|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Oct 24, 2014 16:06:55 GMT
Where would you be without Google eh? Google is great it leads me to sites like the bbc, ons, guardian, telegraph which tell me more of a truth of the debt, borrowing deficit and how it works. More than a biased meme from one angry voice ever will. Why is one angry voice not telling us the reason for the difference? Perhaps it won't make his silly ramblings effective. Perhaps you should read his and similar articles that quite simply tell the truth?
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Oct 24, 2014 16:09:17 GMT
Perhaps you could explain it all then? I already did. You didnt understand it. No you haven't You've also yet to explain the good policies you see in the BNP. I think it's becoming painfully obvious who's been found out matey...you.
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Oct 24, 2014 16:10:48 GMT
Google is great it leads me to sites like the bbc, ons, guardian, telegraph which tell me more of a truth of the debt, borrowing deficit and how it works. More than a biased meme from one angry voice ever will. Why is one angry voice not telling us the reason for the difference? Perhaps it won't make his silly ramblings effective. Perhaps you should read his and similar articles that quite simply tell the truth? he hasn't told the truth to how new ONS calculations distort his figures though has he?
|
|
|
Post by bathstoke on Oct 24, 2014 16:16:30 GMT
Perhaps you should read his and similar articles that quite simply tell the truth? he hasn't told the truth to how new ONS calculations distort his figures though has he? Still comparing dicks then!?!
|
|
|
Post by britsabroad on Oct 24, 2014 16:22:05 GMT
I already did. You didnt understand it. No you haven't You've also yet to explain the good policies you see in the BNP. I think it's becoming painfully obvious who's been found out matey...you. I listed three, and you replied to them. I'm really not sure...has anyone met you in person from here? Are you on a wind up? I refuse to believe anyone can be this thick.
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Oct 24, 2014 16:35:51 GMT
No you haven't You've also yet to explain the good policies you see in the BNP. I think it's becoming painfully obvious who's been found out matey...you. I listed three, and you replied to them. I'm really not sure...has anyone met you in person from here? Are you on a wind up? I refuse to believe anyone can be this thick. Brighter than a 10w light bulb was the reply. Irony
|
|
|
Post by boothenboy75 on Oct 24, 2014 17:33:23 GMT
Google is great it leads me to sites like the bbc, ons, guardian, telegraph which tell me more of a truth of the debt, borrowing deficit and how it works. More than a biased meme from one angry voice ever will. Why is one angry voice not telling us the reason for the difference? Perhaps it won't make his silly ramblings effective. Perhaps you should read his and similar articles that quite simply tell the truth? I struggle to see what your trying to say here. Are you saying the cuts should have been faster and further to cut the deficit more quickly?
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Oct 24, 2014 19:56:26 GMT
I listed three, and you replied to them. I'm really not sure...has anyone met you in person from here? Are you on a wind up? I refuse to believe anyone can be this thick. Brighter than a 10w light bulb was the reply. Irony Missing the irony yourself there sunshine...
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Oct 24, 2014 19:57:52 GMT
No you haven't You've also yet to explain the good policies you see in the BNP. I think it's becoming painfully obvious who's been found out matey...you. I listed three, and you replied to them. I'm really not sure...has anyone met you in person from here? Are you on a wind up? I refuse to believe anyone can be this thick. I'm not thick...you're the one who constantly avoids answering direct questions. I believe it's called cognitive dissonance in your case.
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Oct 24, 2014 19:58:27 GMT
Perhaps you should read his and similar articles that quite simply tell the truth? I struggle to see what your trying to say here. Are you saying the cuts should have been faster and further to cut the deficit more quickly? No I'm not.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 24, 2014 20:16:34 GMT
Yeah, loving your work! And Osborne's borrowing is still about two and a half times what Labour was borrowing in 2007/08, pre financial crisis and recession (unlike your 2009 figure which is very much financial crisis and recession!) Incidentally, the 2007-08 value was 5bn lower than what was borrowed in 2004/05. Hardly out of control was it! Kind of goes to show precisely the impact the financial crisis and recession had really doesn't it, unless you really think the increased borrowing was purely to fund some vanity public sector non-jobs like some bright sparks on here do: Depends how you define 'out of control'. It may not have been 'spiralling' but it was certaintly consisently higher than it needed to be hence we entered the crisis with a structural defict that was one of the highest in the entire developed world. All Osborne's figures show is a mockery of these supposed spending cuts. Yes, we're in agreement, amazingly enough. Given that the current debt rates are not out of control, I'd consider it fair enough to say that those several times lower under the previous govt were also not out of control. Debt is currently much, much higher than is comfortable but since the UK is still perfectly capable of borrowing at acceptable rates and is nowhere near and never has been anywhere near going bankrupt, I also wouldn't describe the current situation as out of control, as I'm sure Osborne wouldn't either!
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 24, 2014 20:23:31 GMT
Perhaps you should ask him you seem to be his self appointed spokesman, while we're at it get him to explain to you how the quantity and quality of public services increased by a third it might be just London but I didn't notice my bins being emptied a third better, my roads being emptied a third better, the street lighting being a third better etc etc etc. I said I was done engaging with you, the post you chose to reply to was one in response to mcf, your childish you said this x years ago response kinda proves my point. That sums a lot of it up FYD We could make out as though Lukey was a thick twat hardly worth bothering with on the basis that he once told us PFI added 9% to the debt and what was it he once told you...something like that 'tax receipts didn't affect the debt' .... but constantly digging such errors up would just be childish, pointless, daft etc etc Tut tut and tut again, what dreadful misquoting from someone who is so against it! Actually, if you remember, mcf, which you never can do, the figure of 9% for PFI impact on national debt I quoted was from the "thick twats" as you would so charmingly put it from a rightwing thinktank. I chose that figure deliberately as it was by far the highest one I could find. Unlike them to have got it so spectacularly wrong! The actual OBR figure some time later was about 1.5%. Hardly worth getting your knickers in a twist over, although some folk do love to bang on about PFI but not in criticism of George Osborne's love of PFI, oddly enough! Just to be clear again, tax receipts don't affect the debt, they affect the deficit, which is the difference between revenue and spending. Subsequent borrowing which, amongst other things, may be used to offset any deficit is what increases the debt. That quality understanding again, mcf!
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 24, 2014 20:34:40 GMT
So must you the Tories inherited a significant and increasing structural deficit due to things like PFI and higher interest rates. The Tories are cutting the structural deficit and you have moaned at every single cut but it will take time doing it at the very gradual rate they are doing. To put it simply you can't pay off the overdraft until you get your current outgoings to be less than incoming so you have money to repay the debt. Still good of you to confirm you and the person who did the picture don't understand the difference between the deficit and debt. Perhaps they'd do it a lot quicker if the money they borrowed went into kickstarting the economy rather than lining banker's pockets and providing lovely tax breaks for the super rich? Ah yes, all those tax breaks that the super rich are getting... I suppose this is whilst all the minimum wage and working class get repeatedly raped by the government and are being expected to pay more just so the fat cats get fatter, right? I suppose that tax free allowance hasn't really gone up to £10,000 from around £6,500 right. I suppose that compared to four years ago, somebody earning £12,500 a year doesn't really pay £900 less a year in tax and national insurance contributions? No, can't possibly be because those right at the bottom of the pay scale are getting right royally shit on. I suppose that even somebody on the average UK salary of £26,500 doesn't really pay £700 less a year either... can't possibly be because all the normal, working class folk are similarly getting bent over constantly. Even everybody up to the top 10% threshold... I suppose they aren't paying £320 less a year in tax right? Actually, that's probably 'good news' for some people as it just proves who those who are up there are paying LESS, all fueled by the constant persecution of all the working class and worst off in the country. We'll ignore that somebody on £100,000 a year pays more than they used too...that kinda shit doesn't fit in too well with the argument. Ahh, but hang on...the limit at which the 40p tax comes in has gone down from £35,001 to £31,865. Oh, no, that doesn't work for you actually does it, because it means that the top 25% of earners have more of their income in the higher band. Right, I think I've got it...all those top 1% of earners, those greedy bankers who those dastardly Tories bow down to have seen the top tax bracket cut from 50p to 45p!! It's fucking scandalous!!! But, ah shit...those top 1% have actually increased their income tax contribution from being 25% of the total to 30% in the same time. I know, why don't we tax the super rich! They only contribute 30% of the total income tax receipts, thats absolutely nothing compared to the lower half of all contributors who put forward a combined 11%. A, shit...that doesn't fit well either really does it? But, lets ignore all of that...here's a good one for you - only in this country would the top earners be allowed to have it so good, you wouldn't get it anywhere else in the world would you. I mean, apart from their 30% contribution... they do have the lowest marginal rate of income tax in the developed world! Oh, whats that, they've got the highest marginal rate? Fuck, that doesn't work either because they contribute more in this country than they would do in other comparable countries. Well, I give up Huddy. All these facts and I'm further away than ever :s I wonder if that whole original statement is actually nothing but a pile of steaming old horse shit.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 24, 2014 20:35:23 GMT
I see....one word spelled wrong means it's factually incorrect eh? You two really are special if you cant trust the spelling can you you cant trust the information?* actually (and that i give two fucks about wether you agree with me) is that it shows you post shit without even reading it correctly, you see somthing anti your view and post it as fast as you can. *scurrily searches websites everywhere for memes spelt right with the same info on Blimey, you're on thin ice there, Salop! If spelling and grammar were yardsticks to measure the accuracy of political opinions and statements on here, you and Followyoudown would be at the bottom of the remedial class!
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 24, 2014 20:48:34 GMT
Perhaps they'd do it a lot quicker if the money they borrowed went into kickstarting the economy rather than lining banker's pockets and providing lovely tax breaks for the super rich? Ah yes, all those tax breaks that the super rich are getting... I suppose this is whilst all the minimum wage and working class get repeatedly raped by the government and are being expected to pay more just so the fat cats get fatter, right? I suppose that tax free allowance hasn't really gone up to £10,000 from around £6,500 right. I suppose that compared to four years ago, somebody earning £12,500 a year doesn't really pay £900 less a year in tax and national insurance contributions? No, can't possibly be because those right at the bottom of the pay scale are getting right royally shit on. I suppose that even somebody on the average UK salary of £26,500 doesn't really pay £700 less a year either... can't possibly be because all the normal, working class folk are similarly getting bent over constantly. Even everybody up to the top 10% threshold... I suppose they aren't paying £320 less a year in tax right? Actually, that's probably 'good news' for some people as it just proves who those who are up there are paying LESS, all fueled by the constant persecution of all the working class and worst off in the country. We'll ignore that somebody on £100,000 a year pays more than they used too...that kinda shit doesn't fit in too well with the argument. Ahh, but hang on...the limit at which the 40p tax comes in has gone down from £35,001 to £31,865. Oh, no, that doesn't work for you actually does it, because it means that the top 25% of earners have more of their income in the higher band. Right, I think I've got it...all those top 1% of earners, those greedy bankers who those dastardly Tories bow down to have seen the top tax bracket cut from 50p to 45p!! It's fucking scandalous!!! But, ah shit...those top 1% have actually increased their income tax contribution from being 25% of the total to 30% in the same time. I know, why don't we tax the super rich! They only contribute 30% of the total income tax receipts, thats absolutely nothing compared to the lower half of all contributors who put forward a combined 11%. A, shit...that doesn't fit well either really does it? But, lets ignore all of that...here's a good one for you - only in this country would the top earners be allowed to have it so good, you wouldn't get it anywhere else in the world would you. I mean, apart from their 30% contribution... they do have the lowest marginal rate of income tax in the developed world! Oh, whats that, they've got the highest marginal rate? Fuck, that doesn't work either because they contribute more in this country than they would do in other comparable countries. Well, I give up Huddy. All these facts and I'm further away than ever :s I wonder if that whole original statement is actually nothing but a pile of steaming old horse shit. Fair points, but only if you're looking at income tax. You should really consider all taxes not just income tax. And if you do, the relative tax contribution from the richest members of society and the highest earners is not much different from average earners and the poorest fraction. They're not exactly hard done by!
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Oct 24, 2014 21:23:01 GMT
if you cant trust the spelling can you you cant trust the information?* actually (and that i give two fucks about wether you agree with me) is that it shows you post shit without even reading it correctly, you see somthing anti your view and post it as fast as you can. *scurrily searches websites everywhere for memes spelt right with the same info on Blimey, you're on thin ice there, Salop! If spelling and grammar were yardsticks to measure the accuracy of political opinions and statements on here, you and Followyoudown would be at the bottom of the remedial class! my dyslexia means I'm lucky to be employed and I work twice as hard as a result.
|
|
|
Post by boothenboy75 on Oct 24, 2014 21:28:38 GMT
I struggle to see what your trying to say here. Are you saying the cuts should have been faster and further to cut the deficit more quickly? No I'm not. To try and help you out, the question was the bit with the question mark after it. I also struggle to work out if you're a principled but slightly deluded well meaning bloke, or some wind-up merchant who is pissing themselves at home?
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Oct 24, 2014 21:42:18 GMT
Perhaps they'd do it a lot quicker if the money they borrowed went into kickstarting the economy rather than lining banker's pockets and providing lovely tax breaks for the super rich? Ah yes, all those tax breaks that the super rich are getting... I suppose this is whilst all the minimum wage and working class get repeatedly raped by the government and are being expected to pay more just so the fat cats get fatter, right? I suppose that tax free allowance hasn't really gone up to £10,000 from around £6,500 right. I suppose that compared to four years ago, somebody earning £12,500 a year doesn't really pay £900 less a year in tax and national insurance contributions? No, can't possibly be because those right at the bottom of the pay scale are getting right royally shit on. I suppose that even somebody on the average UK salary of £26,500 doesn't really pay £700 less a year either... can't possibly be because all the normal, working class folk are similarly getting bent over constantly. Even everybody up to the top 10% threshold... I suppose they aren't paying £320 less a year in tax right? Actually, that's probably 'good news' for some people as it just proves who those who are up there are paying LESS, all fueled by the constant persecution of all the working class and worst off in the country. We'll ignore that somebody on £100,000 a year pays more than they used too...that kinda shit doesn't fit in too well with the argument. Ahh, but hang on...the limit at which the 40p tax comes in has gone down from £35,001 to £31,865. Oh, no, that doesn't work for you actually does it, because it means that the top 25% of earners have more of their income in the higher band. Right, I think I've got it...all those top 1% of earners, those greedy bankers who those dastardly Tories bow down to have seen the top tax bracket cut from 50p to 45p!! It's fucking scandalous!!! But, ah shit...those top 1% have actually increased their income tax contribution from being 25% of the total to 30% in the same time. I know, why don't we tax the super rich! They only contribute 30% of the total income tax receipts, thats absolutely nothing compared to the lower half of all contributors who put forward a combined 11%. A, shit...that doesn't fit well either really does it? But, lets ignore all of that...here's a good one for you - only in this country would the top earners be allowed to have it so good, you wouldn't get it anywhere else in the world would you. I mean, apart from their 30% contribution... they do have the lowest marginal rate of income tax in the developed world! Oh, whats that, they've got the highest marginal rate? Fuck, that doesn't work either because they contribute more in this country than they would do in other comparable countries. Well, I give up Huddy. All these facts and I'm further away than ever :s I wonder if that whole original statement is actually nothing but a pile of steaming old horse shit. www.neweconomics.org/blog/entry/why-the-cuts-arent-working?post_id=601137604_10152849799562605#_=_Have a read of this, it's very clear and concise and hopefully will help you understand my points.
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Oct 24, 2014 21:43:23 GMT
To try and help you out, the question was the bit with the question mark after it. I also struggle to work out if you're a principled but slightly deluded well meaning bloke, or some wind-up merchant who is pissing themselves at home? You asked, I answered, the answer was no. Cutting faster would have been catastrophic.
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Oct 24, 2014 22:09:00 GMT
www.neweconomics.org/blog/entry/Another-financial-crisis-not-if-but-whenThis year’s Geneva Report, published by the Centre for Economic Policy Research, highlights a more general concern. Since 2008, the total amount of debt across the world, relative to global GDP, has risen 38 percentage points, to 212% - excluding debt owed by financial corporations, which means excluding the shadow banking system. Debt creation has generally slowed in the high-income economies, but is now racing ahead in the lower- and middle-income world, led by China. China’s external debt – debt owed to those elsewhere in the world – has risen 50% in the last year. But other large middle-income countries, such as Turkey, are also seeing sharp rises in indebtedness. In other words, lower-income countries are staging a re-run of what the higher-income world did in the 2000s, with debt creation now leading the process of growth. Debt creation cannot run ahead of economic growth in the long run since debts must be repaid, with interest. Economic growth delivers the additional resources needed to pay interest. If it is not there, the system crashes, as we saw in the higher-income world over 2007-8, when a very large number of failures to repay debt brought down the global economy. The UK is particularly exposed. The Coalition’s attempts to pay down the public debt have decisively failed, with George Osborne borrowing more in four years than Labour did in 13. Meanwhile, with real incomes falling for most, increasing private sector debt (such as credit card and mortgage debt) are helping sustain the “recovery”. The UK’s financial system has total liabilities of something over 1,300% of GDP. It is heavily internationalised, meaning it is vulnerable to risks elsewhere in the world. For example, British banks, led by HSBC, have loaned more than any other foreign banks into China. After the bank bail-outs of 2008, there is an expectation that, if anything goes wrong, the costs of these risks will be borne by wider society. The situation will stabilise if there is a return to sustained growth (leaving aside its environmental consequences). But this is not expected. More likely will be a process of substantial debt write-off, of which Wonga’s recent write-off is perhaps a harbinger. The key question will be in managing this process so that society is protected. Scary stuff folks....
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 24, 2014 22:09:58 GMT
Ah yes, all those tax breaks that the super rich are getting... I suppose this is whilst all the minimum wage and working class get repeatedly raped by the government and are being expected to pay more just so the fat cats get fatter, right? I suppose that tax free allowance hasn't really gone up to £10,000 from around £6,500 right. I suppose that compared to four years ago, somebody earning £12,500 a year doesn't really pay £900 less a year in tax and national insurance contributions? No, can't possibly be because those right at the bottom of the pay scale are getting right royally shit on. I suppose that even somebody on the average UK salary of £26,500 doesn't really pay £700 less a year either... can't possibly be because all the normal, working class folk are similarly getting bent over constantly. Even everybody up to the top 10% threshold... I suppose they aren't paying £320 less a year in tax right? Actually, that's probably 'good news' for some people as it just proves who those who are up there are paying LESS, all fueled by the constant persecution of all the working class and worst off in the country. We'll ignore that somebody on £100,000 a year pays more than they used too...that kinda shit doesn't fit in too well with the argument. Ahh, but hang on...the limit at which the 40p tax comes in has gone down from £35,001 to £31,865. Oh, no, that doesn't work for you actually does it, because it means that the top 25% of earners have more of their income in the higher band. Right, I think I've got it...all those top 1% of earners, those greedy bankers who those dastardly Tories bow down to have seen the top tax bracket cut from 50p to 45p!! It's fucking scandalous!!! But, ah shit...those top 1% have actually increased their income tax contribution from being 25% of the total to 30% in the same time. I know, why don't we tax the super rich! They only contribute 30% of the total income tax receipts, thats absolutely nothing compared to the lower half of all contributors who put forward a combined 11%. A, shit...that doesn't fit well either really does it? But, lets ignore all of that...here's a good one for you - only in this country would the top earners be allowed to have it so good, you wouldn't get it anywhere else in the world would you. I mean, apart from their 30% contribution... they do have the lowest marginal rate of income tax in the developed world! Oh, whats that, they've got the highest marginal rate? Fuck, that doesn't work either because they contribute more in this country than they would do in other comparable countries. Well, I give up Huddy. All these facts and I'm further away than ever :s I wonder if that whole original statement is actually nothing but a pile of steaming old horse shit. Fair points, but only if you're looking at income tax. You should really consider all taxes not just income tax. And if you do, the relative tax contribution from the richest members of society and the highest earners is not much different from average earners and the poorest fraction. They're not exactly hard done by! Like national insurance? No, cant be, because those contributions have gone up for the top 10%, down for everybody else. Corporation Tax? That'll be the tax on profits of limited companies right? Yeh there's not enough that comes in from that. Well, apart from being almost as much as that from the top 1% of income tax contributors and and nearly 2.5 times more than the combined income from the lower half of taxpayers. plus thats a tax on profit for the company, individuals still have to get paid in accordance with the tax rules, and those highest earners are still subject to 37.5% tax on dividends above £150,000, plus national insurance etc. Or should they take all of the risk without any reward? Business Rates? Again, thats against the business, not against personal incomes. It also adds 50% more than the lower half's contributions too. Stamp duty? Well, thats only applied to properties over £125k, with a higher percentage for higher banded values. So more payments that the wealthiest pay. Inheritance tax...yeh that only kicks in at a certain point, but what a horrible cunting thing that is in the first place. VAT? standard rate for everybody, I don't think it'd be right for the same thing to cost different amounts based upon how much money you've got. Council tax? Again, the more expensive the property, the higher that tax is. So that's another one for the wealthy. So, whats other taxes are you applying then, and how much more do you think they should pay?
|
|
|
Post by boothenboy75 on Oct 24, 2014 22:12:36 GMT
To try and help you out, the question was the bit with the question mark after it. I also struggle to work out if you're a principled but slightly deluded well meaning bloke, or some wind-up merchant who is pissing themselves at home? You asked, I answered, the answer was no. Cutting faster would have been catastrophic. So the deficit falling more slowly than the Tories said at the start of this parliament is a good thing?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2014 8:17:54 GMT
Blimey, you're on thin ice there, Salop! If spelling and grammar were yardsticks to measure the accuracy of political opinions and statements on here, you and Followyoudown would be at the bottom of the remedial class! my dyslexia means I'm lucky to be employed and I work twice as hard as a result. You're lucky to be employed full stop! How is the teacher training coming along?
|
|
|
Post by britsabroad on Oct 25, 2014 8:21:52 GMT
I listed three, and you replied to them. I'm really not sure...has anyone met you in person from here? Are you on a wind up? I refuse to believe anyone can be this thick. I'm not thick...you're the one who constantly avoids answering direct questions. I believe it's called cognitive dissonance in your case. OK. You're either on a wind up, or you're quite literally the stupidest person i've ever come across. Either way it's back to ignoring you
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2014 8:29:09 GMT
Fair points, but only if you're looking at income tax. You should really consider all taxes not just income tax. And if you do, the relative tax contribution from the richest members of society and the highest earners is not much different from average earners and the poorest fraction. They're not exactly hard done by! Like national insurance? No, cant be, because those contributions have gone up for the top 10%, down for everybody else. Corporation Tax? That'll be the tax on profits of limited companies right? Yeh there's not enough that comes in from that. Well, apart from being almost as much as that from the top 1% of income tax contributors and and nearly 2.5 times more than the combined income from the lower half of taxpayers. plus thats a tax on profit for the company, individuals still have to get paid in accordance with the tax rules, and those highest earners are still subject to 37.5% tax on dividends above £150,000, plus national insurance etc. Or should they take all of the risk without any reward? Business Rates? Again, thats against the business, not against personal incomes. It also adds 50% more than the lower half's contributions too. Stamp duty? Well, thats only applied to properties over £125k, with a higher percentage for higher banded values. So more payments that the wealthiest pay. Inheritance tax...yeh that only kicks in at a certain point, but what a horrible cunting thing that is in the first place. VAT? standard rate for everybody, I don't think it'd be right for the same thing to cost different amounts based upon how much money you've got. Council tax? Again, the more expensive the property, the higher that tax is. So that's another one for the wealthy. So, whats other taxes are you applying then, and how much more do you think they should pay? Here you go, two years old admittedly but I'll see if I can find something more current. fullfact.org/factchecks/tax-28258
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Oct 25, 2014 8:53:14 GMT
You asked, I answered, the answer was no. Cutting faster would have been catastrophic. So the deficit falling more slowly than the Tories said at the start of this parliament is a good thing? There were and still are other ways to tackle the deficit, the route the Tories took was certainly too harsh and too fast.
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Oct 25, 2014 8:53:56 GMT
I'm not thick...you're the one who constantly avoids answering direct questions. I believe it's called cognitive dissonance in your case. OK. You're either on a wind up, or you're quite literally the stupidest person i've ever come across. Either way it's back to ignoring you Priceless.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2014 13:26:41 GMT
Like national insurance? No, cant be, because those contributions have gone up for the top 10%, down for everybody else. Corporation Tax? That'll be the tax on profits of limited companies right? Yeh there's not enough that comes in from that. Well, apart from being almost as much as that from the top 1% of income tax contributors and and nearly 2.5 times more than the combined income from the lower half of taxpayers. plus thats a tax on profit for the company, individuals still have to get paid in accordance with the tax rules, and those highest earners are still subject to 37.5% tax on dividends above £150,000, plus national insurance etc. Or should they take all of the risk without any reward? Business Rates? Again, thats against the business, not against personal incomes. It also adds 50% more than the lower half's contributions too. Stamp duty? Well, thats only applied to properties over £125k, with a higher percentage for higher banded values. So more payments that the wealthiest pay. Inheritance tax...yeh that only kicks in at a certain point, but what a horrible cunting thing that is in the first place. VAT? standard rate for everybody, I don't think it'd be right for the same thing to cost different amounts based upon how much money you've got. Council tax? Again, the more expensive the property, the higher that tax is. So that's another one for the wealthy. So, whats other taxes are you applying then, and how much more do you think they should pay? Here you go, two years old admittedly but I'll see if I can find something more current. fullfact.org/factchecks/tax-28258Thanks for the link - some incredibly interesting reading in that, but again needs some further actual analysis; and also looking at the statutory, direct taxes AND consumption taxes based upon peoples own decisions on what they want to buy? So now we're looking at household income rather than personal incomes - right. First of all, it doesn't give a clear indication on the contribution of each person in the household, how many children they have, the age of the children etc so straight away there are going to be huge variations and assumptions made, which could be done by any other study on different assumptions and come out with completely different figures. Those figures also include all retired households, single homeowners (whose percentage contributions for council tax, gas, water, electricity for example are going to be different than for families). For example, the top average quintile for those figures has a total income of £77,896; which can be made up of two people not in the top in the top bracket of earners (ie - do not have a higher proportion of their salaries paid as tax) but are in the highest bracket of households. So, a typical highest household constitutes of either: two non-top bracket earners, or one top bracket earner and one below average earner. By the time you combine either of the two, those combined contributions are going to differ greatly compared with looking at personal contributions. The Figure 4 shows that the summary effects of taxes and benefits is, rightly, the overall greatest for the lowest households, a large adverse effect on the top households with even the 'average' household having a slightly positive 'balance', and actually shows that the average over all households is a net effect of almost nothing. I actually think that's a very reasonable balance Quite right, in that it's not just all income tax though, and I hadn't really touched on that before - but again, lets look at exactly why that is though. Income Tax is, I believe, quite rightly graded so that the higher you go, the greater percentage of your income you pay. I think it would be quite right for those on minimum wage to not make any contributions at all in this matter, and these last four years have gone a huge way to eradicate that. National Insurance gets calculated differently. Nothing at all for any earnings up to £153/week. Then anything at all between £153.01 to £805 gets paid at 12%; then unlike income tax, anything above the £805 gets paid at only 2%, which is ultimately why those with the highest earnings pay overall a smaller percentage of their income to NI. Is this right though? I fully agree, as with Income Tax, that there should be a lower limit on which nothing is paid. However, after that, the health service should be there, for anybody who needs it. It doesn't cost more to undergo the same operation for two different people who earn different amounts of money. There's also only so much that people would, on average, be expected to need it too; and lets face it, most at the top end probably have private health insurance anyway either purchased themselves or offered by their employers, and would therefore need it less anyway. On that basis, I can also understand and agree why there's an upper limit to say 'You know what, you've put towards your fair share now, we're only going to take 2% of anything else that you earn. The alternative is to carry on the 12% all the way through; or yet another 10% on top of the 40%/45% that already gets taken out - another 10% on what is already the highest marginal rate in the developed world. I genuinely believe that the principles of how national insurance gets calculated is quite right. VAT, a consumption tax I believe is regressive, in that people have to pay tax on things out of money they've already been taxed on. But, if its going to exist, then how anybody could justify that the cost of buying something from the shelf should cost more for two different people I don't know. These things are produced by private companies and generally get sold wholesale to outlet points. That price is set based on direct costs, indirect costs, tax and other statutory payments, overheads and profit to give it a unit price. The very notion of seeing an item on a shelf which says 'Bread; £0.50 to £2.00 depending on income' is ludicrous. That's effectively what the complaint against a flat rate of VAT requires to ease those concerns. What those concerns don't account for though, is that the exact items people buy will most likely vary. The poorest may get bread from the low cost places, or for example the Tesco Value bread. Those who have more income most likely get different, better quality loaves with a much higher cost. As such, the actual VAT paid on those two loaves of bread, whilst being at 20%, is going to be higher. The same holds true for everything... clothes, cars, furniture. But, what about other alternatives? You sure as shit couldn't impose higher VAT rates on higher quality items (imagine the uproar of the poor being further priced out of buying higher quality goods) or how jobs were being lost because the increased VAT leads to a decrease in custom, stores close, manufacturers close. Council Tax - bandings in place, yes... but as above, is it fundamentally right that two people of different incomes could be charged differently for living in exactly the same house? It just can't possibly be done. Fuel duty - once again its down to whether you could possibly charge two people different prices for the exact same litre of petrol, driving the exact same distance on exactly the same road? Are they assuming that people drive the same distance on average each year? The analysis in that article accepts that it does not take account of Capital Gains or Inheritance Tax - which contributes nearly £7Bn (from 2012). They accept that it would add extra on the wealthy group, but don't count it as they are less than other forms of tax. Yet that £7Bn is going to far outweigh the total income tax and national insurance contributions from the poorest. What about Stamp Duty that generates around £9.5Bn? That's probably not been included either and the burden of that gets higher depending on the value of property purchased and therefore counts 'against' the wealthier. In fact, add that to the Capital Gains Tax and Inheritence Tax, and thats almost as much extra tax 'discounted' as the entire income tax paid by the lower 50% of all taxpayers. How is Vehicle Excise Duty included in that analysis too? Have they discounted this too or again assumed that everybody regardless of income has to pay the same amount? So, those figures have some major flaws, exemptions and unqualified and unstated assumptions based on households and don't accurately portray individual contributions. The article basically says 'we've added some things, taken some away, going to lump some things in together and have applied certain assumptions which we're not going to tell you because there'll be no rhyme or reason behind it...but look at the results!'
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Oct 25, 2014 13:26:56 GMT
That sums a lot of it up FYD We could make out as though Lukey was a thick twat hardly worth bothering with on the basis that he once told us PFI added 9% to the debt and what was it he once told you...something like that 'tax receipts didn't affect the debt' .... but constantly digging such errors up would just be childish, pointless, daft etc etc Tut tut and tut again, what dreadful misquoting from someone who is so against it! Actually, if you remember, mcf, which you never can do, the figure of 9% for PFI impact on national debt I quoted was from the "thick twats" as you would so charmingly put it from a rightwing thinktank. I chose that figure deliberately as it was by far the highest one I could find. Unlike them to have got it so spectacularly wrong! The actual OBR figure some time later was about 1.5%. Hardly worth getting your knickers in a twist over, although some folk do love to bang on about PFI but not in criticism of George Osborne's love of PFI, oddly enough! Just to be clear again, tax receipts don't affect the debt, they affect the deficit, which is the difference between revenue and spending. Subsequent borrowing which, amongst other things, may be used to offset any deficit is what increases the debt. That quality understanding again, mcf! Jesus that's lame even for you tax receipts don't affect the debt except when the government has to borrow more because tax receipts are lower than spending, Now who was that guy posting graphs showing governments run deficits most of the time, funnier than the prices in the saints bar,
|
|
|
Post by boothenboy75 on Oct 25, 2014 14:55:27 GMT
So the deficit falling more slowly than the Tories said at the start of this parliament is a good thing? There were and still are other ways to tackle the deficit, the route the Tories took was certainly too harsh and too fast. So 1st you say the Tories are at fault for not eliminating the deficit in this parliament, but now they cut too harsh and too fast? I know you keep saying your not a labour supporter, but you sound just like the 2 Ed's. They oppose every cut, want to spend even more and will do this as well as eliminating the deficit.
|
|