buctootim Posted 18 January, 2011 Share Posted 18 January, 2011 (edited) All I want is some serious research into which tax rates will bring in the most revenue. It maybe that reducing rates will bring more in, it maybe that putting them up may do. My personal opinion is that at the moment tax rates are set on the basis of political positioning, rather than cold hard economics. If you could prove to the Labour party that reducing the top rate of tax to 30% would bring in an extra 3 billion a year, they would still not do it. If you proved to the Tories that putting the rate up to 60% would bring in 3 billion, they would not do it. My feeling is that reducing rates would not only bring more in and attract extra jobs, but it would make people feel richer, spend more and growth would continue to rise. Provided you kept inflation in check, everyone would be a winner. Access to information through the internet is making evasion of tax on income and assets possible for anyone who runs a business is self employed or who has property overseas. Its no longer just the super rich who can do it. Taxes on expenditure (VAT, stamp duty, excise duty etc) are harder to avoid and for that reason, more than dogma, will become more important than income taxes imo. Edited 18 January, 2011 by buctootim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 18 January, 2011 Share Posted 18 January, 2011 (edited) Which rather proves my point. Tax take inc NI reaches a peak under Thatch - just at the point when, were it not for the Malvinas, she'd have been slung out of office. Exactly. Despite all the mudslinging about irresponsibility by Labour, mostly total tax take doesnt vary much between governments. If anything the Conservatives have taxed more. Edited 18 January, 2011 by buctootim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fuengirola Saint Posted 18 January, 2011 Share Posted 18 January, 2011 If taxes were at a sensible level of, say, 20%, then there would be no need for anybody to try to avoid them. The greedy ****s would still try and avoid the taxes, taxes are only for the little people, thats how it goes isn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintfully Posted 18 January, 2011 Share Posted 18 January, 2011 Total tax take inc NI Year £bn %of GDP 1970-71 23 43.3 1971-72 24.6 41.5 1972-73 26.3 39 1973-74 29.7 39.5 1974-75 37.9 42.1 1975-76 47.9 42.7 1976-77 56.4 43 1977-78 62.9 41.3 1978-79 69.8 40.1 1979-80 85 40.5 1980-81 100.9 42.2 1981-82 119.5 45.4 1982-83 129.7 45.1 1983-84 137.9 44.1 1984-85 147.6 43.9 1985-86 157.8 42.7 1986-87 164.6 41.6 1987-88 178.9 40.6 1988-89 197.1 40.2 1989-90 211.3 39.4 1990-91 221.7 38.4 1991-92 231.7 38.1 1992-93 227.6 36.3 1993-94 235.2 35.4 1994-95 255.9 36.4 1995-96 276.6 37.2 1996-97 288.8 36.4 1997-98 316.2 37.5 1998-99 335.3 37.7 1999-00 358.5 37.9 2000-01 382.3 38.6 2001-02 389.4 37.8 2002-03 396 36.3 2003-04 422.4 36.5 2004-05 452.6 37.3 2005-06 486.6 38.2 2006-07 519.2 38.5 2007-08 549.1 38.6 2008-09 533.3 37.2 2009-10 519.8 37 2010-11 548 37.2 From one Hassocks based Saint to another, that's nice work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 18 January, 2011 Author Share Posted 18 January, 2011 Which rather proves my point. Tax take inc NI reaches a peak under Thatch - just at the point when, were it not for the Malvinas, she'd have been slung out of office. Ergo Thatcher was a closet socialist. Knew it. Bloody knew it. And to think I voted for the crafty old bint. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Duckhunter Posted 18 January, 2011 Share Posted 18 January, 2011 Which rather proves my point. Tax take inc NI reaches a peak under Thatch - just at the point when, were it not for the Malvinas, she'd have been slung out of office. Exactly, tax take reached a peak after Mrs T reduced income tax rates from 83% and 33%. Proving that you can reduce income tax and still put more money into the public finances.The lower the tax take the more you have to borrow or cut public spending, I would have thought the Lefties would be all for more tax take.Perhaps she'll get a state funeral after all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 18 January, 2011 Share Posted 18 January, 2011 Exactly, tax take reached a peak after Mrs T reduced income tax rates from 83% and 33%. Proving that you can reduce income tax and still put more money into the public finances.The lower the tax take the more you have to borrow or cut public spending, I would have thought the Lefties would be all for more tax take.Perhaps she'll get a state funeral after all. Tax as a percentage of GDP is far more important. Mrs T's lucky break was north sea oil coming on stream. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fuengirola Saint Posted 18 January, 2011 Share Posted 18 January, 2011 Exactly, tax take reached a peak after Mrs T reduced income tax rates from 83% and 33%. Proving that you can reduce income tax and still put more money into the public finances.The lower the tax take the more you have to borrow or cut public spending, I would have thought the Lefties would be all for more tax take.Perhaps she'll get a state funeral after all. If you look at the figures, tax take went up under Thatcher but tax take as a percentage of GDP also went up from 40.1 in 78-79 to 45.4 in 81-82 so overall she didn't reduce taxes but raised them overall using regressive indirect taxation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 18 January, 2011 Share Posted 18 January, 2011 From one Hassocks based Saint to another, that's nice work. Ta! Never knew Hassocks was so cosmopolitan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Duckhunter Posted 18 January, 2011 Share Posted 18 January, 2011 Personally I would rather indirect taxes went up and tax on my take home pay went down.Thatcher must have been doing something right because not only was she elected 3 times, but the Labour party have followed suit and shifted their tax policy towards indirect taxation. Never again will we see income tax at the rates we had pre Thatcher. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 18 January, 2011 Author Share Posted 18 January, 2011 If you look at the figures, tax take went up under Thatcher but tax take as a percentage of GDP also went up from 40.1 in 78-79 to 45.4 in 81-82 so overall she didn't reduce taxes but raised them overall using regressive indirect taxation. Phew. So I can carry on with my fond admiration of her then? I thought I'd lost all those cherished memories for an horrific moment. ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 18 January, 2011 Share Posted 18 January, 2011 Personally I would rather indirect taxes went up and tax on my take home pay went down.Thatcher must have been doing something right because not only was she elected 3 times, but the Labour party have followed suit and shifted their tax policy towards indirect taxation. Never again will we see income tax at the rates we had pre Thatcher. What you would rather have is beside the point - Thatch was the high-tax PM bar none. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 18 January, 2011 Share Posted 18 January, 2011 Phew. So I can carry on with my fond admiration of her then? I thought I'd lost all those cherished memories for an horrific moment. ;-) So taxes go up under Thatcher no matter HOW you look at it, and you're relieved? Like so many Thatch-lovers, there's something of the masochist in you, right trousers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Duckhunter Posted 18 January, 2011 Share Posted 18 January, 2011 Public spending also went up. It was 48.1% of GDP in 1982-83, compared to Blair and Browns 36.8 in 2000-2001, and yet the lefties will claim that public services were run down under Mrs T and New Labour invested in them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 18 January, 2011 Share Posted 18 January, 2011 Public spending also went up. It was 48.1% of GDP in 1982-83, compared to Blair and Browns 36.8 in 2000-2001, and yet the lefties will claim that public services were run down under Mrs T and New Labour invested in them. So Mrs T was spending 7% more than she was receiving and putting taxes up during a recession. Tut. Doesn't sound very prudent to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deppo Posted 18 January, 2011 Share Posted 18 January, 2011 I'd imagine that most of the benefits slobs are flag waving Labour supporters. I know I am. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Bognor Posted 18 January, 2011 Share Posted 18 January, 2011 The greedy ****s would still try and avoid the taxes, taxes are only for the little people, thats how it goes isn't it? To be fair, tall people have to pay them too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonnyboy Posted 18 January, 2011 Share Posted 18 January, 2011 Exactly, tax take reached a peak after Mrs T reduced income tax rates from 83% and 33%. Proving that you can reduce income tax and still put more money into the public finances.The lower the tax take the more you have to borrow or cut public spending, I would have thought the Lefties would be all for more tax take.Perhaps she'll get a state funeral after all. Dune strangely quiet on this one. So Thatcher taxed us more and spent more on public services! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonnyboy Posted 19 January, 2011 Share Posted 19 January, 2011 Bunch of greedy cvnts http://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/Dodge-tax-like-footballer-yahoofinanceuk-1056710267.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 19 January, 2011 Share Posted 19 January, 2011 The tax burden in this country is ridiculous. For most people, a third is gone without them ever seeing it. Then there is council tax, fuel duty, VAT, tobacco duty, road tax, etc. It wouldn't surprise me if the actual tax burden was well over 50%, and it wouldn't be so bad if we were spending the money on decent things. Instead, we spunk it on wars and bailing out banks and servicing debts, then tell our kids we can't afford to send them to Uni. Flat rate tax all the way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 19 January, 2011 Share Posted 19 January, 2011 The tax burden in this country is ridiculous. For most people, a third is gone without them ever seeing it. Then there is council tax, fuel duty, VAT, tobacco duty, road tax, etc. It wouldn't surprise me if the actual tax burden was well over 50%, and it wouldn't be so bad if we were spending the money on decent things. Instead, we spunk it on wars and bailing out banks and servicing debts, then tell our kids we can't afford to send them to Uni. Flat rate tax all the way. My guess is that a flat rate tax will increase your tax burden. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
holepuncture Posted 19 January, 2011 Share Posted 19 January, 2011 The tax burden in this country is ridiculous. For most people, a third is gone without them ever seeing it. Then there is council tax, fuel duty, VAT, tobacco duty, road tax, etc. It wouldn't surprise me if the actual tax burden was well over 50%, and it wouldn't be so bad if we were spending the money on decent things. Instead, we spunk it on wars and bailing out banks and servicing debts, then tell our kids we can't afford to send them to Uni. Flat rate tax all the way. Nicely put. I think Governments aim is to actually generate 60% or 60p in the £1 in taxes through your VAT, council, road tax etc. Most of our tax revenue will be spent on servicing the interest on our debt, let alone paying it off! You can forget about schools and health, they take a back seat. The next generations are going to see nothing from tax revenue, as you put, dealing with banks and wars. The days of free or subsidised eduaction, state and company subsidised pensions are long gone Our land is being raped by foreingers, our future energy is owned by Russia and France, our debt is held by the Arabs... Fertillity rates are in irreversable decline, for British children, we barely manage one child to every two adults - gone... I wouldnt expect the next generations to support your pensions, no chance! The word pension will hold no definition in 20 years, mind you, neither will English culture - gone... Im making my own plans for the future, with a stone cold scenario in my head that our country will be falling into disrepair. Time for lunch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Duckhunter Posted 19 January, 2011 Share Posted 19 January, 2011 An interesting article Guardian regarding the Tax free day, which is basically the day we start keepeing our own money . It's hardly a flag waving Thatcher supporter, but says "The all-time record for tax freedom day is June 14, 1982 when Margaret Thatcher was prime minister. It shot up be tween 1979 and 1982 as a deep recession shrank national income while taxes went up to try to put the public finances back in order".Sound familar, Taxes are going up again as Labours mess has to be sorted out yet again. http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2005/may/31/money.thinktanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 19 January, 2011 Share Posted 19 January, 2011 My guess is that a flat rate tax will increase your tax burden. Only if they were honest about what the tax burden actually is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonnyboy Posted 19 January, 2011 Share Posted 19 January, 2011 Nicely put. I think Governments aim is to actually generate 60% or 60p in the £1 in taxes through your VAT, council, road tax etc. Most of our tax revenue will be spent on servicing the interest on our debt, let alone paying it off! You can forget about schools and health, they take a back seat. The next generations are going to see nothing from tax revenue, as you put, dealing with banks and wars. The days of free or subsidised eduaction, state and company subsidised pensions are long gone Our land is being raped by foreingers, our future energy is owned by Russia and France, our debt is held by the Arabs... Fertillity rates are in irreversable decline, for British children, we barely manage one child to every two adults - gone... I wouldnt expect the next generations to support your pensions, no chance! The word pension will hold no definition in 20 years, mind you, neither will English culture - gone... Im making my own plans for the future, with a stone cold scenario in my head that our country will be falling into disrepair. Time for lunch. hung yourself yet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
holepuncture Posted 20 January, 2011 Share Posted 20 January, 2011 hung yourself yet? Nope! Although I am rather hungover... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonnyboy Posted 20 January, 2011 Share Posted 20 January, 2011 Nope! Although I am rather hungover... must be moving to Oz then Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now