This Rape Clause Thing

[phart]

1 hour ago, aaid said:

So basically, the rich aren't getting shafted but they should be. 

Do we even know who "the rich"? We should find out before making any final judgement on shafting.

[Mox]

3 hours ago, phart said:

He never said the rich were getting shafted.

he said " this constant let's shaft rich people attitude"

In the context of the prevailing attitude on the TAMB as opposed to it actually happening or being likely to happen.

As my  Dad always tells me measure twice cut once.

 

You're right, he did mention attitude, but The Plinth has been an outspoken supporter of Trump, has shared numerous Breitbart and Milo videos and links in recent months and has been trying to convince us all these folk are all anti establishment and will shake things up for the benefit of the majority of the population. 

It's pretty clear where he stands and essentially he is supporting people and policies that do nothing but preserve the status quo, when he has spent the last 18 months telling us these punters would do the opposite. He's been taken for a fool.

 

[phil]

On 4/21/2017 at 6:06 PM, Parklife said:

I listened to FMQ's yesterday and Ruth Davidson really was shameful. She might be smiley, laughing, pretendy nice but really, she's a horrible woman who refuses to condemn some of the Tory parties most shameful policies. 

Ruth has got the SNP rattled and regularly outclasses Sturgeon, so they are jumping on anything they can to discredit her, the more emotive the issue the better. Whatever you think of the rape clause, deliberately spreading misinformation about it - Sturgeon will know perfectly well that the 8 page form can be filled in by a healthcare or social worker but chooses to suggest otherwise - for political gain is truly shameful.    

[thplinth]

13 hours ago, Mox said:

Good God, this is up there with some of your best work, utter nonsense from start to finish. The only people being shafted and have been shafted for the best part of 10 years (and years prior) since the financial crash is the poor. They have been systematically targeted and no matter what their health, housing situation, family situation, have been told that the Government does too much for them and it's time to start really testing how little money these people can live on.

If you honestly believe and sometimes I think you just say this s h it just to be different, I really pity you my man, I really do.

 

12 hours ago, andymac said:

Care to explain why it is utter nonsense from start to finish? I would exempt the last sentence from Thplinth

 

12 hours ago, Mox said:

The remarks regarding income and housing, are on face value valid remarks, but to then use them in the context of the rich being shafted is utter nonsense. Anyone who believes the rich are being shafted or indeed will be shafted, is living in a completely different world from me. 

 

 

 

12 hours ago, phart said:

He never said the rich were getting shafted.

he said " this constant let's shaft rich people attitude"

In the context of the prevailing attitude on the TAMB as opposed to it actually happening or being likely to happen.

As my  Dad always tells me measure twice cut once.

 

 

8 hours ago, Mox said:

You're right, he did mention attitude, but The Plinth has been an outspoken supporter of Trump, has shared numerous Breitbart and Milo videos and links in recent months and has been trying to convince us all these folk are all anti establishment and will shake things up for the benefit of the majority of the population. 

It's pretty clear where he stands and essentially he is supporting people and policies that do nothing but preserve the status quo, when he has spent the last 18 months telling us these punters would do the opposite. He's been taken for a fool.

 

So basically your entire post is garbage. Bit like you as a poster. Nasty squalid little khunt.

Edited April 23, 2017 by thplinth

[biffer]

Complains about board atmosphere being toxic. Calls other posters squalid little khunts. Hmmmm. 

[thplinth]

The guy is up at midnight making personal posts about me and if I react then it is a problem for you. Aye ok...

 

Edited April 23, 2017 by thplinth

[Parklife]

5 hours ago, phil said:

Ruth has got the SNP rattled and regularly outclasses Sturgeon, so they are jumping on anything they can to discredit her, the more emotive the issue the better. Whatever you think of the rape clause, deliberately spreading misinformation about it - Sturgeon will know perfectly well that the 8 page form can be filled in by a healthcare or social worker but chooses to suggest otherwise - for political gain is truly shameful.    

She really, really doesn't. 

Theyre jumping on an example of her mask slipping. She's just another horrible, dispassionate Tory. 

[Caledonian Craig]

6 hours ago, phil said:

Ruth has got the SNP rattled and regularly outclasses Sturgeon, so they are jumping on anything they can to discredit her, the more emotive the issue the better. Whatever you think of the rape clause, deliberately spreading misinformation about it - Sturgeon will know perfectly well that the 8 page form can be filled in by a healthcare or social worker but chooses to suggest otherwise - for political gain is truly shameful.    

Is this the staunch pro-European Ruth we are talking about? The one who vehemently defended the UK remaining as part of the UK but who has now swung right around on that front to tow the Westminster party line regardless of her own personal beliefs? Sums up Scottish Labour and Conservatives perfectly.

[andymac]

3 minutes ago, Caledonian Craig said:

Is this the staunch pro-European Ruth we are talking about? The one who vehemently defended the UK remaining as part of the UK but who has now swung right around on that front to tow the Westminster party line regardless of her own personal beliefs? Sums up Scottish Labour and Conservatives perfectly.

A bit lie SNP MPs and MSPs being committed to toeing the party line?

[Caledonian Craig]

7 minutes ago, andymac said:

A bit lie SNP MPs and MSPs being committed to toeing the party line?

Well no, actually. What she clearly has backtracked on was an issue that the majority of Scots voted on to remain in Europe. She has now turned fully on that and is getting so precious about those asking for another referendum because of that same European issue.

[exile]

15 hours ago, phart said:

Do we even know who "the rich"? We should find out before making any final judgement on shafting.

Or going for coffee with

[mariokempes56]

8 hours ago, thplinth said:

 

 

 

 

So basically your entire post is garbage. Bit like you as a poster. Nasty squalid little khunt.

nice one son...

 

[Mox]

16 hours ago, thplinth said:

 

 

 

 

So basically your entire post is garbage. Bit like you as a poster. Nasty squalid little khunt.

You're a right wing crack pot, no doubt about it.

[DaveyDenoon]

On 23/04/2017 at 3:35 AM, phil said:

Ruth has got the SNP rattled and regularly outclasses Sturgeon, so they are jumping on anything they can to discredit her.

Nearly spat my coffee all over my screen when I read this.

One of the funniest and maddest statements I've ever read.

Ruth really and honestly does not have the SNP rattled and will never come close to outclassing Sturgeon in a million years.

[Glasgowmancity]

On 21/04/2017 at 4:32 PM, thplinth said:

Personally I would have a bigger personal allowance. Say 15-20k basically a number that no one could say they were living in poverty and being taxed. After that I would have one percentage for all. 

People talk about progressive taxation like it  was fair. It is not. If the rate is 30% and someone earns 10000 above the personal allowance they pay 3000. If someone earns 1000000 above the personal allowance they pay 300000. That is progressive and fair. Ramping it up to 40, 50, 60% is just opportunistic. It is not 'fair'. I defy you to justify it from the rich persons perspective. It can't be done because it is not fair. We are fecking them let's be honest about it.

I honestly believe this kind of system would drastically reduce tax avoidance and would encourage more people just to pay what they are due

[TDYER63]

2 hours ago, Glasgowmancity said:

I honestly believe this kind of system would drastically reduce tax avoidance and would encourage more people just to pay what they are due

If this was workable and lucrative why has no government intoduced it ? Genuine question. I have no idea what the numbers potentially could be so cant work it out, however I would think the government has a reasonable idea of how much tax is being avoided.  

[aaid]

1 hour ago, TDYER63 said:

If this was workable and lucrative why has no government intoduced it ? Genuine question. I have no idea what the numbers potentially could be so cant work it out, however I would think the government has a reasonable idea of how much tax is being avoided.  

The system he is describing is proportional taxation not progressive taxation, simply to say that as earn more income by definition you pay more money in tax and therefore that's progressive isn't true.

If you are trying to design a tax system that is fair and equitable then proportional taxation doesn't fit into that model.  Take the example of a flat rate of 30%, no personal allowances to make the example simpler.

If you earn £10000, you pay £3000 in tax.  If you earn £100000 then you pay £30000 in tax.  On the surface that looks fair and equitable however where the problem comes in is that the £3000 tax in the first case has a much higher impact on that individual than the £30000 tax has on the second.   Clearly they both pay the same proportion of their income in tax, but in relation to the amount of money required to live on, in the first case, they pay a much higher proportion in tax and in their case an increase in the flat rate of tax would have a much bigger impact.

This is known as "inequality of sacrifice" and is the fundamental reason why a flat proportional system can never be fair and equitable whereas a progressive system can be.

[thplinth]

34 minutes ago, aaid said:

The system he is describing is proportional taxation not progressive taxation, simply to say that as earn more income by definition you pay more money in tax and therefore that's progressive isn't true.

If you are trying to design a tax system that is fair and equitable then proportional taxation doesn't fit into that model.  Take the example of a flat rate of 30%, no personal allowances to make the example simpler.

If you earn £10000, you pay £3000 in tax.  If you earn £100000 then you pay £30000 in tax.  On the surface that looks fair and equitable however where the problem comes in is that the £3000 tax in the first case has a much higher impact on that individual than the £30000 tax has on the second.   Clearly they both pay the same proportion of their income in tax, but in relation to the amount of money required to live on, in the first case, they pay a much higher proportion in tax and in their case an increase in the flat rate of tax would have a much bigger impact.

This is known as "inequality of sacrifice" and is the fundamental reason why a flat proportional system can never be fair and equitable whereas a progressive system can be.

Whoah. What a post from you. I am shocked by it. First you ignore the whole point of my post (the much bigger personal allowance) and then you use its absence  as the worst straw man ever.  WTF?!

The much larger Personal Allowance is to take poverty out the game... after that it is one tax for all. If we make the personal allowance say 50,000 pounds per person (i'd be up for that), I suspect you would still want to have 'progressive taxation'. Long after we would not be poor by any definition I suspect you would still want to tax punish the rich for being rich(er). Why is that? 

I am not rich. But I suspect your tax (/ economic) philosophy will maybe kill our chances of achieving independence so I am against it.

 

[TDYER63]

45 minutes ago, aaid said:

The system he is describing is proportional taxation not progressive taxation, simply to say that as earn more income by definition you pay more money in tax and therefore that's progressive isn't true.

If you are trying to design a tax system that is fair and equitable then proportional taxation doesn't fit into that model.  Take the example of a flat rate of 30%, no personal allowances to make the example simpler.

If you earn £10000, you pay £3000 in tax.  If you earn £100000 then you pay £30000 in tax.  On the surface that looks fair and equitable however where the problem comes in is that the £3000 tax in the first case has a much higher impact on that individual than the £30000 tax has on the second.   Clearly they both pay the same proportion of their income in tax, but in relation to the amount of money required to live on, in the first case, they pay a much higher proportion in tax and in their case an increase in the flat rate of tax would have a much bigger impact.

This is known as "inequality of sacrifice" and is the fundamental reason why a flat proportional system can never be fair and equitable whereas a progressive system can be.

Ok understood . However, if there was a generous personal allowance as suggested , surely that would help those most in need at the lower end , the middle section would be more or less the same as the current set up as the extra tax they would pay between say 25-30 % would be offset against the higher allowance,  whilst more tax would be brought in from the top tier as they would be less in clined to stash it in panama. 

This is all of course purely fictional as I remain pretty unconvinced the tax dodgers will suddenly find a social conscience. 

[TDYER63]

7 minutes ago, thplinth said:

Whoah. What a post from you. I am shocked by it. First you ignore the whole point of my post (the much bigger personal allowance) and then you use its absence  as the worst straw man ever.  WTF?!

The much larger Personal Allowance is to take poverty out the game... after that it is one tax for all. If we make the personal allowance say 50,000 pounds per person (i'd be up for that), I suspect you would still want to have 'progressive taxation'. Long after we would not be poor by any definition I suspect you would still want to tax punish the rich for being rich(er). Why is that? 

I am not rich. But I suspect your tax (/ economic) philosophy will maybe kill our chances of achieving independence so I am against it.

 

Posts overlapped. !

[thplinth]

 

4 hours ago, Glasgowmancity said:

I honestly believe this kind of system would drastically reduce tax avoidance and would encourage more people just to pay what they are due

I believe so too.

As phart has mentioned this all about out positioning on the Laffer Curve. You want to be on the top it and staying there.. not laughing and skipping over the top of it and into the precipice beyond like a loony left wing nutter.

[TDYER63]

18 minutes ago, thplinth said:

Whoah. What a post from you. I am shocked by it. First you ignore the whole point of my post (the much bigger personal allowance) and then you use its absence  as the worst straw man ever.  WTF?!

The much larger Personal Allowance is to take poverty out the game... after that it is one tax for all. If we make the personal allowance say 50,000 pounds per person (i'd be up for that), I suspect you would still want to have 'progressive taxation'. Long after we would not be poor by any definition I suspect you would still want to tax punish the rich for being rich(er). Why is that? 

I am not rich. But I suspect your tax (/ economic) philosophy will maybe kill our chances of achieving independence so I am against it.

 

So , the question I asked earlier, why has no one introduced it. Have you taken this idea to dragons den ? Think the £50k personal limit might be a bit optimistic in Scotland.

I would however not be completely against it if the numbers stacked up and everyone played ball. 

[aaid]

10 minutes ago, thplinth said:

Whoah. What a post from you. I am shocked by it. First you ignore the whole point of my post (the much bigger personal allowance) and then you use its absence  as the worst straw man ever.  WTF?!

The much larger Personal Allowance is to take poverty out the game... after that it is one tax for all. If we make the personal allowance say 50,000 pounds per person (i'd be up for that), I suspect you would still want to have 'progressive taxation'. Long after we would not be poor by any definition I suspect you would still want to tax punish the rich for being rich(er). Why is that? 

I am not rich. But I suspect your tax (/ economic) philosophy will maybe kill our chances of achieving independence so I am against it.

 

My views on tax aren't that radical.  Personally I'd set the personal allowance at the level of the real living wage, i.e. If you are on the living wage you don't pay any income tax.  I'd put the higher rate - £150k and above to 50% and that's about it.  You'd probably have to adjust bands, rates and other things to take account of that which is why you can't really do that in a devolved system.

I get that your suggesting that the personal allowance should be set at a level so no-one pays tax until the reach a level were they can have a reasonable life, whatever that means.  Let's assume for arguments sake that's 20k.

However that still doesn't deal with the fundamental issue of inequality of sacrifice, it just makes it a bit less life or death.  The impact of tax on someone paying 3k of tax on annual income of 30k with a 20k allowance is still much greater than someone paying 24k on an annual income of £100k with the same 20k allowance.

 

[thplinth]

The money we (successfully) collect in from tax can be redistributed anyway we choose? But only after it is collected. Raising taxes endlessly is a fantasy without actual collection. People including the rich only accept so much before going rogue. So perhaps we should separate the logic of its collections (i.e. its assessment) from its distribution.

Make tax assessment and collection fair and it will be maximized (iMHO).

Once collections are maximized distribute them then as fairly as possible. (i.e. give it all to the poor.)

What is so difficult about this?

It means you have to accept both sides have limits. You cannot go beyond the overlapping boundary where it remains fair for all. (I am not talking about the Rothchilds here just the 'ordinary rich'. )

 

Edited April 24, 2017 by thplinth

[aaid]

22 minutes ago, TDYER63 said:

So , the question I asked earlier, why has no one introduced it. Have you taken this idea to dragons den ? Think the £50k personal limit might be a bit optimistic in Scotland.

Given that the average income is about £28k, I'd use a different word than optimistic.