|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2014 15:23:38 GMT
Thanks 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!' No probs, glad you enjoyed reading it. I think that article is designed to show that articles by the Daily Hate and rightwingers like John Redwood which focus on one aspect of the tax regime only, namely income tax for the highest earners and how this changes relative to other deciles, are not giving the full picture in the round as far as full tax contribution by each decile is concerned. It's a valid point.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2014 15:31:20 GMT
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, I thought you weren't bothering to 'engage' any more! You really are so 'over all this'! Hate to have to put you straight one more time, but that's what the conversation was about. mcf won't remember of course, but it was not long after I'd had to unravel his confusion between budget surplus/deficit and Balance of Payments exports/imports surplus/deficit. He then got similarly mixed up with debt and deficit so I explained it using that paragraph in bold above. I mean, feel free to say it's wrong if you think it is
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Oct 25, 2014 15:51:17 GMT
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. I never said anything of the sort...think you've got your wires crossed mate.
|
|
|
Post by boothenboy75 on Oct 25, 2014 15:55:11 GMT
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. (rofl) I never said anything of the sort...think you've got your wires crossed mate. Didn't you post this? This image has been reduced by 48%. Click to view full size. Hopefully this little meme will help you understand a bit better... Read more: oatcakefanzine.proboards.com/thread/235222/another-gift-off-tories?page=12#ixzz3HAlUrsmD
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Oct 25, 2014 16:00:08 GMT
I'm simply saying that instead of reducing the debt AND the deficit the Tories have increased it. Is that not correct then?
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Oct 25, 2014 16:09:02 GMT
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, I thought you weren't bothering to 'engage' any more! You really are so 'over all this'! Hate to have to put you straight one more time, but that's what the conversation was about. mcf won't remember of course, but it was not long after I'd had to unravel his confusion between budget surplus/deficit and Balance of Payments exports/imports surplus/deficit. He then got similarly mixed up with debt and deficit so I explained it using that paragraph in bold above. I mean, feel free to say it's wrong if you think it is Taking the piss isn't engaging. Seriously tax revenue doesn't affect the debt, it affects the deficit ha ha ha. You mean a deficit where the government has to take on more debt to pay the deficit off or do you have some other way of doing this? Magic beans perhaps ha ha ha. Next up you explain how public services improved by a third. You're worse than the liner today.
|
|
|
Post by boothenboy75 on Oct 25, 2014 16:46:35 GMT
I'm simply saying that instead of reducing the debt AND the deficit the Tories have increased it. Is that not correct then? No mate. The tories did say they'd eliminate the deficit in this parliament, i.e stop borrowing extra money. They've certainly reduced it but won't eliminate it, I think I'm right in saying that the aim now is to eliminate it mid way through the next parliament. The debt of course continues to grow and I doubt if any politician will ever be able to eliminate it.
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Oct 25, 2014 18:01:27 GMT
I'm simply saying that instead of reducing the debt AND the deficit the Tories have increased it. Is that not correct then? No mate. The tories did say they'd eliminate the deficit in this parliament, i.e stop borrowing extra money. They've certainly reduced it but won't eliminate it, I think I'm right in saying that the aim now is to eliminate it mid way through the next parliament. The debt of course continues to grow and I doubt if any politician will ever be able to eliminate it. But the facts are that they have borrowed more money.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2014 18:24:58 GMT
I thought you weren't bothering to 'engage' any more! You really are so 'over all this'! Hate to have to put you straight one more time, but that's what the conversation was about. mcf won't remember of course, but it was not long after I'd had to unravel his confusion between budget surplus/deficit and Balance of Payments exports/imports surplus/deficit. He then got similarly mixed up with debt and deficit so I explained it using that paragraph in bold above. I mean, feel free to say it's wrong if you think it is Taking the piss isn't engaging. Seriously tax revenue doesn't affect the debt, it affects the deficit ha ha ha. You mean a deficit where the government has to take on more debt to pay the deficit off or do you have some other way of doing this? Magic beans perhaps ha ha ha. Next up you explain how public services improved by a third. You're worse than the liner today. Well, it is, otherwise you wouldn't be replying, doh! Just to be clear, are you really saying that what I wrote regarding the debt and deficit above is wrong?! Another way of reducing the deficit without borrowing more you ask? Hmmmm, let's have a think. Erm, what about cutting spending? Has anyone thought of that I wonder ??? In mcf's dreamworld, spending would never exceed tax revenue, there would always be budget surpluses rather than deficits, which would mean no borrowing, which would mean no debt. Tax revenues could rise and fall to their hearts' content and as long as spending was in line with them, they would obviously have no impact on debt. I thought you'd get this a bit quicker to be honest!
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Oct 25, 2014 18:45:57 GMT
I see Ed is having a good day In Scotland
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Oct 25, 2014 22:07:24 GMT
Taking the piss isn't engaging. Seriously tax revenue doesn't affect the debt, it affects the deficit ha ha ha. You mean a deficit where the government has to take on more debt to pay the deficit off or do you have some other way of doing this? Magic beans perhaps ha ha ha. Next up you explain how public services improved by a third. You're worse than the liner today. Well, it is, otherwise you wouldn't be replying, doh! Just to be clear, are you really saying that what I wrote regarding the debt and deficit above is wrong?! Another way of reducing the deficit without borrowing more you ask? Hmmmm, let's have a think. Erm, what about cutting spending? Has anyone thought of that I wonder ??? In mcf's dreamworld, spending would never exceed tax revenue, there would always be budget surpluses rather than deficits, which would mean no borrowing, which would mean no debt. Tax revenues could rise and fall to their hearts' content and as long as spending was in line with them, they would obviously have no impact on debt. I thought you'd get this a bit quicker to be honest! To be clear yes you are talking rubbish, a deficit is where expenditure exceeds income for a period, you don't bsubsequently have debt to pay off a deficit, to run a deficit you have to have already borrowed otherwise how do you pay for the expenditure, magic beans again? Borrowing does not reduce a deficit it pays for the deficit.... Are you sticking to tax receipts affect the deficit but not the debt ? Above you say a way of reducing borrowing is to cut spending, so to summarise Lukeconomics more or less income has no impact on debt but cutting spending does, you. really couldn't make this up (well obviously you have and could make it up)
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 26, 2014 8:11:18 GMT
All this engagement for one so not bothered!
No, I was replying to your direct question about how on earth to reduce the deficit without taking on more debt. This is precisely what your beloved Tories have been trying to do, cutting spending below tax revenue, something the Labour govt were also planning on doing in 2007 for the next four years until the financial crisis came along and brought down the economy. Unless you think that was magic beans too!
Sadly, the Tories plan has not been very successful as a result of the longest and slowest recovery from recession in history so the deficit has not been reduced to the level they were promising (eliminated by the end of this parliament wasn't it?) It's not difficult this you know.
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Oct 26, 2014 10:39:12 GMT
All this engagement for one so not bothered! No, I was replying to your direct question about how on earth to reduce the deficit without taking on more debt. This is precisely what your beloved Tories have been trying to do, cutting spending below tax revenue, something the Labour govt were also planning on doing in 2007 for the next four years until the financial crisis came along and brought down the economy. Unless you think that was magic beans too! Sadly, the Tories plan has not been very successful as a result of the longest and slowest recovery from recession in history so the deficit has not been reduced to the level they were promising (eliminated by the end of this parliament wasn't it?) It's not difficult this you know. I asked you a direct question on how to reduce the deficit without taking on more? Could have sworn I asked you on how you PAY for a deficit without taking on more debt, perhaps try answering that one? Might prove difficult for you though as you continue to insist tax revenue doesn't affect the debt yet for some reason the tories are trying to reduce spending below tax revenue. Whilst you have a deficit (spending more than tax revenues which don't affect the debt copyright you) you are borrowing more money, reducing the deficit will reduce the amount of borrowing but you still have to borrow unless you think the government pays for things in magic beans? It's not as difficult as you seem to be making it for yourself. It should be a lesson for you don't have arguments without graphs or a Cambridge economist to quote.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 26, 2014 12:47:47 GMT
And still you come back for more when not really bothered! No, you didn't ask me a direct question on how to reduce the deficit without taking on more [deficit], but then again I never said anything along those lines either ??? What you did was to ask this: "You mean a deficit where the government has to take on more debt to pay the deficit off or do you have some other way of doing this?" I pointed out that the government is cutting spending to reduce the deficit, which is precisely what Cameron et al have been going on about for the last five years! Of course they're still borrowing, and part of that will have nothing to do with the deficit. What would happen to the deficit if the govt didn't borrow, and therefore didn't accrue more debt, but carried on cutting spending below tax revenue?
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Oct 26, 2014 16:12:26 GMT
|
|
|
Post by boothenboy75 on Nov 1, 2014 23:43:13 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Nov 1, 2014 23:59:00 GMT
Even for you that's desperately poor.
|
|
|
Post by boothenboy75 on Nov 2, 2014 0:02:41 GMT
Even for you that's desperately poor. Whys that then?
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Nov 2, 2014 0:14:36 GMT
Even for you that's desperately poor. Whys that then? Looking awkward? Wow....
|
|
|
Post by boothenboy75 on Nov 2, 2014 0:19:02 GMT
Looking awkward? Wow.... :-X Sorry mate, didn't think you were a Labour supporter?
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Nov 2, 2014 0:25:44 GMT
Looking awkward? Wow.... Sorry mate, didn't think you were a Labour supporter? I'm not but that's the most lame and pathetic attempt at an attack I've seen for quite some time....mate.
|
|
|
Post by boothenboy75 on Nov 2, 2014 0:31:27 GMT
Sorry mate, didn't think you were a Labour supporter? I'm not but that's the most lame and pathetic attempt at an attack I've seen for quite some time....mate. I don't know, I've seen one or two worse on here.
|
|
|
Post by boothenboy75 on Nov 2, 2014 1:06:15 GMT
|
|
|
Post by jonah77 on Nov 2, 2014 19:12:57 GMT
Even for you that's desperately poor. The blokes a fucking idiot, even if I was a Labour supporter I'd never vote for him. He makes Cameron look like a true man of the people.
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Nov 2, 2014 20:38:08 GMT
A ukip wet dream "we have enough homeless without having to import them in" A poor photo op
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 2, 2014 21:13:24 GMT
Poor old Dangerzone Dave, having UKIP set the agenda at home, now Merkel sets it in Europe, while all along pretending he's not going to pay the extra Euro bill, talk about being caught between a rock and a hard place and being made to look a bit of a lame duck. www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-29874392Of course it'd be nice if we actually understood what our Prime Minister's actual position on Europe was, in or out, since he never actually says. Presumably he won't until after the election when it won't matter if he's jumped ship and if he's still PM will no doubt find out which way public opinion is swinging and go along with that. Get ready for some new 'hardline' headline grabbing anti-Europe messages from Cameron and some tax bribes from Osborne in the Autumn statement...
|
|
|
Post by jonah77 on Nov 2, 2014 21:30:24 GMT
Poor old Dangerzone Dave, having UKIP set the agenda at home, now Merkel sets it in Europe, while all along pretending he's not going to pay the extra Euro bill, talk about being caught between a rock and a hard place and being made to look a bit of a lame duck. www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-29874392Of course it'd be nice if we actually understood what our Prime Minister's actual position on Europe was, in or out, since he never actually says. Presumably he won't until after the election when it won't matter if he's jumped ship and if he's still PM will no doubt find out which way public opinion is swinging and go along with that. Get ready for some new 'hardline' headline grabbing anti-Europe messages from Cameron and some tax bribes from Osborne in the Autumn statement... get ready for some public opinion pandering, inane babbling, unsupportable economic policies and embarrassing photo"opportunities" from the two Eds.
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Nov 2, 2014 22:11:20 GMT
Even for you that's desperately poor. The blokes a fucking idiot, even if I was a Labour supporter I'd never vote for him. He makes Cameron look like a true man of the people. While I won't be voting for him either, the current press attacks on him are scarily reminiscent of the attacks on Michael Foot in the early 80's. I'd be interested in what it is about him that makes you call him a "fucking idiot"? What's pretty clear is that the attacks on Miliband have been ordered by Lynton Crosby.
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Nov 2, 2014 22:15:06 GMT
The blokes a fucking idiot, even if I was a Labour supporter I'd never vote for him. He makes Cameron look like a true man of the people. While I won't be voting for him either, the current press attacks on him are scarily reminiscent of the attacks on Michael Foot in the early 80's. I'd be interested in what it is about him that makes you call him a "fucking idiot"? What's pretty clear is that the attacks on Miliband have been ordered by Lynton Crosby. I'm sure Crosby didn't advise ed to do a photo opportunity with (by the looks of the photo) a young able bodied homeless immigrant.
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Nov 2, 2014 22:24:40 GMT
While I won't be voting for him either, the current press attacks on him are scarily reminiscent of the attacks on Michael Foot in the early 80's. I'd be interested in what it is about him that makes you call him a "fucking idiot"? What's pretty clear is that the attacks on Miliband have been ordered by Lynton Crosby. I'm sure Crosby didn't advise ed to do a photo opportunity with (by the looks of the photo) a young able bodied homeless immigrant. I'm sure he didn't but I'm certain he ordered it to be splashed across the Tory press.
|
|