This Rape Clause Thing

[thplinth]

1 minute ago, aaid said:

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

so if we made the personal allowance 30k per person tomorrow and had a flat rate tax for all above... would you agree?

[aaid]

1 minute ago, thplinth said:

so if we made the personal allowance 30k per person tomorrow and had a flat rate tax for all above... would you agree?

No

[thplinth]

2 minutes ago, aaid said:

No

100k?

[aaid]

Just now, thplinth said:

100k?

The number's irrelevant.

[killiefaetheferry]

2 minutes ago, aaid said:

No

The most laconic post on the TAMB ever 

[thplinth]

The numbers irrelevant.

[thplinth]

So it seems like even when we make the personal allowance 100,000 pounds that is not enough. Meaning no one ever pays tax until they are rich.

And even then if we spend every penny of tax revenue collected on the 'poor' (those earning 99,999 pounds or less a year) that is still not enough.

So what do you want? I think what bugs you is there is a rich and by definition a poor.

Personally here I think you want to make everyone the same (even if it brings us collectively down). It is the root of a lot of philosophical problems in left wing politics IMHO. It is a bit communist without acknowledging itself.

 

[sbcmfc]

Would the problem with taking the personal allowance too high not be that you'd reach a point where too many people weren't paying tax so not enough tax collected? As more people earn under £30k than over...

 

I agree though, the personal allowance being set at a level equivalent to the living wage would appear fair, although I doubt the numbers would stack up..

[TDYER63]

17 minutes ago, sbcmfc said:

Would the problem with taking the personal allowance too high not be that you'd reach a point where too many people weren't paying tax so not enough tax collected? As more people earn under £30k than over...

 

I agree though, the personal allowance being set at a level equivalent to the living wage would appear fair, although I doubt the numbers would stack up..

That was what I was getting at re the £50k being optimistic ( poor wording admittedly) . No bugger would be paying tax.

We dont want to end up like Greece ......?

[thplinth]

I am talking hypothetically here with the 100k personal allowance, to show up the real motive. It is not about removing people from poverty. "The number's irrelevant."

So what is relevant? This is where I sense another agenda, and it is very dangerous.

I am talking about making tax fair. Make it fair and you naturally optimize it. You still have to enforce it of course but everything is easier when it is fair and people naturally tend to agree.

Edited April 24, 2017 by thplinth

[Parklife]

 

9 hours ago, thplinth said:

I am talking about making tax fair. Make it fair and you naturally optimize it. You still have to enforce it of course but everything is easier when it is fair and people naturally tend to agree.

Are we making everything fair in society? Or is it just tax you want to be "fair"? And by "fair" you mean well off people paying less than they do currently. 

[thplinth]

On 4/22/2017 at 9:06 AM, hampden_loon2878 said:

RE capping benifits to two children, i can see the argument for it as the press have given a lot of air time to unemployed mothers having lots of kids just for benifits, however we as a country  need to boost or encourage our fertility rate to grow, especially if immigration is going to be cut following brexit 

 

On 4/22/2017 at 10:39 AM, scoobydoo said:

As the population is declining they should be paying people to have kids not stop their credits.

Do you know the main reason we have a problem with the 'birth rate'?

You can chart its decline with the rise of something else...

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/ab-unitedkingdom.html

And this is also a big part of the problem of our increasing aging population.  Total up the number since it was made legal. That is what has been taken out of the economy. No wonder we 'need' immigrants so badly. 

[hampden_loon2878]

2 minutes ago, thplinth said:

 

Do you know the main reason we have a problem with the 'birth rate'?

You can chart its decline with the rise of something else...

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/ab-unitedkingdom.html

And this is also a big part of the problem of our increasing aging population.  Total up the number since it was made legal. That is what has been taken out of the economy. No wonder we 'need' immigrants so badly. 

Wow i never actually realised it was that high,, thanks for that bit of info,,although i agree with it to an extent it shown a different angle to it 

[thplinth]

3 hours ago, Parklife said:

 

Are we making everything fair in society? Or is it just tax you want to be "fair"? And by "fair" you mean well off people paying less than they do currently. 

Are you suggesting if something else is unfair we should not bother to makes taxes fair if we can. Tax is a pretty fundamental thing in all our lives (like death). So why not make it fair if we can. VAT is a very unfair tax on the low earning but it just goes completely under the radar for most people. 

[scoobydoo]

16 minutes ago, thplinth said:

 

Do you know the main reason we have a problem with the 'birth rate'?

You can chart its decline with the rise of something else...

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/ab-unitedkingdom.html

And this is also a big part of the problem of our increasing aging population.  Total up the number since it was made legal. That is what has been taken out of the economy. No wonder we 'need' immigrants so badly. 

You'd have to correlate that with irish ferry passenger numbers.

[aaid]

13 hours ago, thplinth said:

So it seems like even when we make the personal allowance 100,000 pounds that is not enough. Meaning no one ever pays tax until they are rich.

And even then if we spend every penny of tax revenue collected on the 'poor' (those earning 99,999 pounds or less a year) that is still not enough.

So what do you want? I think what bugs you is there is a rich and by definition a poor.

Personally here I think you want to make everyone the same (even if it brings us collectively down). It is the root of a lot of philosophical problems in left wing politics IMHO. It is a bit communist without acknowledging itself.

 

Not at all, in fact your proposal of a flat rate of tax only works if everyone earns roughly the same amount and so pays the same amount of tax, that sounds pretty communist to me.

As I said before, the only major changes I would make would be to increase the personal allowance to the rate of the living wage, so that no-one pays any tax at all until they are above that level and I'd increase the top rate of tax - currently over 45% at earnings over £150k to 50%.

The living wage foundation currently sets the ex-London rate at £8.45 an hour, based on a 40 hour week, 52 weeks a year that gives an annual wage of £17,576.  The current personal tax allowance is £11,500, so that's an increase of £6000 in the personal allowance and would mean someone on the living wage would pay £1215.20 less tax pa.

Because of the way that the UK tax system works, any increase to the personal allowance would benefit all, so in this case someone earning £43000 - the next band-  would also be £1215.20 better off and since that change is designed to benefit the lowest paid you would have to adjust the bands accordingly with the intention that no-one at those levels is currently paying anymore tax that than they currently do - in reality given the way the bands work that's actually very difficult to get to the exact penny but you can get it so that there are winners and losers but you're only talking about a few pounds either way.

Obviously taking £1200 in tax for a large proportion of the population means there is a gap to be filled and I'd do that at the higher end by potentially reducing the top band from £150k and increasing the rate.  There's also the fact that by taking a large chunk of the population out of the income tax completely this will also reduce the welfare bill as people will no longer be eligible for/require a lot of the in-work benefits they currently get.  Tax credits after all is basically a big con that allows the government to subsidise low wage employers.

To any increases into context for someone earning £300k pa, based on the current bands and allowances, increasing the top rate of tax to 50% would see them pay an additional £7500, however it only increases their notional rate of tax by 2.5% and they would still be taking home £175,900.   If you were to make some similar adjustments around the £75k level you'd only be talking about people paying a few hundred pounds a year extra.  They might not want to do that and they might not be happy about it, but I doubt they wouldn't be able to afford it.

 

[aaid]

27 minutes ago, thplinth said:

 

Do you know the main reason we have a problem with the 'birth rate'?

You can chart its decline with the rise of something else...

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/ab-unitedkingdom.html

And this is also a big part of the problem of our increasing aging population.  Total up the number since it was made legal. That is what has been taken out of the economy. No wonder we 'need' immigrants so badly. 

Ah yes, men telling women what they should and shouldn't do with their bodies.

[thplinth]

2 minutes ago, aaid said:

Ah yes, men telling women what they should and shouldn't do with their bodies.

Probably one of the worst straw men I have seen on here and that is saying something. Who said that...

This is too much like hard work. 

[Parklife]

1 hour ago, thplinth said:

Are you suggesting if something else is unfair we should not bother to makes taxes fair if we can. Tax is a pretty fundamental thing in all our lives (like death). So why not make it fair if we can. VAT is a very unfair tax on the low earning but it just goes completely under the radar for most people. 

I was merely asking a question. If your tax reform is part of a wider plan to bring equality of earnings, such as maximum salaries and fairer sick and maternity pay, then i'm all for it. 

[aaid]

Good stuff from Dugdale in HR, sticking the boot right into the Tories.  

[hampden_loon2878]

2 hours ago, aaid said:

Good stuff from Dugdale in HR, sticking the boot right into the Tories.  

Just read that, although a hopeless politician i think shes alright as a person and means well. Wee Ruth on the other hand is starting to show her true colours 

[weekevie04]

Well done Kezia! Excellent speech from her.

[thplinth]

4 hours ago, Parklife said:

I was merely asking a question. If your tax reform is part of a wider plan to bring equality of earnings, such as maximum salaries and fairer sick and maternity pay, then i'm all for it. 

Raising taxes is one side. I think making it fair for all will increase revenue in the medium to long term but maybe not immediately.

The other side is what you do with the taxes once raised. If you want to spunk it on this or that anything is possible. Our choice.

But I would say operate within the confines of the money you raise fairly. That should be your budget constraint. 

Would not do a maximum wage and probably not a minimum wage. Not political reasons but economic. They are essentially price controls and I think they end up doing more harm than good.

Edited April 25, 2017 by thplinth

[exile]

On 20/04/2017 at 10:24 PM, exile said:

Curious to see the 'rape clause' on the BBC national news, as an attack on Ruth D, out of context of the UK. i means it's almost being set up as a Scottish story, but isn't it a UK issue and why is there no 'heat' being turned up down south? How come no mud is being thrown at Theresa May?

The report does give a platform to Kezia, to attack both Ruth and a sideswipe at Sturgeon on independence. Classy, BBC.

I'm still curious, if this is still 'just' a Scottish story, why?

I see it's trending on Twitter, but doesn't seem to be reported (yet) on UK broadsheets.

Who decides what's news, what's an election issue? Still no mud attaching to May? #nastyparty

 

Edited April 25, 2017 by exile

[Guest flumax]

3 hours ago, aaid said:

Good stuff from Dugdale in HR, sticking the boot right into the Tories.  

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1363523673739829&id=310039442421596&_rdr