A step in the right direction.

In a speech to the Fabian Society, Mr Balls said on Saturday it was right for the wealthy to pay a greater share of efforts to pay down the deficit.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/eabbf730-85d0-11e3-b30d-00144feab7de.html#axzz2rRD0aOw9

More policies like this,,,louder and clearer!

Yep definitely a step in the right direction if that direction involves getting less revenue with a greater percentage of the revenue from the lower paid while appearing to (but not actually) punish the rich.

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/fraser-nelson/2014/01/why-ed-balls-is-deceiving-us-about-his-plans-and-the-50p-tax/

I can think of lots of ways to punish the rich, the fuckers should be grateful we only impose a levy on them for exploiting us.

If you cannot get by on £150,000pa and you moan like a snivelling little bitch, fuck off and exploit someone else.

NO BALLS is a useless cretin.

scrat wrote:I can think of lots of ways to punish the rich, the fuckers should be grateful we only impose a levy on them for exploiting us.

If you cannot get by on £150,000pa and you moan like a snivelling little bitch, fuck off and exploit someone else.

Dont worry scrat that is exactly what they will do - causing a massive decline in tax revenue as they do it.

Hi Kaka, I must say you look a lot healthier on this side,,,,I shall not highlight the fact that you're a forum cheat to this forum.

It's about the rich paying more, chap, that means rich Muslims will need to pay more,,,,does that help?

scrat wrote:Hi Kaka, I must say you look a lot healthier on this side,,,,I shall not highlight the fact that you're a forum cheat to this forum.

It's about the rich paying more, chap, that means rich Muslims will need to pay more,,,,does that help?

You mean they will be catching those that evade tax and send it abroad.

sphinx wrote:

scrat wrote:I can think of lots of ways to punish the rich, the fuckers should be grateful we only impose a levy on them for exploiting us.

If you cannot get by on £150,000pa and you moan like a snivelling little bitch, fuck off and exploit someone else.

Dont worry scrat that is exactly what they will do - causing a massive decline in tax revenue as they do it.

Don't panic sphinx, the rich are safe with labour, I've got my own views, but let's be honest here Labour would need to turn 90' to the left to really startle the herd.

scrat wrote:

sphinx wrote:

Dont worry scrat that is exactly what they will do - causing a massive decline in tax revenue as they do it.

Don't panic sphinx, the rich are safe with labour, I've got my own views, but let's be honest here Labour would need to turn 90' to the left to really startle the herd.

They can spin 90' on my finger.


    

ALLAKAKA wrote:

scrat wrote:Hi Kaka, I must say you look a lot healthier on this side,,,,I shall not highlight the fact that you're a forum cheat to this forum.

It's about the rich paying more, chap, that means rich Muslims will need to pay more,,,,does that help?

You mean they will be catching those that evade tax and send it abroad.

0.72% is a humongous number KaKa chap, but we do get to keep 99.28%, which I'm sure you'll agree is considerably more.

Being British means we have to pay to sit at the table, think of it as a fee for robbing the colonies blind.

scrat wrote:

sphinx wrote:

Dont worry scrat that is exactly what they will do - causing a massive decline in tax revenue as they do it.

Don't panic sphinx, the rich are safe with labour, I've got my own views, but let's be honest here Labour would need to turn 90' to the left to really startle the herd.

They might not startle the whole herd but 50(52)% tax will startle enough so that tax revenue drops.

Yey less money for better headlines hey scrat

sphinx wrote:

scrat wrote:
Don't panic sphinx, the rich are safe with labour, I've got my own views, but let's be honest here Labour would need to turn 90' to the left to really startle the herd.

They might not startle the whole herd but 50(52)% tax will startle enough so that tax revenue drops.

Yey less money for better headlines hey scrat

Well I've got a feeling that the 50% tax band will be a great success,,,,you know there is now about $11 Trillion floating about in tax havens, 50% of that would save a lot of lives! but hey that's not the priority.

£150,000 is plenty for anyone, you keep telling the poor they have to live within their means, well it might help the wealthy to realise one jar of Buluga a week is enough for anyone,,,,,make it last.

Of course we could just, hose the fuckers down, march them to the stocks for a damn fine pelting, then tax them some more.

scrat wrote:In a speech to the Fabian Society, Mr Balls said on Saturday it was right for the wealthy to pay a greater share of efforts to pay down the deficit.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/eabbf730-85d0-11e3-b30d-00144feab7de.html#axzz2rRD0aOw9

More policies like this,,,louder and clearer!

Yeah, heard this on the radio Scrat, as per usual Cameron is opposed to it, which just highlights further that the Conservatives are not a probressive party like they claim, they still and probably always will curry favour with the rich.

Why the fcuk would Eton boys care for the general low paid poor and those on benefits?

The hateful mindset toward the poor is instilled into them at a very early age.

scrat wrote:

sphinx wrote:

They might not startle the whole herd but 50(52)% tax will startle enough so that tax revenue drops.

Yey less money for better headlines hey scrat

Well I've got a feeling that the 50% tax band will be a great success,,,,you know there is now about $11 Trillion floating about in tax havens, 50% of that would save a lot of lives! but hey that's not the priority.

£150,000 is plenty for anyone, you keep telling the poor they have to live within their means, well it might help the wealthy to realise one jar of Buluga a week is enough for anyone,,,,,make it last.

Of course we could just, hose the fuckers down, march them to the stocks for a damn fine pelting, then tax them some more.

Round and round the mulberry bush we go.

45% of the amount in tax havens would also go along way - while helping to ensure that those on £150,000 stay here and pay more

50% is likely to cause those on £150,000 to move to somewhere where pay less than 45% so they pay us nothing.

sphinx wrote:

scrat wrote:
Don't panic sphinx, the rich are safe with labour, I've got my own views, but let's be honest here Labour would need to turn 90' to the left to really startle the herd.

They might not startle the whole herd but 50(52)% tax will startle enough so that tax revenue drops.

Yey less money for better headlines hey scrat

Sphinx, if the rich were not rich, they would not pay higher percentages of tax, they will do so because they are RICH, so can afford to pay more.

It is their duty just as it is ours to be taxed on what we earn.

sphinx wrote:

scrat wrote:
Well I've got a feeling that the 50% tax band will be a great success,,,,you know there is now about $11 Trillion floating about in tax havens, 50% of that would save a lot of lives! but hey that's not the priority.

£150,000 is plenty for anyone, you keep telling the poor they have to live within their means, well it might help the wealthy to realise one jar of Buluga a week is enough for anyone,,,,,make it last.

Of course we could just, hose the fuckers down, march them to the stocks for a damn fine pelting, then tax them some more.

Round and round the mulberry bush we go.

45% of the amount in tax havens would also go along way - while helping to ensure that those on £150,000 stay here and pay more

50% is likely to cause those on £150,000 to move to somewhere where pay less than 45% so they pay us nothing.

$11 trillion hidden away is a fucking disgrace.

Those on a £150,000 are not being asked to pay more, it's for those who earn over £150,000, let them move on, greed is not a virtue, duty to this great nation comes first, shame the fuckers into paying their fair share!

Joy Division wrote:

sphinx wrote:

They might not startle the whole herd but 50(52)% tax will startle enough so that tax revenue drops.

Yey less money for better headlines hey scrat

Sphinx, if the rich were not rich, they would not pay higher percentages of tax, they will do so because they are RICH, so can afford to pay more.

It is their duty just as it is ours to be taxed on what we earn.

Yes darling but because they are rich they are able can be made willing to leave the country so they do not pay more.

Look as the link I put up clearly demonstrated using proven figures you have a choice

You can tax to maximize the amount of money coming in

Or

You can tax to give the message that being rich is not acceptable.

The two are mutually exclusive.

sphinx wrote:

Joy Division wrote:


Sphinx, if the rich were not rich, they would not pay higher percentages of tax, they will do so because they are RICH, so can afford to pay more.

It is their duty just as it is ours to be taxed on what we earn.

Yes darling but because they are rich they are able can be made willing to leave the country so they do not pay more.  

I'm sure if they were going to move abroad they would have done so by now, another 5% is hardly going to force that Sphinxy -Poo's

sphinx wrote:

Joy Division wrote:


Sphinx, if the rich were not rich, they would not pay higher percentages of tax, they will do so because they are RICH, so can afford to pay more.

It is their duty just as it is ours to be taxed on what we earn.

Yes darling but because they are rich they are able can be made willing to leave the country so they do not pay more.  

Tory spin and propaganda Sphinx, your saying the things they a Tories WOULD HAVE YOU BELIEVE, or at leat your exaggerating them.

sphinx wrote:Look as the link I put up clearly demonstrated using proven figures you have a choice

You can tax to maximize the amount of money coming in

Or

You can tax to give the message that being rich is not acceptable.

The two are mutually exclusive.

I doubt they will be going anywhere and why should they? Paying the tax the government sets and expects them to pay is the price you have to pay to live in a decent society.

Did any of you bother reading my link?

So under a Conservative Chancellor, Britain’s tax system is fairer than at any point in our history. Never have the lower-paid 50 per cent paid a lower share (now it’s just 9.7 per cent of income tax). Compare this to the top 0.1 per cent – yes, 0.1 per cent – who pay 14.1 per cent of the income tax. This is a ratio that ought to warm the heart of the most ardent redistributionist.

That link again - http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/fraser-nelson/2014/01/why-ed-balls-is-deceiving-us-about-his-plans-and-the-50p-tax/

The Tories devise much more effective methods of extracting money out of our pockets. They put up VAT despite shouting from the rooftops that they had no plans to do so.
The Tories always put up VAT - Labour never have.

But this is about income tax - what dont you like being faced with facts?

sphinx wrote:But this is about income tax  - what dont you like being faced with facts?

A tax is a tax is a tax and the Tories are no stranger to them. Remember the Omnishambles? Grannies, Pasties, Caravans - all taxed. Even the pasties that 'Dave' bought at Leeds station.

As far as income tax is concerned I doubt there will be an avalanche of departures and why should they? Give me a good reason?

The good reason is for all those high earners currently thinking about leaving will see loosing more of their income to the government as the tipping point.

I mean does it really matter if it is an avalanche or a dribble - surely the point has to be if it decreases overall take and results in the lower paid contributing a higher portion of total income tax revenue than they do now then it is not what we want?

The fact that cannot be argued with is that when the 50% rate was cut to 45% revenue increased - it resulted in rich people paying more income tax than before. Isnt that the result you actually want?

What is more important to you - how much is actually paid or how much it appears is being charged?

The revenues increased for that financial year because the high earners delayed their earnings and bonuses until the 45% rate came in and that why the revenues went up. Check it out.

Irn Bru wrote:The revenues increased for that financial year because the high earners delayed their earnings and bonuses until the 45% rate came in and that why the revenues went up. Check it out.

And the reasons they stayed up and did not drop down in the next financial year to lower than the year preceding the 5% cut?

sphinx wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:The revenues increased for that financial year because the high earners delayed their earnings and bonuses until the 45% rate came in and that why the revenues went up. Check it out.

And the reasons they stayed up and did not drop down in the next financial year to lower than the year preceding the 5% cut?

You need to read this...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/10254168/Companies-and-banks-defer-1.7bn-of-bonuses-to-avoid-tax.html

And if you have so much faith in what Fraser Nelson says then you need to read this as well

George Osborne is the king of ‘black holes’. So why does he attack Labour?

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/fraser-nelson/2013/09/george-osborne-is-the-king-of-black-holes-so-why-does-he-attack-labour/

The wealthy already (should) pay the most.  What the authorities should be doing is closing tax loopholes and enforcing all people to pay what they owe.

Labour had 13 years to up the tax - they did it at the last minute because they are pathetic and it was a gimmick.

It is just unfair to take so much money off people and we know what Labour would do with it - not pay off the bills - they'd spend it on spongers in order to keep their votes.

Jeez, Andy, and here I was getting ready to agree with your post after I read the part about closing the loopholes ...

Ben_Reilly wrote:Jeez, Andy, and here I was getting ready to agree with your post after I read the part about closing the loopholes ...

Snap!, you should have ended the post after that bit aAndy!

Joy Division wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:Jeez, Andy, and here I was getting ready to agree with your post after I read the part about closing the loopholes ...

Snap!, you should have ended the post after that bit aAndy!

Why JD?

What do you think that extra money should be used for - paying off the debt therefore helping the whole country, or giving it to a select few to use as they wish?

sphinx wrote:

scrat wrote:I can think of lots of ways to punish the rich, the fuckers should be grateful we only impose a levy on them for exploiting us.

If you cannot get by on £150,000pa and you moan like a snivelling little bitch, fuck off and exploit someone else.

Dont worry scrat that is exactly what they will do - causing a massive decline in tax revenue as they do it.

They don't care they must be into self harm or in Sc rats case he's probably a doley. Surely even cretinous Scrat must realise less income means less dole.

This isn't about balancing the books the rich already pay 1/3 of all income tax. I think 300,000 pay more than 6 million.

Its about seeming to hurt the rich as you say Sphinx.

What good does that do for the really needy. NONE! QED they are the nasty party.

sphinx wrote:Did any of you bother reading my link?

So under a Conservative Chancellor, Britain’s tax system is fairer than at any point in our history. Never have the lower-paid 50 per cent paid a lower share (now it’s just 9.7 per cent of income tax). Compare this to the top 0.1 per cent – yes, 0.1 per cent – who pay 14.1 per cent of the income tax. This is a ratio that ought to warm the heart of the most ardent redistributionist.

That link again - http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/fraser-nelson/2014/01/why-ed-balls-is-deceiving-us-about-his-plans-and-the-50p-tax/

Yes Ma'am, but the link you provide is from a snivelling nasty party cocksucker who'll defend greed at any given opportunity!

No Ma'am it's not just about the money it's about the principle, and I agree with the principle that once you've reached a point of some comfort in your life, you should then contemplate a grander scheme.

Let's look at this logically, If Labour can up the anti on collecting more revenue from taxation, then the cost of servicing the deficit will not have such a drastic effect as austerity measures have on frontline services.

I know it's difficult to balance society between sustenance and anarchy, but it's best to read the signs before civil unrest turns into madmax, can you honestly remember a time in recent history when most of those in poverty are actually working, what does that say about this society, when you equate that with $11 trillion hiding in tax havens.

The rich will always bleat about paying too much in taxation, they pay people to help them whine about it, the sense that this form of taxation is being held up by snivelling scum as of little benefit,,,,,,,,,means the opposite and I think the lady doth protest a smidgen too much.

March them into cattle trucks, off to Luton Airport, burn their passports on the runway and combat drop them into the tax haven of their choice.

The current rate bis nearly two thirds whats your problem Scrat.

When Brown put the rate up to 50% taxpayers went into avoidance overdrive. Scrat were you able to earn these salaries you would not be happy with the govt taking two thirds.

Personally I think half is the maximum.

In the sixties and seventies as I oft repeat when Labour got greedy they got fuck all as the high rate payers left the country for six months at a time and paid tax in the USA.

Great for the USA very bad for British Taxpayers who aren't so mobile. Clealry you are interested in hurting middle income earners because ypou wont get the top rate ones they are the mobile ones you donk.