"Gays are not normal" - Tory

[Fuengirola Saint]

So nothing to do with the structural Budget deficit then?

 

Not really because after the tax cuts, petrol duty was increased, public spending cut and more was raised by selling BP shares but they had to still find another 4 billion, thus the rise in VAT

[Wes Tender]

Of course, to pay for the top rate income tax cut

 

Well, there is where you show your ignorance. Naturally there were loud howls of anguish from the socialists and the left when the top rate was cut from the stratospheric heights to 40% and the whole income tax system simplified to just two rates. To them, this was going to be the rich having their taxes cut at the expense of the poor.

 

In the event of course, the result was that the revenue going to the Exchequer increased quite significantly. Those who had thought the extreme levels of taxation under the Socialists to be grossly unfair, either emigrated, (the brain drain) or simply found ruses through creative accounting, to avoid paying it. When the rate went down, many came back to the UK, or didn't bother dodging the tax, as it was deemed to be fair.

 

Labour are either so thick, or have such short memories, or are tied up with so much dogma and class envy, that they never learn their lesson. So we have them increasing the top rate by a quarter to 50% having already taken away the NIC ceiling. And the Exchequer will probably soon find that revenues from the top earners will again fall, as it is obviously a disincentive to be paying more than half of what you earn in taxes, especially when a further 17.5% is levied on everything you spend and about 80% tax taken when you fill your car with petrol and all of the other stealth taxes.

[Wes Tender]

Not really because after the tax cuts, petrol duty was increased, public spending cut and more was raised by selling BP shares but they had to still find another 4 billion, thus the rise in VAT

 

4 billion. A bit dwarfed by the billions of debt that we now find ourselves saddled with under Labour. What do you think they would be doing taxation wise in order to recoup it all?

[Lord Duckhunter]

Well, there is where you show your ignorance. Naturally there were loud howls of anguish from the socialists and the left when the top rate was cut from the stratospheric heights to 40% and the whole income tax system simplified to just two rates. To them, this was going to be the rich having their taxes cut at the expense of the poor.

 

In the event of course, the result was that the revenue going to the Exchequer increased quite significantly. Those who had thought the extreme levels of taxation under the Socialists to be grossly unfair, either emigrated, (the brain drain) or simply found ruses through creative accounting, to avoid paying it. When the rate went down, many came back to the UK, or didn't bother dodging the tax, as it was deemed to be fair.

 

Labour are either so thick, or have such short memories, or are tied up with so much dogma and class envy, that they never learn their lesson. So we have them increasing the top rate by a quarter to 50% having already taken away the NIC ceiling. And the Exchequer will probably soon find that revenues from the top earners will again fall, as it is obviously a disincentive to be paying more than half of what you earn in taxes, especially when a further 17.5% is levied on everything you spend and about 80% tax taken when you fill your car with petrol and all of the other stealth taxes.

 

Agreed

 

And before Mrs Thatcher the basic rate of tax was 33%.Again, more money went into the revenue after the rate was cut. Leftie's seem incapable of understanding that leaving money in peoples pockets encourages enterprise, hard work and spending. The shops, pubs, cinema's, manufactors of goods ect benefit from people spending more money, and they then need to take people on to fulfill the increased demend.These people then pay tax, come off benefit and the whole cycle starts again. Giving people a tax cut (or not going ahead with a rise) is not taking money out of the economy, no matter how many times Labour repeat this mantra.

 

If tax rises were the answer to all the ecomomic woes, Healy would not have had to call the IMF in the 70's and Brown would win this election hands down.

 

You need to cut public spending and give people more of their money to spend as they feel fit.

 

I remember a Labour Chancellor coming out with some wise words a decade ago, "you can't spend your way out of a recession ", who was that man ? Gordon Brown!!!

Of course now he's claiming this is a different sort of recession

 

Labour Govt's always put taxes up and run out of money, always have done, and always will.

[Fuengirola Saint]

4 billion. A bit dwarfed by the billions of debt that we now find ourselves saddled with under Labour. What do you think they would be doing taxation wise in order to recoup it all?

 

It was 31 years ago, it´s not the amount that was under discussion, i said they had to find 4 billion to pay for the tax cut so they raised indirect taxation

[Fuengirola Saint]

Well, there is where you show your ignorance. Naturally there were loud howls of anguish from the socialists and the left when the top rate was cut from the stratospheric heights to 40% and the whole income tax system simplified to just two rates. To them, this was going to be the rich having their taxes cut at the expense of the poor.

 

 

How the hell have i shown ignorance, i have explained in simple terms what the Tories did in their first budget in 1979 and you go off on a tangent about the brain drain and such. You still haven´t answered my previous point,i´ll remind you.

 

( Could you remind me again who raised VAT first from 7% to 12.5% then to 15% and finally to 17.5%? Also could you furnish me with the details as to who raised VAT on electricity and gas to 17.5% and who was it that introduced the Fuel Duty escalator? )

[Fuengirola Saint]

Agreed

 

Giving people a tax cut (or not going ahead with a rise) is not taking money out of the economy, no matter how many times Labour repeat this mantra.

 

I remember a Labour Chancellor coming out with some wise words a decade ago, "you can't spend your way out of a recession ", who was that man ? Gordon Brown!!!

Of course now he's claiming this is a different sort of recession

 

I will admit to being confused by Brown saying if the Tories don´t raise NI they will be taking money out of the economy, it´s obvious the money is going to be in the economy if it´s still in your wage packet.

 

Are you sure? I had that down as J Callaghan in 1976.

[View From The Top]

( Could you remind me again who raised VAT first from 7% to 12.5% then to 15% and finally to 17.5%? Also could you furnish me with the details as to who raised VAT on electricity and gas to 17.5% and who was it that introduced the Fuel Duty escalator? )

 

It wouldn't have been a tory would it? Not them tories with their tax cutting ways hiking up VAT and extending it into areas like domestic gas and electricity?

 

Well I never.

[Lord Duckhunter]

Are you sure? I had that down as J Callaghan in 1976.

 

Gordon Brown also said it, in his speech to the Labour Party Annual Conference, 29. September 1997.

[Fuengirola Saint]

Gordon Brown also said it, in his speech to the Labour Party Annual Conference, 29. September 1997.

 

Well he´s a copy cat then ;-)

[Wes Tender]

It was 31 years ago, it´s not the amount that was under discussion, i said they had to find 4 billion to pay for the tax cut so they raised indirect taxation

 

That is why I said that you showed your ignorance and it obviously still has not sunk in.

 

You said that they had to raise 4 billion to pay for the tax cut, but as I've already pointed out, the tax cut actually increased the amount received by the Exchequer. And I forecast with some confidence that the effect of the recent increase in the top income tax rate and the removal of the NI ceiling will not increase the amount taken by the Exchequer, as top earners either seek to avoid it, or emigrate to other countries where they are more valued for what they bring with them as scientists, innovators and entrepreneurs.

 

As for your point about VAT, far better to have a tax on spending rather than earnings IMO and the rate we take in VAT is not that different from that charged by most of our major competitors and lower than in most of the rest of Europe. Our income tax rates do not compare very favourably with many countries and are higher at the top end than in most of them. But still, what else would you expect from the class warriors of the Labour party, who would squeeze the rich until the pips squeak. Along the way though, they also somehow manage to hit the middle classes hard too, robbing them of the incentive to work harder to advance themselves, as they see that when they grow old and might need to go into a care home, the government will force them to sell their own home to pay for it and that when they pop their clogs, they will have to pay further inheritance taxes, the Labour Death Tax, even though most will have paid taxes all their working lives.

 

So the high tax regime is a disincentive to hard work and ambition and discourages people from saving and making provision for their old age or for their children.

 

But then Labour's aim is to try and make society more equable. What a shame that they choose to level everybody downwards, instead of trying to raise them up.

[View From The Top]

 

As for your point about VAT, far better to have a tax on spending rather than earnings IMO and the rate we take in VAT is not that different from that charged by most of our major competitors and lower than in most of the rest of Europe.

 

So it was the low tax tories who upped VAT to 17.5%.

 

Well I never.

[Fuengirola Saint]

That is why I said that you showed your ignorance and it obviously still has not sunk in.

 

You said that they had to raise 4 billion to pay for the tax cut, but as I've already pointed out, the tax cut actually increased the amount received by the Exchequer. And I forecast with some confidence that the effect of the recent increase in the top income tax rate and the removal of the NI ceiling will not increase the amount taken by the Exchequer, as top earners either seek to avoid it, or emigrate to other countries where they are more valued for what they bring with them as scientists, innovators and entrepreneurs.

 

As for your point about VAT, far better to have a tax on spending rather than earnings IMO and the rate we take in VAT is not that different from that charged by most of our major competitors and lower than in most of the rest of Europe. Our income tax rates do not compare very favourably with many countries and are higher at the top end than in most of them. But still, what else would you expect from the class warriors of the Labour party, who would squeeze the rich until the pips squeak. Along the way though, they also somehow manage to hit the middle classes hard too, robbing them of the incentive to work harder to advance themselves, as they see that when they grow old and might need to go into a care home, the government will force them to sell their own home to pay for it and that when they pop their clogs, they will have to pay further inheritance taxes, the Labour Death Tax, even though most will have paid taxes all their working lives.

 

So the high tax regime is a disincentive to hard work and ambition and discourages people from saving and making provision for their old age or for their children.

 

But then Labour's aim is to try and make society more equable. What a shame that they choose to level everybody downwards, instead of trying to raise them up.

 

 

Are you just dull or are you trolling? I wasn´t debating the finer points of whether lower or higher taxes were the best way forward, i was pointing out to somebody else that basically in the budget in 1979 they paid for the cut in ( both bands ) Income tax by raising VAT and other indirect taxes. You really need to sort that superior attitude that you have, its a bit tiresome. I have been debating on quite friendly terms with the Tories on here.Maybe you just a little peeved they are not going to win with a majority

[scotty]

Are you just dull or are you trolling? I wasn´t debating the finer points of whether lower or higher taxes were the best way forward, i was pointing out to somebody else that basically in the budget in 1979 they paid for the cut in ( both bands ) Income tax by raising VAT and other indirect taxes. You really need to sort that superior attitude that you have, its a bit tiresome. I have been debating on quite friendly terms with the Tories on here.Maybe you just a little peeved they are not going to win with a majority

 

thats something we wont know until May 7th, imo as things stand its the most likely outcome. Previous form suggests that a lot of those people saying their going to vote liberal to the pollsters are actually planning to vote tory, but are too embarrassed to admit it. My guess is that the lib dems will come in a poor third. Again....

[JustMike]

people will vote Tory who were originally going to vote Lib Dems because they are scared of the prospect of a hung parliment....at least thats what i read earlier anyway.

[Fuengirola Saint]

people will vote Tory who were originally going to vote Lib Dems because they are scared of the prospect of a hung parliment....at least thats what i read earlier anyway.

 

To be honest i don´t know what i want, if the Tories win we will have to put up with the news being full of smug knobheads,but if as Mervyn King says " The party that wins this election will be out of power for a generation because of all the unpopular measures needed " i reckon i could put up with a few smug faces :-)

[Wes Tender]

So it was the low tax tories who upped VAT to 17.5%.

 

Well I never.

 

It isn't that surprising that following a period of Labour mismanagement of the economy that drastic fiscal measures have to be taken to try and balance the books.

 

After the latest episodes, if Labour are ousted on Thursday, whoever replaces them will have to take really quite drastic measures to get the economy back onto an even keel again and nobody will be at all surprised if beyond the money saved by axeing wasteful bureacracy, there are quite severe tax increases as well as cuts in services.

 

Victory in this election is a poisoned chalice and I'm quite ambivalent about it and would not be too disapointed with Lib/Lab pact mark two, with a small majority like the last time. People have either forgotten, or are too young to know what a disaster that was and how it was almost impossible for the two factions to agree about anything. If it happened again, I'm sure that we would soon enough find out what a lightweight Clegg is and what sort of madcap policies the Lib/dems would try and impose on Labour as a price for their support. And it will be interesting to see who replaces the lame duck Brown.

[Wes Tender]

Maybe you just a little peeved they are not going to win with a majority

 

It doesn't bother me that much, as I'm hoping to f*ck off somewhere abroad like you did, to warmer climes and cheaper prices. As soon as the property values improve here, I'm off. If Labour are still in government, that will be an extra incentive, but whatever the result is, there will be stiff medicine to face here as a result of their past few years.

[AndyNorthernSaints]

It doesn't bother me that much, as I'm hoping to f*ck off somewhere abroad like you did, to warmer climes and cheaper prices. As soon as the property values improve here, I'm off. If Labour are still in government, that will be an extra incentive, but whatever the result is, there will be stiff medicine to face here as a result of their past few years.

 

Immigrant :-)

[scotty]

Immigrant :-)

 

 

L:DL, my brother in law and his wife f*cked off to live in Malaga, I asked them why and she said "we're fed up with all the immigration over here". So I asked her what she thought they would be in Spain, she says "thats different", blaaaahahahaaa

[OldNick]

Well, there is where you show your ignorance. Naturally there were loud howls of anguish from the socialists and the left when the top rate was cut from the stratospheric heights to 40% and the whole income tax system simplified to just two rates. To them, this was going to be the rich having their taxes cut at the expense of the poor.

 

 

How the hell have i shown ignorance, i have explained in simple terms what the Tories did in their first budget in 1979 and you go off on a tangent about the brain drain and such. You still haven´t answered my previous point,i´ll remind you.

 

( Could you remind me again who raised VAT first from 7% to 12.5% then to 15% and finally to 17.5%? Also could you furnish me with the details as to who raised VAT on electricity and gas to 17.5% and who was it that introduced the Fuel Duty escalator? )

VAT is a fair tax as the spenders pay. It is the spenders who have put our trade deficit in the state it is in.

VAT was raised from 15 to 17.5% as the poll tax (a fair tax IMO, everybody pays for the services provided) was so objected to. The money had to be raised and that was the most effective way.

[hypochondriac]

Depends what you mean by normal I suppose. In a sense they aren't normal because the body was designed to reproduce between a male and a female.

[Wade Garrett]

It doesn't bother me that much, as I'm hoping to f*ck off somewhere abroad like you did, to warmer climes and cheaper prices. As soon as the property values improve here, I'm off. If Labour are still in government, that will be an extra incentive, but whatever the result is, there will be stiff medicine to face here as a result of their past few years.

 

Are you Phil Collins or Jim Davison?

[Wade Garrett]

VAT is a fair tax as the spenders pay. It is the spenders who have put our trade deficit in the state it is in.

VAT was raised from 15 to 17.5% as the poll tax (a fair tax IMO, everybody pays for the services provided) was so objected to. The money had to be raised and that was the most effective way.

 

At a time when we need people spending in the High Streets to stimulate the economy I fail to see the merits of a VAT increase.

 

Surely a VAT increase hits the lower earners proportionally more than the higher earners, which I suspect is why the Tories agree with it.

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

Are you Phil Collins or Jim Davison?

 

That amused me - Gary Barlow I think

[View From The Top]

L:DL, my brother in law and his wife f*cked off to live in Malaga, I asked them why and she said "we're fed up with all the immigration over here". So I asked her what she thought they would be in Spain, she says "thats different", blaaaahahahaaa

 

I have the exact same conversation.

 

They couldn't understand that they we becoming immigrants themselves. Still, they weren't right bright to begin with.

[GenevaSaint]

Are you Phil Collins or Jim Davison?

 

Paul Daniels ;-)

[Fuengirola Saint]

VAT is a fair tax as the spenders pay. It is the spenders who have put our trade deficit in the state it is in.

VAT was raised from 15 to 17.5% as the poll tax (a fair tax IMO, everybody pays for the services provided) was so objected to. The money had to be raised and that was the most effective way.

 

I know why the Tories raised VAT to 17.5%, VAT is not a fair tax it´s regressive. It´s name should tell us something "Value Added Tax " it was meant to be a tax on luxuries, over here there is even 7% Vat on food :-o

[Fuengirola Saint]

 

At a time when we need people spending in the High Streets to stimulate the economy I fail to see the merits of a VAT increase.

 

Surely a VAT increase hits the lower earners proportionally more than the higher earners, which I suspect is why the Tories agree with it.

 

I didn´t write the above statement although it appears so in the post above.

[Fuengirola Saint]

I have the exact same conversation.

 

They couldn't understand that they we becoming immigrants themselves. Still, they weren't right bright to begin with.

 

I´m an immigrant or am i? Being British living in Spain am i an immigrant or someone living in the same state i.e the EU? I do have an NIE number which means Foreigners identification number, so yes, i think that makes me an immigrant.

[scotty]

I´m an immigrant or am i? Being British living in Spain am i an immigrant or someone living in the same state i.e the EU? I do have an NIE number which means Foreigners identification number, so yes, i think that makes me an immigrant.

 

depends how you perceive the EU. If you consider it to be the national entity which some would like it to be then no, you are an EU citizen living in a particular part of that entity. If you view it as the free-trade and movement area that the British voted to join then yes, you are a Briton living in Spain, which makes you an immigrant in Spain. Interesting/relevant point, my bro-in-law had a medical emergency while visiting here recently, the NHS treated him as a foreigner; he had to provide evidence of entitlement to treatment via an EHIC or private insurance policy. Turns out he hadnt bothered with either, this little jaunt might just cost him his house.

[Wes Tender]

 

At a time when we need people spending in the High Streets to stimulate the economy I fail to see the merits of a VAT increase.

 

Surely a VAT increase hits the lower earners proportionally more than the higher earners, which I suspect is why the Tories agree with it.

 

You fail to see the merits of an increase in VAT, so let me explain it to you (against the background of whether it is a better option than increasing income tax)

 

1) it is not so obvious to the payer that the tax has been collected. Look at your pay slip and it is immediately apparent how much has disappeared in tax deductions and NI. Depressing, isn't it? Buy anything in a shop and although you know that 17.5% of the price is tax unless it's food or books, it hardly registers how much extra you are paying. You look at the price and pay it if you think it is reasonable. But often you can shop around and get that product for 17.5% less elsewhere, but it doesn't mean that you are not paying the VAT. When Labour introduced the VAT reduction to 15%, it was a nonsense against the background of shops with sales notices saying that there were reductions of up to 70% off the prices. And it probably cost more than that to the shops having to alter all of their prices.

 

2) It is a tax on expenditure, so beneficial to savers who only pay tax on it when they spend.

 

3) I'll make a counter statement of my own and will await your effort at justifying it.

 

At a time when we need people spending in the High Streets to stimulate the economy I fail to see the merits of an income tax increase.

 

The next Government, no matter who it is, will have to increase either direct or indirect taxation, or maybe both, as well as cutting the public sector. If they can minimise that by cutting down on wasteful bureaucracy, then so much the better. Increasing the NI contribution is a tax on jobs. How would you justify that when we need people spending money in the High Street?

 

As to your second line, that is twaddle. The price of goods for purchase, whether it is items for sale in a shop, holidays, houses, or indeed anything that is sold, also favours those with more money, who naturally are better able to afford those goods. Those goods cost the same regardless of somebody's ability to pay for them. Would you have it that those on lower income could buy those goods for less? Life is so unfair, isn't it? Some work harder than others and earn more. Others have inherited wealth. (Bastards ) Others win the lottery or are good at spotting entrepreneurial opportunities. It's so unfair that they can buy those goods and products at the same prices as the lower paid or feckless, isn't it? So what it comes down to, is whether you would consider it better that people had less money to pay for those goods because of higher income tax, or that the prices were higher because of higher VAT?

[Wes Tender]

Are you Phil Collins or Jim Davison?

 

Are you Noddy, or Big Ears?

[OldNick]

 

At a time when we need people spending in the High Streets to stimulate the economy I fail to see the merits of a VAT increase.

 

Surely a VAT increase hits the lower earners proportionally more than the higher earners, which I suspect is why the Tories agree with it.

I was saying we need a vat increase but explaining my thoughts on its fairness when it was levied/increased

[Wade Garrett]

Are you Noddy, or Big Ears?

 

I'm Big Ears, Jim.

[Wade Garrett]

 

You fail to see the merits of an increase in VAT, so let me explain it to you (against the background of whether it is a better option than increasing income tax)

 

1) it is not so obvious to the payer that the tax has been collected. Look at your pay slip and it is immediately apparent how much has disappeared in tax deductions and NI. Depressing, isn't it? Buy anything in a shop and although you know that 17.5% of the price is tax unless it's food or books, it hardly registers how much extra you are paying. You look at the price and pay it if you think it is reasonable. But often you can shop around and get that product for 17.5% less elsewhere, but it doesn't mean that you are not paying the VAT. When Labour introduced the VAT reduction to 15%, it was a nonsense against the background of shops with sales notices saying that there were reductions of up to 70% off the prices. And it probably cost more than that to the shops having to alter all of their prices.

 

2) It is a tax on expenditure, so beneficial to savers who only pay tax on it when they spend.

 

3) I'll make a counter statement of my own and will await your effort at justifying it.

 

At a time when we need people spending in the High Streets to stimulate the economy I fail to see the merits of an income tax increase.

 

The next Government, no matter who it is, will have to increase either direct or indirect taxation, or maybe both, as well as cutting the public sector. If they can minimise that by cutting down on wasteful bureaucracy, then so much the better. Increasing the NI contribution is a tax on jobs. How would you justify that when we need people spending money in the High Street?

 

As to your second line, that is twaddle. The price of goods for purchase, whether it is items for sale in a shop, holidays, houses, or indeed anything that is sold, also favours those with more money, who naturally are better able to afford those goods. Those goods cost the same regardless of somebody's ability to pay for them. Would you have it that those on lower income could buy those goods for less? Life is so unfair, isn't it? Some work harder than others and earn more. Others have inherited wealth. (Bastards ) Others win the lottery or are good at spotting entrepreneurial opportunities. It's so unfair that they can buy those goods and products at the same prices as the lower paid or feckless, isn't it? So what it comes down to, is whether you would consider it better that people had less money to pay for those goods because of higher income tax, or that the prices were higher because of higher VAT?

 

Cheers Wes, your explanation (apart from the last paragraph) is quite heplful.

 

Your last paragraph is a bit silly though, and implies I am some sort of communist, which is pretty far from the truth.

[buctootim]

 

You fail to see the merits of an increase in VAT, so let me explain it to you (against the background of whether it is a better option than increasing income tax)

 

1) it is not so obvious to the payer that the tax has been collected. Look at your pay slip and it is immediately apparent how much has disappeared in tax deductions and NI. Depressing, isn't it? Buy anything in a shop and although you know that 17.5% of the price is tax unless it's food or books, it hardly registers how much extra you are paying. You look at the price and pay it if you think it is reasonable. But often you can shop around and get that product for 17.5% less elsewhere, but it doesn't mean that you are not paying the VAT. When Labour introduced the VAT reduction to 15%, it was a nonsense against the background of shops with sales notices saying that there were reductions of up to 70% off the prices. And it probably cost more than that to the shops having to alter all of their prices.

 

2) It is a tax on expenditure, so beneficial to savers who only pay tax on it when they spend.

 

3) I'll make a counter statement of my own and will await your effort at justifying it.

 

At a time when we need people spending in the High Streets to stimulate the economy I fail to see the merits of an income tax increase.

 

The next Government, no matter who it is, will have to increase either direct or indirect taxation, or maybe both, as well as cutting the public sector. If they can minimise that by cutting down on wasteful bureaucracy, then so much the better. Increasing the NI contribution is a tax on jobs. How would you justify that when we need people spending money in the High Street?

 

As to your second line, that is twaddle. The price of goods for purchase, whether it is items for sale in a shop, holidays, houses, or indeed anything that is sold, also favours those with more money, who naturally are better able to afford those goods. Those goods cost the same regardless of somebody's ability to pay for them. Would you have it that those on lower income could buy those goods for less? Life is so unfair, isn't it? Some work harder than others and earn more. Others have inherited wealth. (Bastards ) Others win the lottery or are good at spotting entrepreneurial opportunities. It's so unfair that they can buy those goods and products at the same prices as the lower paid or feckless, isn't it? So what it comes down to, is whether you would consider it better that people had less money to pay for those goods because of higher income tax, or that the prices were higher because of higher VAT?

 

 

Actually Wade has made the better points Wes.

 

Yes VAT is a tax on spending. If you choose not spend and to save instead then no tax is payable AND money is taken out of the economy. That means at a time of a major budget deficit and very weak GDP growth an increase in VAT is exactly the wrong thing to do, and an increase on income tax the better option. The one advantage of increasing VAT is one you havent mentioned - which is basically capturing tax from tourists who spend here but dont pay income tax here.

 

Re fairer taxation. VAT is flat rate. Income tax is not - you have personal allowances and different rates of tax based on income. VAT is the equivalent of charging everyone 17.5% of income regardless of whether they earn £5,000pa or £50m pa.

[Wes Tender]

Actually Wade has made the better points Wes.

 

Yes VAT is a tax on spending. If you choose not spend and to save instead then no tax is payable AND money is taken out of the economy. That means at a time of a major budget deficit and very weak GDP growth an increase in VAT is exactly the wrong thing to do, and an increase on income tax the better option. The one advantage of increasing VAT is one you havent mentioned - which is basically capturing tax from tourists who spend here but dont pay income tax here.

 

Re fairer taxation. VAT is flat rate. Income tax is not - you have personal allowances and different rates of tax based on income. VAT is the equivalent of charging everyone 17.5% of income regardless of whether they earn £5,000pa or £50m pa.

 

Firstly, I had not mentioned the revenue from tourists charged VAT, as those from outside of the Europe can claim it back on leaving. It is nice though that we can get some money back from Europe. What would be good though, would be some sort of tax on their tourists and lorry drivers coming over here, based on the extra burden they put on our roads infrastructure, the unfair competition they give to our haulage industry because of their lower fuel duties and also as a reciprocal reprisal to counter the motorway tolls that we have to pay on many of the European roads.

 

As to your main argument, that VAT increases favour the savers who avoid paying it, therefore tax increases are better, I would counter and say that against the loss of revenue to the Exchequer from those savers, must be compared the loss of revenue from tax increases. I would suggest that the loss of revenue because VAT is not levied on savers who do not spend, is vastly overshadowed as a proportion by the loss of revenue when income tax is increased. There are several examples of what the net result of that might be.

 

1) Higher taxation is a disincentive to work harder, especially when higher rates apply to increased earning levels.

 

2) There is a natural inclination for workers to demand salary increases, as their nett income decreases, but their overheads and bills stay the same or increase. The reduction in their earnings because of tax increases is instantly visible, whereas the price of goods in the shops is not particularly noticeable. Anyway, to counter another point you made, VAT might be flat rate, but the price of a particular item on which it is levied is seldom the same from shop to shop.

 

3) The higher taxed an individual is, the more inclination he shows to not paying it, either by emigrating or through creative accounting. It is already proven that beyond a certain percentage of income tax, the exchequer takes a lesser amount of tax than if the rate was lower. I fear that the top rate of over 50% is already counter-productive and the repercussions are yet to be seen, as it has only just been introduced

 

4) at a time of low GDP, growth in the manufacturing sector should not be stifled by taxes on jobs, like income tax and the NI contribution.

 

So the VAT rate is the same regardless of whether one earns £5000 or £50 million PA. So what? Do you seriously infer that it would be better to have the VAT at varying rates, so that every item bought had a price to it that reflected not the cost of the item, but the level of earnings of the purchaser? This loaf of bread will cost a low income earner 50p and the high earner £5?

 

This situation already applies to the Community charge, where the cost of services varies dependent on the value of the property, not on the cost of the service supplied. (The Lib/dems want to introduce a local income tax). It already applies to taxation. I suppose that it is only a matter of time before the Socialists begin to think about applying the principle to everything.

 

You can afford to pay more for that loaf of bread, you rich arrogant bastard.

[Wade Garrett]

Firstly, I had not mentioned the revenue from tourists charged VAT, as those from outside of the Europe can claim it back on leaving. It is nice though that we can get some money back from Europe. What would be good though, would be some sort of tax on their tourists and lorry drivers coming over here, based on the extra burden they put on our roads infrastructure, the unfair competition they give to our haulage industry because of their lower fuel duties and also as a reciprocal reprisal to counter the motorway tolls that we have to pay on many of the European roads.

 

As to your main argument, that VAT increases favour the savers who avoid paying it, therefore tax increases are better, I would counter and say that against the loss of revenue to the Exchequer from those savers, must be compared the loss of revenue from tax increases. I would suggest that the loss of revenue because VAT is not levied on savers who do not spend, is vastly overshadowed as a proportion by the loss of revenue when income tax is increased. There are several examples of what the net result of that might be.

 

1) Higher taxation is a disincentive to work harder, especially when higher rates apply to increased earning levels.

 

2) There is a natural inclination for workers to demand salary increases, as their nett income decreases, but their overheads and bills stay the same or increase. The reduction in their earnings because of tax increases is instantly visible, whereas the price of goods in the shops is not particularly noticeable. Anyway, to counter another point you made, VAT might be flat rate, but the price of a particular item on which it is levied is seldom the same from shop to shop.

 

3) The higher taxed an individual is, the more inclination he shows to not paying it, either by emigrating or through creative accounting. It is already proven that beyond a certain percentage of income tax, the exchequer takes a lesser amount of tax than if the rate was lower. I fear that the top rate of over 50% is already counter-productive and the repercussions are yet to be seen, as it has only just been introduced

 

4) at a time of low GDP, growth in the manufacturing sector should not be stifled by taxes on jobs, like income tax and the NI contribution.

 

So the VAT rate is the same regardless of whether one earns £5000 or £50 million PA. So what? Do you seriously infer that it would be better to have the VAT at varying rates, so that every item bought had a price to it that reflected not the cost of the item, but the level of earnings of the purchaser? This loaf of bread will cost a low income earner 50p and the high earner £5?

 

This situation already applies to the Community charge, where the cost of services varies dependent on the value of the property, not on the cost of the service supplied. (The Lib/dems want to introduce a local income tax). It already applies to taxation. I suppose that it is only a matter of time before the Socialists begin to think about applying the principle to everything.

 

You can afford to pay more for that loaf of bread, you rich arrogant bastard.

 

Wes you seem intelligent, so why try to paint anyone who votes labour as some sort of left-wing lunatic?

[buctootim]

Firstly, I had not mentioned the revenue from tourists charged VAT, as those from outside of the Europe can claim it back on leaving. It is nice though that we can get some money back from Europe. What would be good though, would be some sort of tax on their tourists and lorry drivers coming over here, based on the extra burden they put on our roads infrastructure, the unfair competition they give to our haulage industry because of their lower fuel duties and also as a reciprocal reprisal to counter the motorway tolls that we have to pay on many of the European roads.

 

Wouldnt disagree. Impossible to do though within the EU. The merits / demerits of the EU is a whole other debate - and indeed thread.

 

As to your main argument, that VAT increases favour the savers who avoid paying it, therefore tax increases are better, I would counter and say that against the loss of revenue to the Exchequer from those savers, must be compared the loss of revenue from tax increases. I would suggest that the loss of revenue because VAT is not levied on savers who do not spend, is vastly overshadowed as a proportion by the loss of revenue when income tax is increased. There are several examples of what the net result of that might be.

 

1) Higher taxation is a disincentive to work harder, especially when higher rates apply to increased earning levels.

 

2) There is a natural inclination for workers to demand salary increases, as their nett income decreases, but their overheads and bills stay the same or increase. The reduction in their earnings because of tax increases is instantly visible, whereas the price of goods in the shops is not particularly noticeable. Anyway, to counter another point you made, VAT might be flat rate, but the price of a particular item on which it is levied is seldom the same from shop to shop.

 

3) The higher taxed an individual is, the more inclination he shows to not paying it, either by emigrating or through creative accounting. It is already proven that beyond a certain percentage of income tax, the exchequer takes a lesser amount of tax than if the rate was lower. I fear that the top rate of over 50% is already counter-productive and the repercussions are yet to be seen, as it has only just been introduced

 

I agree the 50% tax is wrong. Apart from taking 50% of income from anybody being ethically dubious, very high earners will always find creative accounting ways of protecting their income, often leading to a net loss of revenue.

 

4) at a time of low GDP, growth in the manufacturing sector should not be stifled by taxes on jobs, like income tax and the NI contribution.

Income tax isn a tax on jobs, although I agree the employers NI is

 

So the VAT rate is the same regardless of whether one earns £5000 or £50 million PA. So what? Do you seriously infer that it would be better to have the VAT at varying rates, so that every item bought had a price to it that reflected not the cost of the item, but the level of earnings of the purchaser? This loaf of bread will cost a low income earner 50p and the high earner £5?

I didnt say that.

 

This situation already applies to the Community charge, where the cost of services varies dependent on the value of the property, not on the cost of the service supplied. (The Lib/dems want to introduce a local income tax). It already applies to taxation. I suppose that it is only a matter of time before the Socialists begin to think about applying the principle to everything.

Every modern society has a mix of taxes on personal income, property and corporate profits - from the US to Russia. the UK is no different.

 

You can afford to pay more for that loaf of bread, you rich arrogant bastard.

...

[Wes Tender]

Wes you seem intelligent, so why try to paint anyone who votes labour as some sort of left-wing lunatic?

 

I've certainly experienced some left-wing lunatics in British politics in my time, as I have some right-wing lunatics too.

 

I have no problem with people making up their own minds and selecting a party to vote for based on informed opinion. They make their choice based on a series of policy areas and choose the party that they think most closely echoes their beliefs.

 

You believe that Labour represents your views better, whereas I think that the Conservatives represent mine. The lunatics are not the moderates in those parties, but the extremists.

[Wes Tender]

...

 

All fair comment. We might differ in our opinions as to whether VAT or income tax is the way forward in the current crisis, as do the main parties, but we fought our corners with some good points either way.

 

We will have to wait and see what transpires on Thursday to have any idea as to which path will be chosen.

[1976_Child]

Are hetros normal? Are they even nominal?

[1976_Child]

... actually, an old boy friend of mine used to say "darling, strictly speaking we aren't normal".

 

He was a statistician, working for the Department of Health. And he was quite correct: homos are not 'normal'. We aren't even 'log normal'

 

But I bet you can't spot one of us 'normal gays' amongst you if you tried!!

 

ps, the tossers who get up in their daft queenie outfits at 'Gay Pride' marches do not represent the vast majority of us homos.

[buctootim]

... actually, an old boy friend of mine used to say "darling, strictly speaking we aren't normal".

 

He was a statistician, working for the Department of Health. And he was quite correct: homos are not 'normal'. We aren't even 'log normal'

 

But I bet you can't spot one of us 'normal gays' amongst you if you tried!!

 

ps, the tossers who get up in their daft queenie outfits at 'Gay Pride' marches do not represent the vast majority of us homos.

 

 

Ive longed believed that most people who are labelled homophobic or racist arent actually that at all - they are 'culturalist'. People prefer to associate with others who they can relate to. A straight middle aged white British accountant is far more likely to relate well to a black gay British middle aged accountant than to a 20 year old straight white Russian brickie from the Urals.

 

My niece is gay. Because she and her girlfriend are totally 'normal' in dress and behaviour and friendly to me as a guy I have absolutely no problem with their sexuality. The dykes who wear DMs, crew cuts and sit with their legs wide apart imitating men or the drag queens who manage to drag sex into every sentence leave me alienated.

Edited 5 May, 2010 by buctootim