UKIP's David Coburn is having a car crash of an interview on Scotland Tonight right now.
UK General Election 2015 | Conservatives win with an overall majority
- Thread starter langster
- Start date
If we are concerned about a failure to answer questions, what of Ed Balls' struggles when asked if he would lower the threshold for the 40p rate?
You know, worsening the plight of that "squeezed middle" which Labour were so determined in their courtship of.
You know, worsening the plight of that "squeezed middle" which Labour were so determined in their courtship of.
Last edited:
You told me to "move on", so I thought I might. Now you're acting as if I don't have a response.
In truth, it is hard to understand - but that's mainly because what you're saying simply isn't true. Millionaires do not benefit the most from the tax cut - those who earn the most do.
In the absence of increased revenue, that's a terrible policy. No government should address equality by making some citizens poorer while not making other better off. That's a net loss to the economy, for no benefit. If a chunk of the population are forced to spend less money, then everyone is less well off.
I'm not convinced that you can't implement more progressive taxation while increasing revenue though. Needs to be thought through very carefully, mind you. Trying to prioritise the income of people who won't respond by emigrating, or cutting back their spending. Not easy. Hopefully possible.
Last edited:
How cheaply then did Labour value the lives of up to 1,200 patients who fell victim to the neglect at Mid-Staffs? Successive health secretaries looked the other way for years, and Andy Burnham later declared that the hospital's PR should have been viewed as more important than families discovering the truth. And whilst other scandals did not occur on such a scale, they were numerous and nationwide.
These great defenders of the NHS are all too happy to take responsibility for the successes, but are seemingly incapable of owning to their failures and culpability therein.
Last edited:
You didn't move on, you ignored it and said the same thing again so I'm making sure you understand who actually benefits more.
Of course its true. A millionaire is someone whose assets are worth a million or more. Is it not correct to assume that people earning over £1m a year would have assets that amass that kind of money? For example my property alone, albeit the mortgage, is 8 times worth what my wife and I earn in gross income yearly.
But if you would like to continue clutching at straws lets add another million to the amount and consider someone earning £2.15m with someone who earns £250k. Who benefits more?
Or do you not consider cash an asset?
I don't think 1,200 was ever an actual figure. May be wrong though.
The caution I have on increasing high earners tax (I'm not one btw) is that there's loads in the city that if they go abroad, they take a whole department with them, people retire early etc, investment lost. When the 50p rate was introduced it resulted in a loss, certainly for that tax year as accountants moved money around into different tax year, forestalling tax, and if it lasted longer term then are other affects. IFS concluded that
I really don't understand how the second sentence related to the first in that.
I really don't understand how the second sentence related to the first in that.
Nothing you've said suggests anything more than a correlation between the two groups. I can give very easy examples of the distinction: One of my best friends earns over £150k but is not a millionaire (yet). My parents are millionaires and have never earned anything like £150k. A tax on the latter group would be much more progressive.
Regardless, the overlap in the Venn diagram is only half the point. Saying that a it's tax cut for millionaires misleads people into thinking it's a tax on wealth (i.e. not just the wealthy). In other words, even if the group of people affected were the same, then it the implication is wrong, because the economic effects would be different for wealth versus income.
With all due respect, I read the stuff you posted earlier on about debt, deficit and GDP, so I'm fully aware that you're out of your depth here. You don't need to ask me whether I consider cash to be an asset (being patronising isn't going to convince me that you're right).
The discussion is not about increasing the rate but about Labour misleading people with that ad which clearly they are not.
I forgot I added that in there and didn't continue the thought. Property is an asset and what I was going to say is that I have a house worth 8 times and I have around 45% equity in there, by the same logic someone earning that amount of money would generally have a house worth few times their gross income and if the equity was anywhere near mine then it would be over a million. I thought its too much to assume when its easier to just change the comparison to someone earning more than £1m net in cash yearly.
You seem to be saying you have a house more than you could afford if you were starting from scratch with your partner, so where do you stand on inheritance tax, and mansion tax?
I put it in simple terms in order for you to understand. Your parents must be one of the only millionaires who don't like to invest their money... I'm surprised at how they've become so without ...
If you watch the video it is very clear that the discussion is about income tax and how those earning over the 45p threshold might get a tax cut that would be highly beneficial to those who earn the most, ie millionaires. You're more concerned about how the ad is depicted than its content.
Most people make a hole, but you keep digging to the point that its now a well.
Please tell me about how I am out of my depth in this discussion when you're the one who can't even grasp the simplest of notions? Or are you pretending?
Last edited:
I'm currently well below the threshhold on both. Not quite sure what you mean on the first part?
What makes you think they haven't invested their money? Clearly there's something fundamental you don't understand here, because those circumstances are perfectly possible.
Honestly, I don't think I could explain it to you. I know that sounds like a cop-out, but that's just the way it is.
Classic tory response
Are you George Osborne in disguise? He also knows where the £8bn for the NHS is coming from but he can't explain it in a way we understand.
The question was around the principle of these taxes, the value of the property is irrespective. Due to property market, or inheritance you may end up with an asset worth more than you could currently afford (from what you say 8x joint income, I know my wife and I couldn't), yet stand to get it taxed on either it's value whilst alive, or when you die. Just interested in where you stand.
No it wouldn't. There are countless numbers of millionaires who have no income, barring interest on their deposits because they don't work, whether through choice, inability or retirement.
I went to Tesco earlier and saw that apparently it was a rollover lottery jackpot of £7.5m tonight. If I win that I am a millionaire, but it wouldn't mean I am earning over £150k. Am sure you are aware that base rate is 0.5%. For a millionaire with £7.5m, they would need to earn 6% interest on that just to get £45k of interest, just above the higher rate tax threshold. Good luck finding that rate.
@Madthinker is saying that you use the terms 'millionaire' and 'high earner' interchangeably, which is demonstrably inaccurate. It's solely to get in the emotive notion of 'millionaires' not paying their way etc...
EDIT: A property you are paying a mortgage on, assuming you live in it, rather than rent it out, is not exactly a cash spinner either.
Did you have a self-cert mortgage by any chance? 8x combined income wouldn't be touched by any reputable lender, even taking into account recent house price inflation, unless one or both of your income streams has fallen of a cliff since purchase.
Classic tory response
Are you George Osborne in disguise? He also knows where the £8bn for the NHS is coming from but he can't explain it in a way we understand.
As you might say, I think you might have "missed" the question in there. Could you answer it?
Here's another one - out of the following 2 groups of people, who would (on average or in total, you choose) save the most from a 5% cut in the top rate of tax?
- The set of people earning over £150k
- The set of millionaires
Okay so to actually put some numbers directly from the government into this discussion, have a look at page 16 of this document, table 2.5 - https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...e_Tax_Liabilities_Statistics_-_April_2014.pdf
Now, I understand that the chart includes measures other than purely the drop from 50% to 45%, and I further understand the argument the decreasing the rate can get more people into the country and therefore gets more tax in overall (indeed, later in the document shows a table with an increase in additional rate taxpayers), but it certainly provides an argument that those earning £500,000, £1,000,000 and £2,000,000+ per year had a greater decrease in their tax burden than even those on £150,000 and £200,000. So you can perhaps understand why the phrase "taxcut for millionaires" gained some traction.
Now, I understand that the chart includes measures other than purely the drop from 50% to 45%, and I further understand the argument the decreasing the rate can get more people into the country and therefore gets more tax in overall (indeed, later in the document shows a table with an increase in additional rate taxpayers), but it certainly provides an argument that those earning £500,000, £1,000,000 and £2,000,000+ per year had a greater decrease in their tax burden than even those on £150,000 and £200,000. So you can perhaps understand why the phrase "taxcut for millionaires" gained some traction.
Selective editing Ubik. It also shows that those in the £10k-£16k, £20k-£30k and £50k-£100k brackets have paid less tax under the Tories. The 'squeezed middle' (although I would argue with them being middle, median or whatever you want to call them) of those earning £150k-£200k being the only ones who have paid more and the tax savings for those earning £200-£500k being marginal. On an 'all taxpyers' basis it is pretty net-net.
EDIT: The table on p19 suggests everyone has benefited, but it's late and I must admit I can't be bothered to read the footnotes etc...right now.
Not at all, the discussion was about the 45/50% rate, which is for £150,000+, therefore the changes in other brackets weren't of note.
Maybe we are looking at different graphs, I dunno, I'm fecked and have been up since 6:30, but the header said 'all tax brackets', unless I'm missing something.
Nick mentioned earlier that it's hard to have debates on many subjects without it reverting to strong left wing/right wing type and he is right. He referenced immigration, but the same goes for the NHS, defence, housing, tax and welfare.
I would hazard a guess that the millionaires would. Given that this group should include multi millionaires and that most millionaires are in fact earning substantial amounts of income on investments even if they are safe bet investments run by third parties. I take the point that not all millionaires are earning huge incomes due to property bubbles. Then again I watched a TV program where a man who bought his council house for 157K sold it for a million 12 years later and you have to wonder whether setting a national policy to avoid taxing people who make vast sums like this is the right or wrong thing to do.
It really does depend on whether you view inequality as something bad in and of itself. There are all sorts of reasons why that may be the case and some on the left do take that position as I said.
Of course it's possible but the political will isn't there or it would just be too unpopular to implement. Most of these conversations end up with discussions of a land value tax.
What are your thoughts on Labour's Mansion tax?
You threw in the towel so I left it. I don't like to kick people when they're down. That's a tory thing to do...
Th thing is whichever way you want to spin it, however hard you may not want to accept it, the set of people earning over £150k also includes millionaires and the simple fact is that the more you earn, the more you will benefit if there was a cut to the rate. Therefore conclusion is millionaire earners benefit most.
I, personally, think inequality is bad in and of itself. Just making the point that any strategy which makes the entire nation less well off (albeit hitting the rich class harder than the poor) is a ludicrous way to achieve that goal. The only rational way to deal with equality is by making the poor less poor. Punitive taxation of the rich (individuals, anyway) just takes money (and expertise) out of the system makes everyone less well off.
We're experiencing something similar in Ireland right now. The area I'm most familiar with is healthcare, where the salaries of consultants (who are very wealthy people) have been slashed, thanks to the troika. As a result, the best and brightest are all emigrating. We're losing their expertise and the money they would have spent in Ireland. Their replacements tend to be shipped in from foreign countries, are much less well trained and often send most of their income back home (which is their perogative). So who's losing out? The patients being treated and the various shops, restaurants and service industries relying on their custom. Obviously, I'm talking about a very small sector but I'm sure that similar things would happen across the board if the government made Ireland a less appealing country to live in for the wealthy. Unlike most, they have the luxury of taking their pick of excellent jobs overseas.
For me the best way to address inequality is not about taking away anyone's income. It's by making the perks of having money less advantageous. By creating an excellent state health and education system, for example. So people that are less well off aren't as disadvantaged as they are right now.
Obviously, this all needs to be paid for. Which is where it gets tricky.
Last edited:
No just a larger initial deposit and a lot of help from the last couple years of inflation, we didn't get more than 4-5 times our income on the mortgage which is the norm. We did however get base rate of 0.5% on my wife's borrowings as she worked for the bank at the time so that has allowed us to pay more therefore accrue more equity. Thankfully the rate is still fixed till the end of the mortgage term even though she hasn't been working there for a year and a half now.
Well you've said it there. The only way to achieve it is by investing and there is no way you can do that unless you collect a hefty amount in tax. Taking more from the poor goes against the purpose so what's left to do?
I don't think it's ludicrous at all. What's the "entire nation"? GDP? Theoretically you could probably reduce a country's GDP whilst redistributing income in such a way that more people will be better off than the people who'll be worse off. Wouldn't "the nation" be better off then?
I wouldn't hesitate to have my country become poorer in absolute terms if the poor were better off. Obviously it's an utopic idea (at least in my uncreative and pessimistic mind), but if someone came up with a realistic plan to do it why not?
I also see no way to address inequality other than progressive taxation up to a point where it would be futile to try and become wealthier. A sort of wealth cap. Money generates money, how can you break that cycle otherwise?
If I knew the answer to that question I wouldn't be wasting my time on here!
That's the problem. I don't know how you achieve that.
As I said, excessive taxation of people who earn above a certain threshold will just make them spend less money and/or leave the country. Admittedly, I don't know how many need to leave/stop spending for their to be a net loss to the economy. I was working on the assumption that that had happened, to address a hypothetical point about an improvement in equality due to the rich getting poorer was a good thing, in and of itself.
I'm getting out of my depth now (because I'm not an economist) but perhaps there is a level of wealth so high that people wouldn't feel affected by paying more tax? Maybe they should bear the brunt? I just happen to know people in that 100k+ bracket and I know how they will respond if they feel they are being targeted by punitive income tax rates. They'll leave. They're already leaving in their droves as it is. Which isn't good for anyone.
My personal preference would not be target income tax but to look at more aggressive taxation on money earned from second and third homes. The uber-rich all seem to have huge property portfolios. Nobody needs more than one home and making property a less desirable investment would drop prices and reduce the cost of living for everyone. Win win.
Last edited:
Just downloaded a few of the manifestos. Won't be able to look through them properly as I've got a tonne of work to do, but I'll try and skim through them. I signed up for a postal vote, not sure if I've received it, or even when it needs to done by but I imagine that I do not have much time.
Does anyone know whether this is evidenced or just a received wisdom? I really have no idea. Its one of those things that sounds plausible, but I don't know whether its been researched or not.
Obviously there comes a point where it would be true - if you taxed 99.9% of people's income for example. But assuming tax levels stay within a sane range I wonder whether an appreciable number of people would genuinely make the decision to leave the country, or not move here in the first place?
I've no idea. All I know with any certainty that when the Irish government cut the salaries of new hospital consultants (not quite the same thing but comparable) they fecked off in large numbers. Them and the trainees who were hoping to take their jobs one day. The amount of unfilled posts in the Irish Health Service right now is a huge problem. Admittedly, this is a bit of a niche example and I don't know if it's transferable to other sectors.
But you're right. There has to be a sane range. I pay way more PAYE in Ireland than I did in England when I lived there 5 years ago but that hasn't been enough to send me back there. Not yet anyway.
Maybe we're talking past one another a bit, I posted that in reply to madthinker's earlier statement that Labour's description of the additional rate cut as a 'taxcut for millionaires' was untrue or at least misleading. According to the graph, those who could very easily be called millionaires received a larger cut than the lower bands of additional rate payers. I wasn't making a general point about who had the most relief overall, which is why I didn't mention the other parts of the graph.
I think people would feel affected irrespective of level of wealth. No one wants to be taxed. Spanish clubs like Real had to fork out loads more so that players like Ronaldo wouldn't have their disposable income affected in the slightest by the new tax laws.
As for the "leaving" argument, I agree, that's bound to happen as long as there are places where you could be better off. People are leaving Portugal in droves not because they're being taxed but because they don't have jobs. People change countries even when they're well off if they're not averse to change and will make even more money elsewhere. I'm not suggesting we should just tax the rich more and more. François Hollande is the best example that can't be done. I'm just arguing that the current situation doesn't seem to be working for the majority of people, and it seems generalized. The problem is hidden when there's massive and sustained economic growth, but how long will that be viable?
Something like a wealth cap or any other drastic change would only be viable in a new societal and economic system. It's speculative when that will ever happen and what will come out of it, but things don't seem to be shaping up very well for the long run. Even in countries like the US and UK where recessions are rare and short-lived the inequality problem seems to rise ad eternum, let alone in weaker western economies like Portugal and elsewhere.
Well lets put it into perspective. Say you earn £25000, your monthly takehome would be £1,674 and if the rate went up to by 5% this would be lowered to around £1614 would you really miss £60 a month? Now some people may be on the fence as for low earners £60 is a lot of money.
But lets say you earned £200k a year you takehome would be £9,715 a month and if this was lowered to £9,507 do you really think would this make enough of a difference for someone to move abroad or to stop spending as much money?