Pre-election party conferences

[OldNick]

Where did I suggest we default on our debts? The system is ridiculous because we will never pay back what we owe under the current financial system. It's unrealistic to assume that we will do so because it isn't going to happen.

I suggest where you liken it to third world debt written off.

It was not long ago that we had cleared our debt (IIRC)

[hypochondriac]

you have the honour of the first to ever have me use a face palm,

 

Well no one else who has posted so far feels my comments were particularly outlandish. What was it you disagreed with?

[OldNick]

Well no one else who has posted so far feels my comments were particularly outlandish. What was it you disagreed with?

All of it. I don't think many are on here at the moment, hence the Lack of Posters thread

[hypochondriac]

All of it. I don't think many are on here at the moment, hence the Lack of Posters thread

 

Well could you explain what it was you were facepalming about? Otherwise it's difficult to discuss it if you refuse to take issue with anything specific.

[hypochondriac]

I suggest where you liken it to third world debt written off.

It was not long ago that we had cleared our debt (IIRC)

 

The comparison was that third world debt was such a huge number that had become so large that the actual value of it was largely symbolic since it was never going to be paid back. In that sense it is the same as our debt which also will never be paid off. I'm not trying to suggest that the two debts were accrued in the same way or that they are the same in every way and I doubt anyone thought I was.

[Fuengirola Saint]

Milburn introduced PFI to the NHS.

 

Fair play on your second point.

Milburn never introduced PFI, it was introduced by the Conservative government of John Major

[pap]

Milburn never introduced PFI, it was introduced by the Conservative government of John Major

 

The point you're picking up on was in response to another poster saying that Andy Burnham was the PFI guy. Milburn famously said "PFI or bust" for the NHS after Labour had spent years campaigning for the opposite.

 

btf also pulled me up on this. Her account of pre-Labour PFI added quite a bit to the discussion.

[saintbletch]

I listened to Cameron's speech yesterday - an interesting counterpoint to Osborne's speech earlier in the week.

 

Osborne spilled the beans about the size of the deficit problem that we are still facing. He was quite clear that there will be many more years of austerity, and that if we thought the cuts so far were bad, that we hadn't seen anything yet.

 

Then Cameron came in and promised us all tax cuts (by 2020 BTW). I find it difficult to take the two positions as a single cohesive manifesto.

 

Forgive me if I'm teaching my grandmother to suck oeufs here, but it's worth pointing out that when we say we're "successfully reducing our budget deficit", this isn't actually touching our level of indebtedness at all. In fact everyday that we are "successfully reducing our budget deficit", our national debt and borrowing will increase. Our deficit is simply the difference between government revenues and expenses. So, if we are still in budget deficit - albeit one that we are successfully reducing, and our national debt is increasing every second, then surely tax cuts are unlikely to be the answer to reducing national debt?

 

Now I don't mind the logic that says we've got to go through some tough years, and even though I can understand the economic argument that leaving taxpayers with more cash in their pocket may see more money moving through the economy which in turn may stimulate growth, but I'm struggling to reconcile the stated justification for austerity with the stated objective of reducing our deficit and ultimately starting to lower our national debt. This is starting to look idealogical.

 

Again, I understand that you don't want to stifle any recovery through taxation, but tax cuts? Now? That came across to me as fiscally irresponsible.

 

Other than that, I though he did a good job on his European issue, as well as positioning a UKIP vote as a Labour vote. He's also the only one of the crop that looks remotely statesman-like. Perhaps this is simply because I've seen him in so many more statesman situations? I did think he look a little stilted at times - and he made it obvious that he was reading his lines, but he did use a bit of "passion" and humour well enough.

[buctootim]

Osborne spilled the beans about the size of the deficit problem that we are still facing. He was quite clear that there will be many more years of austerity, and that if we thought the cuts so far were bad, that we hadn't seen anything yet.

 

Then Cameron came in and promised us all tax cuts (by 2020 BTW). I find it difficult to take the two positions as a single cohesive manifesto.

 

Forgive me if I'm teaching my grandmother to suck oeufs here, but it's worth pointing out that when we say we're "successfully reducing our budget deficit", this isn't actually touching our level of indebtedness at all. In fact everyday that we are "successfully reducing our budget deficit", our national debt and borrowing will increase. Our deficit is simply the difference between government revenues and expenses. So, if we are still in budget deficit - albeit one that we are successfully reducing, and our national debt is increasing every second, then surely tax cuts are unlikely to be the answer to reducing national debt?

 

Now I don't mind the logic that says we've got to go through some tough years, and even though I can understand the economic argument that leaving taxpayers with more cash in their pocket may see more money moving through the economy which in turn may stimulate growth, but I'm struggling to reconcile the stated justification for austerity with the stated objective of reducing our deficit and ultimately starting to lower our national debt. This is starting to look idealogical.

 

Again, I understand that you don't want to stifle any recovery through taxation, but tax cuts? Now? That came across to me as fiscally irresponsible.

 

I'm with you on the barricade Bletch. What ever happened to honesty and leadership in politics instead of pandering and deceit? All the main parties should have an agreement to tell it like it is and go into the election on the basis of the best way to end the deficit and repay some the debt - not compete on who can apply for another credit card and buy the prettiest sweeties with it.

[pap]

C'mon now. Free money for the middle classes in an election year.

 

Electability giving way to bletch's fiscal responsibility! See also, numerous Conservative governments of the 1980s.

[Scummer]

Cameron came in and promised us all tax cuts (by 2020 BTW).

 

Again, I understand that you don't want to stifle any recovery through taxation, but tax cuts? Now?

 

It's not 2020 now?

[pap]

Cameron's speech gets 10 negative tweets for every positive one.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/oct/01/david-cameron-negative-tweets-10-to-one-outweigh-positive-conservative-party-conference

[buctootim]

It's not 2020 now?

 

You planning to pay off £1.4 trillion by 2020? Go, on its only £46,000 for every working person.

[Whitey Grandad]

C'mon now. Free money for the middle classes in an election year.

 

Electability giving way to bletch's fiscal responsibility! See also, numerous Conservative governments of the 1980s.

 

Now you're just being silly. How can it be free money if it's already theirs? You're thinking like Gordon Brown, he treated everybody's money as his own and grudgingly let us keep a little of our own money for essentials.

[trousers]

Cameron's speech gets 10 negative tweets for every positive one.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/oct/01/david-cameron-negative-tweets-10-to-one-outweigh-positive-conservative-party-conference

Thus proving...? That 90% of keyboard warriors are Tory bashers?

[buctootim]

Now you're just being silly. How can it be free money if it's already theirs? You're thinking like Gordon Brown, he treated everybody's money as his own and grudgingly let us keep a little of our own money for essentials.

 

Thats what I find odd about many Tory voters, rigid beliefs not backed up by facts, and even when told the facts their views don't change.

 

[pap]

Now you're just being silly. How can it be free money if it's already theirs? You're thinking like Gordon Brown, he treated everybody's money as his own and grudgingly let us keep a little of our own money for essentials.

 

Tax cuts = free money.

 

I do happen to agree with you though, it is our money. Shame we don't have any control over how it is spent.

 

Thus proving...? That 90% of keyboard warriors are Tory bashers?

 

Ratio of ten to one.

 

So, if there are 110 tweets, 100 of them are negative, and 10 of them are positive.

 

That's 90.9%, almost 91%.

 

Proof that you shouldn't trust Tories with numbers or detail

[saintbletch]

It's not 2020 now?

 

Yeah, true Scummer. It isn't 2020 now. So they do have some time to deliver on it.

 

Perhaps we will be debt free by then, but I don't share your apparent confidence.

 

Perhaps they're gambling that they'll be able to deliver on this commitment if things pick up between now and then? I guess that is possible.

 

Perhaps we'll have got the deficit under control, or perhaps we'll even be running a budget surplus by 2020. But giving away £7.2B in exchequer revenue when we'll still have >£1T* national debt, doesn't strike me as particularly fiscally responsible.

 

Or, perhaps reducing the deficit isn't really the Conservatives' #1 focus? Perhaps staying in office while delivering idealogically driven cuts to the size of the state is there #1 objective. Perhaps.

 

If that were the case, then I don't mind that being their #1 objective. I mean, it's a Tory-led coalition government after all, it's proudly part of their DNA, but I just wish they'd drop the pretence.

 

I can honestly say that I found it weirdly refreshing listening to Osborne earlier in the week. I might not agree with all of his tactics, but it's difficult to criticise a bloke who has said the same thing for the last 4+ years, and can point to a positive response in the economy as "proof" that his plan is working. He addressed the conference and said a bunch of unpopular stuff about cuts and hardship. A conference that was looking for anything that can help them fight of Labour and/or UKIP. He didn't seem to offer them much. Fair play I thought.

 

George said that once we started to get through this mess, he'd mend the roof when the sun was shining. (Check it out. He said those words - or a form thereof). And now Dave closes the conference saying, he plans to give away £7.2B each year, come what may.

 

I say again, I can't reconcile the (understandable) stated desire to get our debt, deficit and borrowing under control, with a copper-bottomed commitment to delivering £7.2B of tax cuts every year.

 

*That T stands for trillion

Edited 2 October, 2014 by saintbletch
Typo

[Whitey Grandad]

Thats what I find odd about many Tory voters, rigid beliefs not backed up by facts, and even when told the facts their views don't change.

 

 

What is the point of this graph?

[Whitey Grandad]

Tax cuts = free money.

 

I do happen to agree with you though, it is our money. Shame we don't have any control over how it is spent.

 

 

 

Ratio of ten to one.

 

So, if there are 110 tweets, 100 of them are negative, and 10 of them are positive.

 

That's 90.9%, almost 91%.

 

Proof that you shouldn't trust Tories with numbers or detail

 

Or that you should never trust tweets, they're sent by twits.

[buctootim]

What is the point of this graph?

 

To show that you made up your comment about Gordon Brown.

[pap]

Or that you should never trust tweets, they're sent by twits.

 

Yeah, all one liners with no substance

[Whitey Grandad]

To show that you made up your comment about Gordon Brown.

 

But every comment that I make is made up by me?

[buctootim]

But every comment that I make is made up by me?

 

You prefer to play semantics rather than deal with point that your assertion that Gordon Brown "treated everybody's money as his own and grudgingly let us keep a little of our own money for essentials" was inaccurate and untrue. His record of tax take was not notably better or worse than any other chancellor over the past 40 years.

 

One avenue left open to you is to claim that all chancellors treat your money as their own and therefore it was fair comment, but I wouldn't take that route if I was you, it'd make you look sillier.

[trousers]

Ratio of ten to one.

 

So, if there are 110 tweets, 100 of them are negative, and 10 of them are positive.

 

That's 90.9%, almost 91%.

 

Proof that you shouldn't trust Tories with numbers or detail

 

Are you leading the new Carlsberg campaign for their new avoiding questions venture...?

[pap]

Are you leading the new Carlsberg campaign for their new avoiding questions venture...?

 

No...

 

 

I don't think they'd have me.

[Whitey Grandad]

You prefer to play semantics rather than deal with point that your assertion that Gordon Brown "treated everybody's money as his own and grudgingly let us keep a little of our own money for essentials" was inaccurate and untrue. His record of tax take was not notably better or worse than any other chancellor over the past 40 years.

 

One avenue left open to you is to claim that all chancellors treat your money as their own and therefore it was fair comment, but I wouldn't take that route if I was you, it'd make you look sillier.

 

All right, I'll come clean, the bit about Gordon Brown treating taxpayers' money as his own wasn't actually made up by me, it was a comment on the television, or radio, or something. Rather than have me proving it was true, how about proving that it wasn't?

 

Ratyher than considering total tax take let's look at personal taxes instead.

[buctootim]

All right, I'll come clean, the bit about Gordon Brown treating taxpayers' money as his own wasn't actually made up by me, it was a comment on the television, or radio, or something. Rather than have me proving it was true, how about proving that it wasn't?

 

Ratyher than considering total tax take let's look at personal taxes instead.

 

 

So you reckon its fine to hold firm views based on nothing more than you heard it once on the radio, or somewhere, or something? And there was me thinking your politics were ill founded. Try google, you might get a more balanced view.

Edited 2 October, 2014 by buctootim

[buctootim]

[/img]

[buctootim]

The effect of Cameron's tax reduction promises. More money for the well paid and less for the poorly paid whilst the national debt grows. Who'd have thunk it?

 

Edited 2 October, 2014 by buctootim

[Whitey Grandad]

So you reckon its fine to hold firm views based on nothing more than you heard it once on the radio, or somewhere, or something? And there was me thinking your politics were ill founded. Try google, you might get a more balanced view.

 

Google? Now I know you're not serious. That's the trouble with the younger generation, they think everything on the internet is true.

 

My views are based on bitter experience. I don't want another incompetent pillock like that idiot Brown anywhere near our economy ever again.

[Whitey Grandad]

The effect of Cameron's tax reduction promises. More money for the well paid and less for the poorly paid whilst the national debt grows. Who'd have thunk it?

 

 

That's plain hogwash. The total tax take increases if you reduce the upper levels down from 45%. Where on earth did you find that graph, Google?

 

How on earth do you interpret it to mean less money for the lower paid?

[pap]

Google? Now I know you're not serious. That's the trouble with the younger generation, they think everything on the internet is true.

 

My views are based on bitter experience. I don't want another incompetent pillock like that idiot Brown anywhere near our economy ever again.

 

The problem with the older generation is ostensibly their propensity to pull facts from their arses and expect you to eat their shít

[buctootim]

Google? Now I know you're not serious. That's the trouble with the younger generation, they think everything on the internet is true. My views are based on bitter experience. I don't want another incompetent pillock like that idiot Brown anywhere near our economy ever again.

 

Your views are based on predjudice and the inability to understand that Google is tool to find information from any source. Its the integrity of the source that counts, just as if you were searching the Bodleian library.

 

 

That's plain hogwash. The total tax take increases if you reduce the upper levels down from 45%. Where on earth did you find that graph, Google? How on earth do you interpret it to mean less money for the lower paid?

 

Same kneejerk reaction based on nothing. The 'hogwash' graphic is part of an analysis published in today's Financial Times based on Cameron's published promises. Its entitled "High earners will gain most from Tory plans as spending cuts go deep". The lower paid get far less of the tax cut, around £50 per year for those paid up to £20,000pa compared with a giveaway of over £2,000pa for those paid £95,000pa.

[View From The Top]

Your views are based on predjudice and the inability to understand that Google is tool to find information from any source. Its the integrity of the source that counts, just as if you were searching the Bodleian library.

 

 

 

 

Same kneejerk reaction based on nothing. The 'hogwash' graphic is part of an analysis published in today's Financial Times based on Cameron's published promises. Its entitled "High earners will gain most from Tory plans as spending cuts go deep". The lower paid get far less of the tax cut, around £50 per year for those paid up to £20,000pa compared with a giveaway of over £2,000pa for those paid £95,000pa.

 

Clearly leftie propaganda.

[solentstars]

I though camerons speech was good but I worry how he is targeting certain groups for votes and rather he dealt with the deficit..I loved the way he pinched the lib dems policy of taken the lowest pay out of tax by raising the allowance to 10,500 which the Tories would not have done if it was in power on its own.the trouble is the libs have shot themselves in the foot over the student fiasco. Lots of working class kids priced out of going to university. I ,m undecided who to vote for has I find all 3 party's very poor but I ,m not minded to waste my vote on a Micky mouse party like ukip. etc

[Whitey Grandad]

Your views are based on predjudice and the inability to understand that Google is tool to find information from any source. Its the integrity of the source that counts, just as if you were searching the Bodleian library.

 

But not every source is available through Google.

 

 

Same kneejerk reaction based on nothing. The 'hogwash' graphic is part of an analysis published in today's Financial Times based on Cameron's published promises. Its entitled "High earners will gain most from Tory plans as spending cuts go deep". The lower paid get far less of the tax cut, around £50 per year for those paid up to £20,000pa compared with a giveaway of over £2,000pa for those paid £95,000pa.

 

The lower paid already take home a higher proportion of their earnings than the higher paid. Once again, it's not a giveaway if all you are doing is letting people keep more of their own money. Whose money are you 'giving' them?

[Whitey Grandad]

The problem with the older generation is ostensibly their propensity to pull facts from their arses and expect you to eat their shít

 

You can choose to eat it or ignore it at your peril. The outcome is usually called 'experience'. Would it help if I published my views and then made sure that there was a link to them on Google?

[buctootim]

The lower paid already take home a higher proportion of their earnings than the higher paid. Once again, it's not a giveaway if all you are doing is letting people keep more of their own money. Whose money are you 'giving' them?

 

 

Really? Not an election giveaway and there is no massive debt? Its paying the bills by extending your credit and lowering the repayments. Paying the bills by using more borrowed money. Do you run your business like that as you may well be insolvent. Or is it a special logic you save for here?

Edited 2 October, 2014 by buctootim

[aintforever]

The total tax take increases if you reduce the upper levels down from 45%.

 

How do you work that out?

[Whitey Grandad]

Really? Not an election giveaway and there is no massive debt? Its paying the bills by extending your credit and lowering the repayments. Paying the bills by using more borrowed money. Do you run your business like that as you may well be insolvent. Or is it a special logic you save for here?

 

Raising the marginal rate above about 40% reduces the total tax-take, please see below. It's certainly not a giveaway if you're giving people their own money. Please see above under 'Gordon Brown'. You're talking as though this money that these people earn belongs to the government.

 

How do you work that out?

 

As the marginal rate increases (including NI) then the total tax take rises and then falls as more and more earners don't see the point in earning more money for less return. There have been many studies into the optimal rate from the government's view of maximising the tax-take but somewhere around 35% to 45% is a common figure.

 

http://www.director.co.uk/magazine/2012/05_May/Graeme_Leach_65_09.html

 

http://www.adamsmith.org/blog/tax-spending/calculating-the-optimal-progessive-income-tax/

[Whitey Grandad]

This article probably makes it clearer:

 

http://www.cityam.com/article/1393442674/real-reason-squeezing-rich-makes-us-all-poorer

[saintbletch]

Raising the marginal rate above about 40% reduces the total tax-take, please see below. It's certainly not a giveaway if you're giving people their own money. Please see above under 'Gordon Brown'. You're talking as though this money that these people earn belongs to the government.

 

 

 

As the marginal rate increases (including NI) then the total tax take rises and then falls as more and more earners don't see the point in earning more money for less return. There have been many studies into the optimal rate from the government's view of maximising the tax-take but somewhere around 35% to 45% is a common figure.

 

http://www.director.co.uk/magazine/2012/05_May/Graeme_Leach_65_09.html

 

http://www.adamsmith.org/blog/tax-spending/calculating-the-optimal-progessive-income-tax/

 

Interesting "research" Whitey, but instinctively I've never felt that the argument makes sense to me. I've not carried out studies and neither do I have counter studies to suggest it's wrong. It's just that it doesn't feel right.

 

And neither do I understand the logic that says that reducing the 50% rate to 45% would stop people developing ever more creative ways to avoid paying tax. Or that high tax rates would force people abroad... but that's another subject...

 

Anyway, help me with this one will you, Whitey?

 

There is a school of thought that says that if you reduce benefit payments, you will encourage those people claiming these benefits to get back to work, or to work longer hours, or generally try to "better" themselves.

 

If this logic is correct, it seems to contradict the assertion that when higher level earners see their take home pay reduced through taxation, they all simply stop pushing for more money.

 

Perhaps the benefit claimant is seen to have such a (relatively) poor standard of living, and the higher earner such a (relatively) high standard of living, that one will try harder whilst the other will tap out and say that he's comfortable enough?

 

Instinctively, I'd think that those who want to maintain/improve their standard of living, would simply work harder - be they on benefits or hitting higher tax rates.

 

Of course there is another factor which is that instead of us working harder to maintain/improve our standard of living, we each simply wait 4 or 5 years and then place our X against the party that say they will do that for us.

 

So perhaps those studies simply show the optimum amount of tax that can be reliably collected before you risk being voted out of office?

 

Not being smart here, and not looking to trip you up; I'd genuinely like to hear your view,

[Wurzel]

Anyway, help me with this one will you, Whitey?

 

There is a school of thought that says that if you reduce benefit payments, you will encourage those people claiming these benefits to get back to work, or to work longer hours, or generally try to "better" themselves.

 

If this logic is correct, it seems to contradict the assertion that when higher level earners see their take home pay reduced through taxation, they all simply stop pushing for more money.

 

Perhaps the benefit claimant is seen to have such a (relatively) poor standard of living, and the higher earner such a (relatively) high standard of living, that one will try harder whilst the other will tap out and say that he's comfortable enough?

 

I think it depends on how you look at it. The person on benefits will receive more by working. The high earner will have more taken from him by working harder .

[saintbletch]

I think it depends on how you look at it. The person on benefits will receive more by working. The high earner will have more taken from him by working harder .

 

Yep, I can follow that, and it certainly makes sense in the case of of the benefit claimant, but I'm not sure the high earner will behave that way.

 

I know Whitey is not looking at individuals as we are here, but rather that macro effects on the population at large, but if we feel we need more money each month, do we really consider (consciously or unconsciously) how much tax we've had deducted before thinking whether we should...get promoted, push for a raise or perhaps work longer hours?

 

I'd suggest that instead, "we" look in our bank each month, look at the calendar and see if we can change the government this month, and if not we push for more.

[buctootim]

Interesting "research" Whitey, but instinctively I've never felt that the argument makes sense to me. I've not carried out studies and neither do I have counter studies to suggest it's wrong. It's just that it doesn't feel right.

 

It doesnt feel right because it isnt right Bletch. The wealthiest amongst us have more scope for tax dodging - deferring income, taking it as dividends, maxing out on pension contributions, manufacturing 'losses' on assets, offshoring etc etc than the poor do. That is the reason tax take falls as rates rise - because the incentive to cheat becomes stronger. However pretending there is no way around that is specious. This study from Berkley and MIT demonstrates that. http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCEQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Feml.berkeley.edu%2F~saez%2Fpiketty-saez-stantcheva12thirdelasticity_nber_v2.pdf&ei=NngtVLmrIrSu7AaZqYGABw&usg=AFQjCNGFYzkmfNFiSA6mbRudepdVez2gcw&bvm=bv.76477589,d.ZGU&cad=rja

 

The doubling of the share of national income enjoyed by the richest 1% over the past 30 years has largely happened in English speaking countries and it has been at the expense of the middle. Median incomes in real terms have barely changed at all in 30 years in the US. All that is needed is the political will to tighten up tax breaks and loopholes instead of pretending to the poor they are on their side whilst pushing more money at those already best off.

[Whitey Grandad]

Interesting "research" Whitey, but instinctively I've never felt that the argument makes sense to me. I've not carried out studies and neither do I have counter studies to suggest it's wrong. It's just that it doesn't feel right.

 

And neither do I understand the logic that says that reducing the 50% rate to 45% would stop people developing ever more creative ways to avoid paying tax. Or that high tax rates would force people abroad... but that's another subject...

 

Anyway, help me with this one will you, Whitey?

 

There is a school of thought that says that if you reduce benefit payments, you will encourage those people claiming these benefits to get back to work, or to work longer hours, or generally try to "better" themselves.

 

If this logic is correct, it seems to contradict the assertion that when higher level earners see their take home pay reduced through taxation, they all simply stop pushing for more money.

 

Perhaps the benefit claimant is seen to have such a (relatively) poor standard of living, and the higher earner such a (relatively) high standard of living, that one will try harder whilst the other will tap out and say that he's comfortable enough?

 

Instinctively, I'd think that those who want to maintain/improve their standard of living, would simply work harder - be they on benefits or hitting higher tax rates.

 

Of course there is another factor which is that instead of us working harder to maintain/improve our standard of living, we each simply wait 4 or 5 years and then place our X against the party that say they will do that for us.

 

So perhaps those studies simply show the optimum amount of tax that can be reliably collected before you risk being voted out of office?

 

Not being smart here, and not looking to trip you up; I'd genuinely like to hear your view,

I think it's to do with whether you have enough to live on and whether putting in longer hours is worth the stress and aggro. In the case of the person on benefits they are getting what they need without having to do any work and would need to get a well-paid job just to maintain their current standard of living. In their case the difference is between no work and a lot of work for no difference in income. Basically the difference is that for the working person you are taking moneoff them if they work and for the other you are paying them not to work.

 

You're right about the votes.

[buctootim]

I think it depends on how you look at it. The person on benefits will receive more by working. The high earner will have more taken from him by working harder .

 

That is exactly why the minimum wage should be higher and taxation more progressive.

 

People are most powerfully motivated to work by a need to achieve a decent standard of living for themselves and their family. People whose current situation is eating past sell by date cheap carp and live in a cold damp shoebox will struggle harder to get more money than somebody who already has two houses and three cars. Well paid people usually do their jobs because they are more satisfying and enjoyable than being a bin man or working in Kiplings cakes - they wont give them up if the tax increases and their accountant's scope for 'sheltering' money is restricted.

Edited 2 October, 2014 by buctootim

[Whitey Grandad]

It doesnt feel right because it isnt right Bletch. The wealthiest amongst us have more scope for tax dodging - deferring income, taking it as dividends, maxing out on pension contributions, manufacturing 'losses' on assets, offshoring etc etc than the poor do. That is the reason tax take falls as rates rise - because the incentive to cheat becomes stronger. However pretending there is no way around that is specious. This study from Berkley and MIT demonstrates that. http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCEQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Feml.berkeley.edu%2F~saez%2Fpiketty-saez-stantcheva12thirdelasticity_nber_v2.pdf&ei=NngtVLmrIrSu7AaZqYGABw&usg=AFQjCNGFYzkmfNFiSA6mbRudepdVez2gcw&bvm=bv.76477589,d.ZGU&cad=rja

 

The doubling of the share of national income enjoyed by the richest 1% over the past 30 years has largely happened in English speaking countries and it has been at the expense of the middle. Median incomes in real terms have barely changed at all in 30 years in the US. All that is needed is the political will to tighten up tax breaks and loopholes instead of pretending to the poor they are on their side whilst pushing more money at those already best off.

 

You will never fundamentally understand this if you continue to maintain this line of thinking. The government does not earn any money, it can only take it from those who do, companies or individuals. Your first line is so far off the mark as to be laughable. The wealthy pay a lot of tax, far more than their 'fair share', but the vast bulk of it comes from the ordinary people.

[Whitey Grandad]

That is exactly why the minimum wage should be higher and taxation more progressive.

 

People are most powerfully motivated to work by a need to achieve a decent standard of living for themselves and their family. People whose current situation is eating past sell by date cheap carp and live in a cold damp shoebox will struggle harder to get more money than somebody who already has two houses and three cars. Well paid people usually do their jobs because they are more satisfying and enjoyable than being a bin man or working in Kiplings cakes - they wont give them up if the tax increases and their accountant's scope for 'sheltering' money is restricted.

 

That will only put people out of work.