family to have 1 earner. It will be much better to work part time and try and maximise your tax free potential but I dont think this is how most employers see things.

I mean you could earn £20,000 as a couple and only pay NI soon with 2 part time jobs.

well after 30 years at work you should be able to take early retirement if you've made adequate provisions....

What's that got to do with it? [another 5 years for me, if it matters]

You implied I'd be better off on the dole - how?

Anyway, the Conservaitives are just following the Word of The Lord

Mark 4:25
For he that has, to him shall be given: and he that has not, from him shall be taken even that which he has

so not only encouraging the hard working to become successful and revitalise the economy but re-establishing the country's Christian traditions and values - double win situation, and not before time....

"Jealous are we?

Why should people who create jobs for other people, make the UK operate, generally make the UK a richer country pay 50% of every thing they work there arses off for over to the tax man? "

This would have a little more merit as an argument if there were any evidence that people who create jobs and generate (as opposed to harvest) wealth actually earn more than £140k

Most of the rich in that bracket are actually in parasitc jobs that harm the economy such as bankers accountants or top end public utilitys . Many in that bracket derive either their job security or their income stream from public funds eg top lawyers A2E executives Rail companies. No harm in making them contribute in a progressive way.

If they don't like it they can always leave the country i'm sure we will cope without them.

"10,703,654 people did apparently."
Whichever whay you spin that number, it isn't an election 'victory' by a long stretch.

What would be an election victory then? 9,552,436? 10,724,953?

I wondered how long it would be before bankers got a trolling

Cunning new pro-active moderating tactic shocker 😉
Pre-empt the day's obvious lefty-righty subject and confine it to a single thread.
Brilliant, I like the new forum 🙂

There was someone on Radio 4 this morning from some business consortium based in Pall Mall (how I chuckled) trying to say that the 50%-ers included 'normal people' who fit tyres and run hairdressers, and we could employ more tyre fitters and hairdressers if we dropped the 50%. Weak.

Ultimately there aren't enough figures to prove anything either way: Osborne's decision will most likely boil down to 'upsetting your mates by keeping it on for a year' versus 'can the people who can be bothered to vote be convinced it's good for them if we scrap it?'. 😕

Ooh - how about 11,872,180 - would that be an election victory? How about 12,208,758? Or even 13,948,385?

I wondered how long it would be before bankers got a trolling

That fine, upstanding body are much maligned

http://www.economist.com/node/21549961

aracer - Member

"10,703,654 people did apparently."
Whichever whay you spin that number, it isn't an election 'victory' by a long stretch.

What would be an election victory then? 9,552,436? 10,724,953?

Read the other posts.

FPTP system is screwed and not necessarily representative of the views of people who get out to vote. I mean this for the 2005 election too by the way. Especially not representative if you fail to get a majority, and then carry on in a coalition pretty much (with the exception of the AV referendum) as if you had done. The electoral boundary 'reforms' following this election result and the status quo being maintained at the AV referendum are no conincidence at all: this is a party loading the dice for the next election in case even fewer people vote for them.

[edit] Ooooh, I rattled Tory-Boy's cage so much he posted the same lame rhetorical question twice but with different numbers. 8) Maybe he will post it a third time with some decimal points too. 😉

Banking - its just a job and we not all the same

hilldodger - Member
Look after "the rich" - you bet, it's the future of the country at stake !

The high rate tax payers will be the driving force of economic revival by making money and investing it in jobs.
The doleys don't pay taxes, the illegals don't pay taxes, the cash-in-handers don't pay taxes, the students don't pay taxes - if "the rich" leave the country who will support the lazy poor in their alcohol, nicotine and saturated fat fuelled lives ?

I'm trying to work out if that is sarcasm or not.

Each and everyone of those groups names does pay tax in the form of VAT. And as research has demonstrated the poorest people in society pay a higher proportion of their income in tax.

Read the other posts.

I don't think any of those really added anything to your argument that some number of people voting for you doesn't constitute an election victory. You don't seem to have a very good understanding of the way UK politics work - maybe you should check out which elections and parties my latest set of popular vote figures are from, there is a subtle difference from the previous set. I see you also disagree with 2005, but what about 2001, where Labour's popular vote was a huge 0.2% higher than the Tories got this time?

Loving the "Tory-boy" ad-hom BTW. Particularly appropriate I think when I'm just commenting on the way elections work, rather than anything party-political, and my latest set of figures includes more than one party.

so not only encouraging the hard working to become successful and revitalise the economy but re-establishing the country's Christian traditions and values - double win situation, and not before time....

this is all your fault drac

aracer: whoosh!

maybe you should check out which elections and parties my latest set of popular vote figures are from

I couldn't be bothered to google them to find out which ones matched which elections were from, alas the new forum format doesn't do irony any better than the old one did. My point is the numbers don't make that much of a difference if you support a FTPT sytem and then twiddle the boundaries to load the dice a little for next time. You may as well have decimal points, fractions and anything else 'countable' for all the difference a million votes one way or the other on a national level can make for the geographical distribution of your support and how many seats you actually win.

You have outed yourself as a Tory enough times on here for most that take an interest in the politix threads on here to remember. Steaming in with that first post didn't help TBH.

alcohol, nicotine and saturated fat fuelled lives ?

and the smokers n drinkers pay a shed load more tax on top

Anyone ever heard of the Laffer Curve?

I think it has something to do with economics.

😆

The laffer curve? Brilliant.

Where do we think the top of the laffer curve should be on the 'percentage' axis then? (hums Robin Hood music)

If you are asking what percentage I think high earners should be taxed at then its got to be less than 50%. Isn't that what Laffer tells us?

The Laffer curve is bullshine.

Laffer curve can be shown to maximise tax incomes at anything between 35% to 75%.

I dunno, maybe if the top of the curve is at £65%, the high earners will work harder and then make more econmoic growth and more jobs for the proles.
I have a teeny tiny hunch that it is a bit more complicated than that though...

But it's got a fancy name, looks scientific [i]and[/i] supports what I already think! How can it be more complicated than that?

I couldn't be bothered to google them to find out which ones matched which elections were from

OK then:
11,872,180 - Conservative, Feb '74
12,208,758 - Labour, 1970
13,948,385 - Labour, 1951

I thought it was interesting in comparison with the other figures, and your assertion about the last one not being a victory. Labour had a higher (and higher share of the) popular vote in 1951 than 1997.

You have outed yourself as a Tory enough times on here for most that take an interest in the politix threads on here to remember.

Oh yes - part of the loony right aren't I? I've also more than once commented that I've voted for different parties in different elections.

Steaming in with that first post didn't help TBH.

Commenting on the electoral system marks me down as a Tory-boy? 🙄

MSP thats true and it illustrates my point well. In this country there exists a 50% limit on taxation(both psychological and physical). What I mean is people can not stomach the thought that mortgaging everthing, putting it all on the line to set up a business and eventually being successful means that you have to give away HALF of what you earn to the tax man. These thoughts stiffle enterprise and therefore tax income is reduced. The percentage may be different in other countries where populations feel that want to pay higher taxes knowing that they are getting something really good in return eg health system, well maintained roads etc.

In Britian we definately dont want to give more than 50% of our hard earned money away.

Simon_Semtex you miss the point completely, the laffer curve is drawn to support whichever dogma you want to pedal, and then "evidence" is shown to match the curve.

The idea that the richest people actually had to risk everything and work harder than the rest is also deeply flawed.

being successful means that you have to give away HALF of what you earn to the tax man

No you don't, you pay 50% on earnings over £100k, or whatever the number is

Complete supposition Simon_Semtex.

The idea that the richest people actually had to risk everything and work harder than the rest is also deeply flawed.

Its not flawed, its a preposterous assumption. Wealth generators? Job creators? Do me a ****ing favour!

We have a government stuffed with multi-millioaires. Have a look at them. And the friends they went to Eton with. Do you think they grafted for their money? Seriously? Get a grip! They were handed it by mummy and daddy.

Entrepreneurs will just get on and start businesses, whatever happens. And whatever the tax situation. As they're people who are driven to do so. The idea that the 50% rate is being dropped to encourage Entrepreneurs is absolutely laughable!!

OMG MSP you have NOOOOO idea. and you have missed the point completely. This isn't about rich and poor. This is about stimulating enterprise. Rich people can be rich for any number of reasons (winning the lottery, playing premiership football, or inheritance to name but a few.)

Dropping the taxation level from 50 to 40% is about encouraging more people to be more entrepeneurial. It has the added advantage of increasing YES increasing tax revenue but the main idea is to encourage budding business owners to take the plunge and go for it.

Ohh and Binners.... are you mental or something?

being successful means that you have to give away HALF of what you earn to the tax man

If you earn £200K and pay - say - a modest 5% pension

The taxman would take around £70K so nearer a THIRD than a half

aracer, the whole post you objected to made reference not just to the 'number of votes at general election to form a government' but also to [b]no one[/b] winning the 2010 election, and yet the Conservative party (I [i]almost[/i] said 'government') behaving very much as though they had.

Forgive me for making the mistake that you had read and were objecting to the whole post (and the notion of the conservatives thinking they had 'won' anything apart from not enough seats to form a government in 2010), not just the first sentence.

I too have voted for various parties but am frequently accused of being a bedwetting bleeding heart socialist. Like you, it must be the way I argue these things. I voted for NuLab long after they leapfrogged the Liberal Democrates into the centre-right. Although under FPTP that is as much to do with keeping the conservative candiate out of my constituency. I wonder if you have ever found yourself voting tactically rather than with your heart? I remember 'fondly' (ahem) the AV threads on this forum to which you and I both contributed ending up going very left vs right.

the daily mash sums it up nicely

[url= http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/politics/politics-headlines/life-to-be-slightly-easier-for-people-who-are-absolutely-fine-201203165017/ ]life-to-be-slightly-easier-for-people-who-are-absolutely-fine[/url]

"Focus groups up and down the country are telling us to cut child benefit for people on middle incomes so that those on more than £150,000 a year can continue to donate money to the Conservative Party. It is almost breath taking in its simplicity.

So, let me get this straight. We've got:

50% tax rate
Entrepreneurs
Tories
Labour
Lib Dems (briefly, and having no meaningful impact)
The rich
The poor
Scroungers
Grafters
Risk takers
Takers
FPTP
And...arguments about a general election result from two years ago

As you were.

Dropping the taxation level from 50 to 40% is about encouraging more people to be more entrepeneurial. It has the added advantage of increasing YES increasing tax revenue but the main idea is to encourage budding business owners to take the plunge and go for it.

Again complete supposition, any evidence for this?

OMITN, it's the hangover from TJ's birthday 'ceasefire' yesterday. 😀

Where is he BTW?

If you earn £200K and pay - say - a modest 5% pension

The taxman would take around £70K so nearer a THIRD than a half

You're forgetting NI, which takes it up to 80K. If you allow for the employers NI then it comes to pretty near 50% of your wage bill in tax.

It has the added advantage of increasing YES increasing tax revenue but the main idea is to encourage budding business owners to take the plunge and go for it.

Seer that's just what comes from, creating a laffer curve to support your ideology, and then claiming the laffer curve is proof. Its absolutely nonsense.
As is the claim that the top rate of tax effects entrepreneurial ventures, only a very small number of start ups would expect to be hitting the top rate of tax any time in the near future.
Greed doesn't drive enterprise half as much as smart ideas do.

Not according to Gordon (Gecko that is.)

"Greed is good."

MSP.. sorry mate just realised that your degree is in something like yoghurt weaving or data warehousing. Try and read some economics books before spouting such drivel.

no one winning the 2010 election, and yet the Conservative party (I almost said 'government') behaving very much as though they had.

Well to be fair, they did get significantly more seats than any other party, so if asked the question "which party won the 2010 election" and given the options, Conservative, Labour, LibDem, which one would you pick? They did also succeed in forming a coalition, of which they hold over 84% of the voting mandate, so it's hardly surprising that the policies of the government don't look all that different from one with 100% of the mandate - that's the way politics works. The strange thing is, you appear to dislike what happens when you get a coalition, yet in favour of a political system which will result in continual coalitions.

I remember 'fondly' (ahem) the AV threads on this forum to which you and I both contributed ending up going very left vs right.

That's (one way) where we differ then - I don't really remember them at all, not even what comments I made on them, let alone what your opinion was. I have to admit that I'd have had no idea of your political persuasion before this thread - I only tend to remember that of the obvious big hitters (not being one of those is a compliment, not an insult 😉 ) - and didn't think I was all that memorable. I've tended to avoid expressing political opinions on here recently, having realised how pointless it is.

Simon_Semtex - how naive and gulible are you? Have you the remotest idea of how your mythical 'entrepreneur' functions?

Could you point me in the direction of this heroic entrepreneur who, upon setting up a company and earning £150,000, then uses the PAYE tax system? Seriously? As opposed to dodgy 'directors loans', Front companies, dividends, and exploiting every tax loophole in the book? If so, I'll show you....

[img] [/img]

This tax rate drop has absolutely nothing to do with job creation, entrepreneurial spirit, or any of that guff.

There are numerous factors a co-orporarion will consider before deciding wheteher to invest in a country (available skills, government assistance etc). The tax rate for a few of its best paid executives is pretty near the bottom.

It's laughable to beleive that an entrepreneur / corporation won't invest because of the tax rate. Any true genuine entrepreneur that is paying the top rate of tax needs to have a few words with his accountant.

Edit. Beaten to it by binners. He had a pretty picture to :'(

Simon_Semtex - Member
Not according to Gordon (Gecko that is.)

"Greed is good."

MSP.. sorry mate just realised that your degree is in something like yoghurt weaving or data warehousing. Try and read some economics books before spouting such drivel.

And your evidence is from 'Wall Street'?

But well done on resorting to ad hominems without even trying to back up what you're saying.

Rich people can be rich for any number of reasons (winning the lottery, playing premiership football, or inheritance to name but a few.)

So whats the reason not to tax them at 50% then ?

Could you point me in the direction of this heroic entrepreneur who, upon setting up a company and earning £150,000, then uses the PAYE tax system? Seriously? As opposed to dodgy 'directors loans', Front companies, dividends, and exploiting every tax loophole in the book? If so, I'll show you....

Here I am.

Well, not quite; I haven't set up a company. But my pay all goes through PAYE, and I'm caught by the top tax rate. I'm not asking for sympathy, but please don't make the mistake of thinking that everyone earning into that top tax band is somehow a millionaire/Bond villain/possessor of fiendish tax planning opportunities. It just ain't so....

Do we actually have any entrepreneurs on the forum ?

Brant maybe ? Have you managed to get into the 50% bracket ?

Did you decide to design bikes brant so because you knew back in the day you'd pay 40% tax ?

Would you have started on one if you'd known you'd have to pay 50% tax ?

Or did you do it because you like designing bikes ?

Hi nickf

If the 50% tax bracket had existed when you started on your career would you have decided not to bother and just work at tesco ?

The strange thing is, you appear to dislike what happens when you get a coalition, yet in favour of a political system which will result in continual coalitions.

I didn't explain myself very well then.

I don't like the way the Conservatives overwhelmingly opposed AV and then a year later set about boundary reforms, despite having got into government (let's not forget thet the FPTP system could have allowed a Lib/Lab coalition in 2010 and we the voters would have been powerless to stop that happening) without a parliamentary majority. A more cycnical person would wonder if they have their foot jammed in the door and are trying all they can to make sure they get all the way in next time. The amount of changes instigated out so soon after the election that was in neither party's electoral manifestoes grates a little bit too.

I see this coalition as a sign that the days of FPTP are numbered: if we still ended up with an [s]unelected Conservative government[/s] coalition acting out of mandate within months of an elcetion, in an electoral system whose main advantage is to provide us with single party governments at the expense of people feeling they can vote with their hearts, then why bother hanging on to it any more?

nickf - Member

Here I am.

Well, not quite; I haven't set up a company. But my pay all goes through PAYE, and I'm caught by the top tax rate. I'm not asking for sympathy, but please don't make the mistake of thinking that everyone earning into that top tax band is somehow a millionaire/Bond villain/possessor of fiendish tax planning opportunities. It just ain't so....

Did you think twice about doing it because of the tax rate?

I thought that the actual figures had shown that the 50p rate had not brought in any more money - since people at that end of the earnings scale were more likely to begin funneling their money through (legal) tax avoidance measures...

[img] [/img]

I thought that the actual figures had shown that the 50p rate had not brought in any more money - since people at that end of the earnings scale were more likely to begin funneling their money through (legal) tax avoidance measures...

From what I've read no one is really sure still. It all seems to be conjecture rather than fact.

but please don't make the mistake of thinking that everyone earning into that top tax band is somehow a millionaire/Bond villain/possessor of fiendish tax planning opportunities. It just ain't so....

nickf - I'm not saying that at all

Simon_Semtex is on about entrepreneurs. And them being discouraged from starting businesses (and thus creating jobs) by a 50% top tax rate. And I'm saying that that is utter guff. You're kind of proving my point by the fact that you're not discouraged.

But I'd hazard a guess that you're in a minority if you're earning 150,000 and using PAYE

If the 50% tax bracket had existed when you started on your career would you have decided not to bother and just work at tesco ?

Not quite. But I have had opportunities to work abroad (still do have) and if I didn't have kids settled at school, could quite easily have jumped to, say, Singapore. Anyone in my position but a decade younger would need their head examined if they didn't consider moving somewhere more tax-friendly.

Just as a little observation on Aracer's numbers...

14 million voters in 1951 represented 28% of the population.
10.7 million voters in 2010 represented 17% of the population.

Superficially similiar numbers often don't give a full picture.

Not quite. But I have had opportunities to work abroad (still do have) and if I didn't have kids settled at school, could quite easily have jumped to, say, Singapore. Anyone in my position but a decade younger would need their head examined if they didn't consider moving somewhere more tax-friendly.

So all that seems to suggest is we need a world wide tax regime. Ie everywhere have 50% bands.

Or all the rich people will end up in one place paying no tax while the vast majority are stuck.

Also you dont say you would nt have gone down that path suggesting that even if your paying 50% its still worth your while to earn over £150,000 (obviously).

Tax will be too much when its not worth earning £150,000.

What more to the point is its not really worth earning £10,000 a year as your quality of life is no better than being on the dole.

Or all the rich people will end up in one place paying no tax while the vast majority are stuck.