UK General Election 2015

[arbboy]

I also find it reprehensible that there are people on here not paying any contrubutions to the system and they feel they can give it out to people far less fortunate than themselves.  

Because of how gambling tax on casinos work, plus the new online gambling tax, any professional gambler likely contributes far more than the average person.

I recently made a similar point on FB, but it's easy to forget as it is taken directly by the casino.

Also, most people who have the drive to make it as a professional gambler is likely gonna have more than enough skills to get a reasonably good job fairly quickly.

 We have done this before on another thread til it's death.  what kmac forgets is the average guy on 14k pays virtually fuck all either into the system now the tax allowance is closing in on £11k but there is no mention of that.

[Doobs]

I also find it reprehensible that there are people on here not paying any contrubutions to the system and they feel they can give it out to people far less fortunate than themselves.  

Because of how gambling tax on casinos work, plus the new online gambling tax, any professional gambler likely contributes far more than the average person.

I recently made a similar point on FB, but it's easy to forget as it is taken directly by the casino.

Also, most people who have the drive to make it as a professional gambler is likely gonna have more than enough skills to get a reasonably good job fairly quickly.

 We have done this before on another thread til it's death.  what kmac forgets is the average guy on 14k pays virtually fuck all either into the system now the tax allowance is closing in on £11k but there is no mention of that.

Kmac was saying that the more you put in the more entitled you are to give people a load of shit. 

[TightEnd]

The mountain facing Labour http://bit.ly/1JeAbUf

[TightEnd]

"I think that we were spending too much before the crash"

Liz Kendall on Labour, Newsnight last night

first time a senior Labour politician has said this i think

[DungBeetle]

"I think that we were spending too much before the crash"

Liz Kendall on Labour, Newsnight last night

first time a senior Labour politician has said this i think

Just saying what they think the electorate want to hear surely?  Miliband got loads of flak for saying the opposite before the election so they are just seeing which way the wind blows.

[AndrewT]

"I think that we were spending too much before the crash"

Liz Kendall on Labour, Newsnight last night

first time a senior Labour politician has said this i think

First time I've seen her being interviewed and, boy, does she need to work on this if she wants to be leader. Mostly content-free flustering and this was from being interviewed by Evan Davis, who is terrible. She'll need to up her game fast.

[Woodsey]

"I think that we were spending too much before the crash"

Liz Kendall on Labour, Newsnight last night

first time a senior Labour politician has said this i think

Just saying what they think the electorate want to hear surely?  Miliband got loads of flak for saying the opposite before the election so they are just seeing which way the wind blows.

Or maybe there's actually an honest one amongst them 

[StuartHopkin]

Saw this on Facebook amongst all the human right protesters, thought it was an interesting example, I am sure someone on here can tell me why it is incorrect?!


Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to £100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this…

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing
The fifth would pay £1
The sixth would pay £3
The seventh would pay £7
The eighth would pay £12
The ninth would pay £18
The tenth man (the richest) would pay £59
So, that’s what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve ball.

“Since you are all such good customers,” he said, “I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by £20″. Drinks for the ten men would now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men ? How could they divide the £20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share?

The bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by a higher percentage the poorer he was, to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using, and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay.

And so the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% saving).
The sixth now paid £2 instead of £3 (33% saving).
The seventh now paid £5 instead of £7 (28% saving).
The eighth now paid £9 instead of £12 (25% saving).
The ninth now paid £14 instead of £18 (22% saving).
The tenth now paid £49 instead of £59 (16% saving).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings.

“I only got a dollar out of the £20 saving,” declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,”but he got £10!”

“Yeah, that’s right,” exclaimed the fifth man. “I only saved a dollar too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me!”

“That’s true!” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he get £10 back, when I got only £2? The wealthy get all the breaks!”

“Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison, “we didn’t get anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!”

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks so the nine sat down and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and government ministers, is how our tax system works. The people who already pay the highest taxes will naturally get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas, where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

[AdamM]

The word "dollar" dotted throughout suggest it's from across the pond and the $ has just been replaced with £ so I doubt this bears any resemblance to out system (or theirs).

Is the richest person in this analogy meant to represent the top 10% of earners, or represent an individual from that bracket?
Either way, where does that £59 come from?
Is it true that the top 10% of the population contribute 59% of the tax revenue?
Or is it true that an individual member of the top 10% pays 59x the tax that a person in the 40-49% of the population?
Is it true that the bottom 40% of the population, or an individual from that bracket of society pay NO tax.
And even if it was true (which I suspect it isn't even close to) is it ok for 10% of the population have such a large proportion of the wealth in a society in the first place? Did they get it by working 59 times harder than the people in the middle, or are they wealthy at the expense of the people further down?

Are we meant to feel sorry for that wealthy 10% because they are getting 'beaten up?'

Basically, I suspect it's made up nonsense that bears no relation to how our tax system (or that in the US) actually works, so it's a complete straw man argument.

[simonnatur]

It works for me if it's meant to illustrate the point that there is a law of diminishing returns once tax rates rise to levels that are considered punitive, since those affected put greater effort in to avoidance schemes or move abroad. 

[Woodsey]

The word "dollar" dotted throughout suggest it's from across the pond and the $ has just been replaced with £ so I doubt this bears any resemblance to out system (or theirs).

Is the richest person in this analogy meant to represent the top 10% of earners, or represent an individual from that bracket?
Either way, where does that £59 come from?
Is it true that the top 10% of the population contribute 59% of the tax revenue?
Or is it true that an individual member of the top 10% pays 59x the tax that a person in the 40-49% of the population?
Is it true that the bottom 40% of the population, or an individual from that bracket of society pay NO tax.
And even if it was true (which I suspect it isn't even close to) is it ok for 10% of the population have such a large proportion of the wealth in a society in the first place? Did they get it by working 59 times harder than the people in the middle, or are they wealthy at the expense of the people further down?

Are we meant to feel sorry for that wealthy 10% because they are getting 'beaten up?'

Basically, I suspect it's made up nonsense that bears no relation to how our tax system (or that in the US) actually works, so it's a complete straw man argument.

High earners pay 45% income tax and 14% national insurance when their income reaches the relevant thresholds, hence 59% total tax.

[Jon MW]

The word "dollar" dotted throughout suggest it's from across the pond and the $ has just been replaced with £ so I doubt this bears any resemblance to out system (or theirs).

Is the richest person in this analogy meant to represent the top 10% of earners, or represent an individual from that bracket?
Either way, where does that £59 come from?
Is it true that the top 10% of the population contribute 59% of the tax revenue?
Or is it true that an individual member of the top 10% pays 59x the tax that a person in the 40-49% of the population?
Is it true that the bottom 40% of the population, or an individual from that bracket of society pay NO tax.
And even if it was true (which I suspect it isn't even close to) is it ok for 10% of the population have such a large proportion of the wealth in a society in the first place? Did they get it by working 59 times harder than the people in the middle, or are they wealthy at the expense of the people further down?

Are we meant to feel sorry for that wealthy 10% because they are getting 'beaten up?'

Basically, I suspect it's made up nonsense that bears no relation to how our tax system (or that in the US) actually works, so it's a complete straw man argument.

It has it's problem but it's not entirely inaccurate, the top 1% of earners pay about 25% of the total income tax revenue for example; the top 10% pay 50ish of it.

The more complete picture comes with the overall tax burden which is obviously lower for the highest paid than it is for the lowest. That's where the 'unfairness' comes in and I'd be happy to see a progressive system of more income tax and less VAT for example. But we're not going to get that anytime soon, just like you can't make the inequality go away - when they've tried that in socialist countries you've just been left with the Party members being the top of the chain in a system which is just as unequal (or more so).

I don't think we ever need to feel sorry for the top 10% but it is really annoying when so many on the left effectively argue that the rich don't pay anything and everything would be solved if they just paid "more". I saw the argument about tax burden being used under a headline saying that the poor pay more than the rich - I'd be a lot happier with 30% of the salary of someone from the top rather than 40% of someone from the bottom.

[doubleup]

The fairy story is idiotic as the rich guy owns the fucking bar and will get poor quickly if his "friends" boycott it.

On the subject of rich and poor.  Monopolies abuse their market position and are usually broken up by government authorities.  For some reason that doesn't apply to rich individuals.  CEO pay has been ballooning for decades, this hasn't resulted in either any evidenced improvement in performance or increased supply of suitable candidates, so it is safe to conclude that some sort of monopolistic behaviour is taking place - probably a monopoly of power.  High tax rates should be imposed on these people as a way of discouraging this behaviour.

[Woodsey]

The fairy story is idiotic as the rich guy owns the fucking bar and will get poor quickly if his "friends" boycott it.

On the subject of rich and poor.  Monopolies abuse their market position and are usually broken up by government authorities.  For some reason that doesn't apply to rich individuals.  CEO pay has been ballooning for decades, this hasn't resulted in either any evidenced improvement in performance or increased supply of suitable candidates, so it is safe to conclude that some sort of monopolistic behaviour is taking place - probably a monopoly of power.  High tax rates should be imposed on these people as a way of discouraging this behaviour.

They already have 59% taken, how much do you think they should pay?

[Jon MW]

The fairy story is idiotic as the rich guy owns the fucking bar and will get poor quickly if his "friends" boycott it.

On the subject of rich and poor.  Monopolies abuse their market position and are usually broken up by government authorities.  For some reason that doesn't apply to rich individuals.  CEO pay has been ballooning for decades, this hasn't resulted in either any evidenced improvement in performance or increased supply of suitable candidates, so it is safe to conclude that some sort of monopolistic behaviour is taking place - probably a monopoly of power.  High tax rates should be imposed on these people as a way of discouraging this behaviour.

That also doesn't make sense - you get a monopolistic situation if there was only a single supplier. Even if you extend your metaphor to oligopoly (a few suppliers) then the pool of potential CEO's doesn't come particularly close to the definition.

The average CEO in the FTSE100 has only been the job for about 4 years - this suggests a fairly healthy level of competition to me.

There might be a wider issue concerning corporate governance in general but it's a bit weird to single out a handful of individuals at the top level.