Labour supporters admit it: taxes are to punish the rich, not to raise revenue

First topic message reminder :

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100257586/labour-supporters-admit-it-taxes-are-to-punish-the-rich-not-to-raise-revenue/

They are too thick and so full of hate that they are hurting themselves. The rich will put up two fingers. Labour will spend based on their incorrect projections and the middle will be squeezed to death.

If you think we've had a cost of living crisis in the last few years wait until Labour spend us into the wall again. It will be a lot tougher next time.

I'll say it again the rich don't have to be concerned they are rich enough to move away from the baying thickos in the Labour mobs.

how much do people NEED to live on??????

Right, so lets remember that Drinky thinks those who have a lot should hold the country to ransom and not pay what they are supposed to pay. While of course, if the poor did that, he'd scream and rant.

He kinda thinks that rich people don't need morals.

Sassy wrote:Right, so lets remember that Drinky thinks those who have a lot should hold the country to ransom and not pay what they are supposed to pay.   While of course, if the poor did that, he'd scream and rant.

He kinda thinks that rich people don't need morals.

And if they leave they will still expect the protection of the state and all the services and for the Navy to send a gunboat to save them if it all goes tits up where they are.

Shameful

How much do people NEED to live on???

grumpy old git wrote:How much do people NEED to live on???

Is it for you Victor to decide how much someone can earn in a free society.

If you had a single govt for the world perhaps you could but you don't. Therein lies the problem for the comrades who would have us return to 98% taxation rates.

As long as people can ply their trades in a world market simply putting on the squeeze here merely hurts us. I personally believe that footballers are well overpaid. However I also know that it is an international market so if the UK tax at 80% or 98% on savings then they will not come here to work. That may be of no concern to you but the exchequer will lose tens of millions.

You seem obsessed with the thought that over a certain amount is too much. It may well be even for greedy old me. I already determined that rather than carrying on earning more money I had enough to retire so I did. My wife will retire at the earliest opportunity not when we are rolling in money we can't spend sensibly.

However that's us others want gold  taps let them have them they'll pay VAT at 20%. I believe it is immoral for the state to take 98% or indeed 75% of someones earnings.  As long as there are a majority of people who vote for a party that thinks its OK we are doomed to poverty. No sane individual pays 98% tax happily.


Incidentally returning to the gold taps I am not adverse to high taxation on luxury goods but again beware it is a world market. Pay as you spend is a better way of catching your taxes it can be focussed on the type of goods.

As to taxing companies again dear Victor how do you coordinate taxing in the manner you suggest. If you seek a punitive regime for ther UK alone as Hollande has done for France you destroy inward investment. Frances inward investment has collapsed he has created a perfect storm of financial collapse.

I am in agreement with you about creating an effective taxation regime which gathers taxes on expenditures in this country. Countering the costa coffee scam if you like. If such schemes are motivated by common sense and fairness they will succeed. If they are motivated by the envious comrades they will surely fail.

It is clear as the comrades support 98% taxation rates they are neither fair nor balanced neither is shadow anti business secretary and chancellor Ed balls.

Increasing taxation for those who can afford to pay more, seems pretty fair and reasonable to me.

Especially when the alternative is anarchy!

grumpy old git wrote:how much does a person need to live on ???

It depends on the person's commitments, surely. I'm an old bloke living on his own and need relatively little but a guy who is supporting a wife or partner, two or three kids and a socking great mortgage would, I would think, need a hell of a lot these days.

What the "tax-the-buggers-out-of-existence" brigade do not seem to grasp is that many of the entrepreneurs being talked about earlier probably earn what is on the face of it a huge amount, but then pay out a high proportion of it on building up and running their businesses...paying already high taxes and creating employment for others in the meantime,

I know that certainly happens in the farming industry where a chap with a reasonably sized enterprise might well trouser in excess of, say, half a million quid a year, but probably has to spend most of it feeding his cows, replacing his combine harvester and paying a couple of farmworkers, or at the very least a contractor, to do essential work.

The top paid groups of workers amount to 170k people who pay more tax than the 6million workers on average salaries.

If you tax them to death when they leave Labour will be forcing the middle to pay taxes well in excess of 30% instead of the current 20%

Then you will have anarchy. Watch those who voted Labour turn sour. Watch those who voted Labour insist on cutting welfare. At the moment Milliband is successfully selling a lie. He is saying he can tax the rich with impunity when he knows he can't.

Despite the denials of the likes of Irn Bru I can assure you that all the major earners in the uK during the Wilson era absented themselves from the country for six months at a time to avoid 98% taxes.

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

grumpy old git wrote:how much does a person need to live on ???

It depends on the person's commitments, surely. I'm an old bloke living on his own and need relatively little but a guy who is supporting a wife or partner, two or three kids and a socking great mortgage would, I would think, need a hell of a lot these days.

What the "tax-the-buggers-out-of-existence" brigade do not seem to grasp is that many of the entrepreneurs being talked about earlier probably earn what is on the face of it a huge amount, but then pay out a high proportion of it on building up and running their businesses...paying already high taxes and creating employment for others in the meantime,

I know that certainly happens in the farming industry where a chap with a reasonably sized enterprise might well trouser in excess of, say, half a million quid a year, but probably has to spend most of it feeding his cows, replacing his combine harvester and paying a couple of farmworkers, or at the very least a contractor, to do essential work.

Well these farmers will not be trousering in excess of half a million quid and they may well not be getting taxed at the higher rate because most of the things that you have listed are tax deductible and go through the books leaving a balance where their real earnings are a lot lower than half a million quid which could well be below the high rate threshold.
Most business owners wouldn't trouser half a million quid as earnings liable to tax and then spend what they have left on legitimate business costs.

Within the hugely rw biased blog there are actually no Labour supporters who admit that higher taxes for the wealthy are a punishment.
Yet another load of rw smear, tosh and downrigjt lies.
Is what we come to expect.

Handy Andy wrote:Within the  hugely rw biased blog there are actually no Labour supporters who admit that higher taxes for the wealthy are a punishment.
Yet another load of rw smear, tosh and downrigjt lies.
Is what we come to expect.

It bloody obviuous if you support 80% and 98% taxes thet you are an envious spiteful lefty Andy.

Wanting to take of most of people earnings above a certain limit is morally indefensible especially when you know they will leave and leave a huge tax bill for the rest of us.

You haven't the sense you were born with. You yourself will pay more tax if you piss the rich off you are shooting yourself in the foot you moron.

Back to the OP, I think it's is obvious today that there is a class war going on.  It was started by the righties--Rush Limbaugh, the Koch Brothers, and even George Bush, himself.

Rush cannot open his mouth, but he spews hatred for the reasonable-minded of the world.  His hate-speak is aimed at the left.  

George Bush started the widening gap between the rich and all others in the modern era, by creating $trillion tax breaks for the very rich.  Even though those tax breaks were due to expire automatically in 2010, it created a new normal for the very rich.  Even as the tax breaks expired at the retroactive hand of Bush himself, the wealthy were insisting that it was some new and original taxation.  From there they created a false equivalency...that any increase in taxes had to be off-set by cuts in government programs.  It shows you how people can twist a good thing into a right or expectation.

In particular, the Koch Brothers, Sheldon Adelstein and Karl Rove, took up the cause by creating hugh money reserves devoted to mold politics into returning to the days of minimal taxation.

Polls are a dangerous thing in that they do not reflect facts, but opinions about facts.  People are moved, not by real animosity toward the rich, but by the heat of the competition during the class war started by righties.  When a war starts, people begin to target not the policies, but the people on the other side.  It's a mistake to call it punishment.  It's competition, started by the rich, and rebounding back upon them.

I realise you are talking about Labour and Conservative, and Britain, but issues tend to originate in the US, somehow inevitably wind their way over to Europe. Look at austerity, fgs.

Quill as a professional man over here you would be reamed for tax. Your taxes are much lower. Even as a comrade would you countence the 75% of France. The 83% of the Uk under labour of old.
The 98% on your savings which you have already been taxed on at 4/5ths. Frankly if you said yes I wouldnt believe you.

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/rates/it.htm#2a

UK Taxes top rate for 2013/14 Financial year 45%

Ffs veya add another 13% for national insurance. That equals 58%

Labour want 50% plus ni which is very nearly 2/3rds.
Labour are notorious for spending shen they find they have run out what do you think will happen next.
Thats how Labour got to 98% in the 60s and 70s.

NOw do you get it?

National Insurance is to pay for the Health Service and Pensions, if you didn't pay that you have have to have health insurance, much more expensive and cuts out any previous conditions, which with most people is a lot. The 45% income tax under the Conservatives also has National Insurance.

And you don't pay that rate on all the money you earn, you pay it on money above £150,000.

I was going to say, surely that 13 percent doesn't come on top of the other tax.

There were people here in the U.S. who made a big fuss when Obama got our upper tax bracket raised to a measly 37.5 percent, they said they were going to make sure they didn't earn enough money to have to pay that tax. All they succeeded in doing was taking money out of their own pockets, because progressive tax like the U.S., U.K. and pretty much everywhere else is designed so that it does *not* punish you for earning more money.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/11/19/1163200/-Prospect-of-earning-more-than-250-000-terrifies-business-owner-because-Obama

OK
So You pay the 13% for Health and Pensions on top of taxes???? really?       
AND you pay for TV licensing separately as well? Anything Else??

You Know I love insulting England so the more ammo the better BUT I have to AGREE with you           
that is actually pretty fucked up. Our top rate just came down to 46% similar sliding scale as yours, (you are only paying that percentage on earning over the threshold right?    I honestly Pity you it not, that is too high) 

and there is an extra 3% levy if you earn over $75K(about 50K your money, which is around 30% tax) and don't have private health insurance (if you have Private insurance you don't pay the levy). 

But that is it no TV levies etc. You have license fees for guns, vehicles, hunting/fishing and pets. but not much else.


I doesn't really make sense we have just as high social security/healthcare etc.? it does seem like funds are being wasted.

My friend the only reason Ni and income tax are separated is to hide the fact thst they are really income tax by another name. Both are direct taxes at the point of earning.

The left dont understand or actually dont really care that punitive rates never work. The very rich are very very mobile and leave immediately as Francois Hollande found.

You rightly point out we also pay a fortune fir everything elsebto the govt.
The govt here under labour employed 25% of the workforce on very generous terms and huge pensions. It has increased its share of GDP year on year.

It measures success on how big it us not what good it does.
Sadly even the Tories ardnt tackling big govt.
I despair this will all be worse under the next Labour govt.

The public sector unions bankroll Labour guess who runs the country really.

Of course veya, that idiot drinky doesnt see the irony that nearly all businesses are now subsidised to a massive extent by out tax credit system....that allows them to pay below subsistence level wages, because the state picks up "some" of the slack with tax credits etc....

Lets save the Govt a fortune shall we.....

as from this april all companies MUST pay a living wage. that is to say one which pays the bills without requiring tax credits for a full time worker....

I guess THAT would put the lowest paid worker on around 14K........

I object to MY taxes going to subsidise the rich by enabling them to take a rip off % of the company profits at the expense of the working man who MAKES their wealth for them.

getting rich off the back of the workers in other words.

@Grumpy
well that is also fair  :::grouch:: 
I do think minimum wages should sufficent to live on without gov't assistance.

what ever your doing is not sustainable the taxe rate is too high, and it seems the gap between rich and poor has got to great. there must be another factor because the wastage seems huge.

It isn't the tax rate that is too high, it is the wages that are too low.   We have so many people on minimum wage, who pay very little tax and have to receive benefits, it means that the money in is not high enough.   This isn't a problem of high earners paying too much, it's a problem of too many low earners.   If people were paid a decent wage, paid tax, and didn't have to receive benefits (which as grumpy points out is actually subsidising the businesses of the people making a lot of money) we wouldn't have the problem.

Sassy wrote:It isn't the tax rate that is too high, it is the wages that are too low.   We have so many people on minimum wage, who pay very little tax and have to receive benefits, it means that the money in is not high enough.   This isn't a problem of high earners paying too much, it's a problem of too many low earners.   If people were paid a decent wage, paid tax, and didn't have to receive benefits (which as grumpy points out is actually subsidising the businesses of the people making a lot of money) we wouldn't have the problem.

That's just another way of saying....kick the unnecessary immigrants out of the UK & fill their job roles with the unemployed & pay them a decent & fair wage.

Good thinking Sassy.You're doing well.I'll get you there in the end my lovely.

Bollocks, I'm not saying anything of the sort.

Sassy wrote:Bollocks, I'm not saying anything of the sort.

Oh yes you did my sweet chicken HAR HAR HAR!

At this rate Sassy you & me will be skipping hand in hand to the polling station in May to vote for UKIP.

Mmmmmm.  

No I didn't and you can say it till you are blue in the face and you will still be wrong.   UKIP?   That bunch of tossers and weirdos, you couldn't be more wrong if you tried, and you do try very hard to be as wrong as you possibly can be.

Sassy wrote:No I didn't and you can say it till you are blue in the face and you will still be wrong.   UKIP?   That bunch of tossers and weirdos, you couldn't be more wrong if you tried, and you do try very hard to be as wrong as you possibly can be.

Mmmm.Now I know I've got you.

    

Delusional as normal, don't expect anything else.

Shady wrote:

Sassy wrote:No I didn't and you can say it till you are blue in the face and you will still be wrong.   UKIP?   That bunch of tossers and weirdos, you couldn't be more wrong if you tried, and you do try very hard to be as wrong as you possibly can be.

Mmmm.Now I know I've got you.

Maybe tone down the trolling a bit? It seems like the last dozen posts you've made have been mighty attempts to get on other members' nerves.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Shady wrote:

Mmmm.Now I know I've got you.

Maybe tone down the trolling a bit? It seems like the last dozen posts you've made have been mighty attempts to get on other members' nerves.

..More of it this morning.   

Shady is just trolling here, just to wind up and get a reaction. He goes scurrying back to the deserted flop forum to brag about his antics on here.
The question is , do you need trolls on here?

we all ready have em, cough cough,