Home Politics & Debate

Conservative policy group recommends £21bn tax cuts

Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6063832.stm
reduce the basic income tax rate from 22% to 20% and remove 2.5 million low earners from paying tax.

The earnings threshold, below which people do not pay income tax, would increase from £5,035 to £7,185.

The commission also backs abolishing stamp duty on shares and cutting business taxes in its report.

And it recommends abolishing inheritance tax and replacing it with a "capital gains tax on death", which would not be levied on family homes.

Lets hope Cameron listens to the recommendations.

Already, high taxes are starting to put business off Britain - further, millions of people want tax cuts on personal income. The Conservatives should act on these proposals when they win the next election.
«1

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    how exactly are the tories supposed to pay for that then??
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    how exactly are the tories supposed to pay for that then??

    I haven't read the entire report.

    But lower taxes fuel economic growth, help businesses and attract business to the UK.

    Cutting direct personal taxes can increase revenue from indirect taxes; e.g. people get a tax cut, they buy more stuff and VAT revenue increases.

    Furthermore reducing waste and unnecessary bureaucracy in government could save billions. Reforming the Civil Service and welfare could fund even greater tax cuts. Taxation is morally wrong, it exists in some form as a necessary evil but it should be cut. This Conservative policy group would go some of the way towards alleviating the unfair tax burden on millions of hard-working Britons.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Yeah, let's fuck our remaining public services, why not. Those two extra pence in the Pound are certainly going to come handy to pay for private health and schooling. Just pity the poor fools who can't afford that.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    But lower taxes fuel economic growth, help businesses and attract business to the UK.

    Been tries. Failed.

    Better to use the £21bn to help those who don't even pay tax TBH.
    Furthermore reducing waste and unnecessary bureaucracy in government could save billions.

    Where?

    It's often trotted out as something which is easy to do and which would save millions, but I've yet to see anyone say where precisely these savings could be made...
    This Conservative policy group would go some of the way towards alleviating the unfair tax burden on millions of hard-working Britons.

    They could have also suggested closing a few of the loopholes which means that the richer people in our society don't pay their "fair share" of tax, that would help do two things - reduce the burden on the lower paid and increase support to the unemplyed etc to actually become a burden on taxes themselves...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    They could have also suggested closing a few of the loopholes which means that the richer people in our society don't pay their "fair share" of tax, that would help do two things - reduce the burden on the lower paid and increase support to the unemplyed etc to actually become a burden on taxes themselves...

    How much difference would that really make? Tbh until we adopt flat tax I salute any rich person who does exploit every loophole there is. High earners simply by earning more already pay more tax...A higher rate just discourages initiative and enterprise. It's also true that high earners through sending their kids to private school and using private healthcare cost the State a lot less. Fact is for many doctors, engineers, etc going abroad would make financial sense, I would not be surprised if there is another brain drain soon.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I agree that the lower tax threshold needs to go up and that the lowest rates needs to come down. However we also need to have a high rate of tax for high earners.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    How much difference would that really make? Tbh until we adopt flat tax

    How is a flat tax fair? A flat tax means that low wage earners pay proportionately more of their wages in tax than high earners.
    I salute any rich person who does exploit every loophole there is.

    Tosser.
  • Teh_GerbilTeh_Gerbil Stalin's Organist Posts: 13,327
    Ah, more tax releif for the rich, more poor people losing out - and a huge amount of loss of public services and a black hole where money should be.

    Same old tory wank then.
    the Lib Dems said they were "confused" on tax.
    :lol: Supprise.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Blagsta wrote:
    How is a flat tax fair? A flat tax means that low wage earners pay proportionately more of their wages in tax than high earners.

    Depends what the rate is,doesn`t it ? :chin:

    What about a 100% rate ?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    One of the proposals is to remove the 0.5% tax on share trades, a tax which apparently stops the LSE competing with other stock exchanges, except its the biggest and has been for a while, so that doesnt really hold water does it.

    Simplification should be the way forward, not just cuts. Getting rid of NI for example would save a packet.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Blagsta wrote:
    How is a flat tax fair? A flat tax means that low wage earners pay proportionately more of their wages in tax than high earners.

    Not necessarily if the earnings threshold below which people do not pay tax is increased.
    Blagsta wrote:
    Tosser.

    Grow up.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Grow up.
    Well if you choose to salute morally repugnant thieving cunts, don't expect much sympathy from people...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    Well if you choose to salute morally repugnant thieving cunts, don't expect much sympathy from people...

    That description fits Labour just as well as the Tories.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I wasn't talking about politicians actually; I was talking about rich people who exploit every loophole in the law to avoid paying taxes. Disillusioned thinks they're great and deserve to be saluted.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    Well if you choose to salute morally repugnant thieving cunts, don't expect much sympathy from people...

    :lol: They're thieving? I really can't see what is so morally repugnant. High earners simply by earning more would even with a flat tax contribute infinitely more than the rest of us. And since these very high earners that the left love to vilify often use private healthcare, send their kids to private schools and rarely claim benefits they would even with a flat tax be paying more than their fair share...(Although that is slightly simplistic of course given that plenty of people for tax purposes are 'high earners' but not rich enough to afford private healthcare and private education). I don't think punishing high earners and stifling enterprise is moral tbh. Nor do I think it is moral for so many people on low incomes to be paying so much in taxes. There's something very wrong when for many people the financial difference between staying at home and getting benefits or going out to work is insignificant.

    Excessive taxation is morally repugnant. Abu Hamza costing taxpayers £250,000 is morally repugnant. For someone already paying too much to save themselves a few quid, that's just common sense.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    A flat tax does mean that the poor get unfairly penalised with a higher proportionate tax bill- 22% of £10,000 is a lot more damaging to someone than 22% of £100,000.

    Whilst higher rates of tax for top earners do drive the rich away (when top rate was lowered to 40% tax income from the top 10% of earners actually went up), if the top rates are lowered too far then either the poor are left to pick up the bill, or public services which usually benefit the poor more are left to decay and suffer. If Thatcher felt that 40% was the optimum level 20 years ago, I'd suggest that times have changed, and the upper rate should be raised again to 50% for those earning over £75,000 a year.

    A flat rate tax would seriously damage those who earn just too much to be considered a low-income person, as the flat rate would have to be higher than the current 22% standard rate in order to prevent a huge amount of income loss.

    The poor should pay less, and the rich should pay more. I don't see what is "morally repugnant" about that, and I fail to see where enterprise is "stifled". The companies that leave the UK would leave regardless of tax rates, as the cost of labour is so much lower in the countries they move to.

    There is excessive taxation against the poor in this country- flat rate hidden taxes, such as VAT and petrol tax, unfairly hinder the poor. The reason the hidden tax is so high is because the rich feel that they shouldn't have to pay for the society they live in, the society that created their wealth after all. Entrepeneurs can't exist in a vacuum.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    :lol: They're thieving? I really can't see what is so morally repugnant.
    No I guess you wouldn't... :rolleyes:


    High earners simply by earning more would even with a flat tax contribute infinitely more than the rest of us. And since these very high earners that the left love to vilify often use private healthcare, send their kids to private schools and rarely claim benefits they would even with a flat tax be paying more than their fair share...
    No. Their fair share would be at the very least paying the existing rates so the whole nation can benefit, rather than going to extreme lenghts to exploit every loophole in the book so they can cheat the country of the taxes they should be paying.

    Poor oppresed rich people... Imagine if they had to pay the full tax they should be paying and had to make do with a 120ft yatch instead of a 180ft one. How could they cope?!
    I don't think punishing high earners and stifling enterprise is moral tbh. Nor do I think it is moral for so many people on low incomes to be paying so much in taxes.
    Why do you think so many people are on low incomes in the first place?

    Surely it has nothing to do with those rich people earning dozens of times (or sometimes, 100 times plus) more than their colleagues?

    That is the biggest immorality of them all.
    Excessive taxation is morally repugnant. Abu Hamza costing taxpayers £250,000 is morally repugnant. For someone already paying too much to save themselves a few quid, that's just common sense.
    Rubbish. Rich cunts such as Rupert Murdoch paying 1-2 million in tax instead of the 3-400 million they should is the dictionary definition of morally repugnant. I can only hope there is a heaven and hell after all because believe me, most of the rich in this world will be heading straight to hell to rot for all eternity- even if they had spent every Sunday of their lives in church trying to feel less guilty about their filthy selfishness and contempt for their fellow human beings.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Not necessarily if the earnings threshold below which people do not pay tax is increased.

    Errrr....you obviously it through. If I take £1 out of the £5 you have, that's going to hurt more if £5 is all you have. If I take £1000 out of £5000 you have, its going to hurt less. Think about it.
    Jonti wrote:
    Grow up.

    I think you're a tosser for advocating the rights of rich people to screw over the poor. Nothing childish about it. In fact its you that obviously needs to grow up and experience the real world a little bit. At the moment you're living in some kind of fantasy land.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    budda wrote:
    That description fits Labour just as well as the Tories.

    No argument from me on that one.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    :lol: They're thieving? I really can't see what is so morally repugnant. High earners simply by earning more would even with a flat tax contribute infinitely more than the rest of us. And since these very high earners that the left love to vilify often use private healthcare, send their kids to private schools and rarely claim benefits they would even with a flat tax be paying more than their fair share...(Although that is slightly simplistic of course given that plenty of people for tax purposes are 'high earners' but not rich enough to afford private healthcare and private education). I don't think punishing high earners and stifling enterprise is moral tbh. Nor do I think it is moral for so many people on low incomes to be paying so much in taxes. There's something very wrong when for many people the financial difference between staying at home and getting benefits or going out to work is insignificant.

    High earners have a moral duty to pay more tax. Tax is not merely about what people who pay it get back for themselves. It is, in part, an attempt to redress the inherent inequalities in society.
    Jonti wrote:
    Excessive taxation is morally repugnant. Abu Hamza costing taxpayers £250,000 is morally repugnant. For someone already paying too much to save themselves a few quid, that's just common sense.

    This is relevant, how exactly?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    How much difference would that really make?

    I don't know, how about we actually look at it for a change.

    Which section of the population do you think has higher health and social care needs? Urgo, which section requires more of the "take" from taxtion to be spent on them? And which do you think contributes less, per person?
    Tbh until we adopt flat tax

    Which further penalises the poor...
    I salute any rich person who does exploit every loophole there is.

    Personally I would salute anyone, rich or poor, who found loopholes. I would salute the person that closed them more though.
    High earners simply by earning more already pay more tax.

    Indeed, and why not?

    But here another example, there are two adults in my house. Only one of us works and therefore only one tax threshold is applied. Two people in the house next door have a combined gross salary as I do. Who pays more tax?
    A higher rate just discourages initiative and enterprise.

    Only if yuo are greedy.

    I am in the higher band because I have worked to get there. I have more materiel wealth now than I did when I earned less and yet I contribute more. The two systems work together.
    It's also true that high earners through sending their kids to private school and using private healthcare cost the State a lot less.

    The second part because they also need less healthcare...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Blagsta wrote:
    Errrr....you obviously it through. If I take £1 out of the £5 you have, that's going to hurt more if £5 is all you have. If I take £1000 out of £5000 you have, its going to hurt less. Think about it.

    I have thought about it.

    If "the amount of hurt" is the yardstick AND you are a believer in "redressing the inherent equalities in society", then 100% tax appears to be the ONLY "fair" option.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Blagsta wrote:
    High earners have a moral duty to pay more tax.

    And they do by earning more.

    In society the wealthy have a moral obligation to help the poor, just as in the world wealthier nations have a moral obligation to help poorer nations. However, the goodness of a charitable act is absent if the action was forced. If you give £20 to Oxfam voluntarily you've performed a good deed but it's surely not a good deed if you only donated after having a gun put to your head.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    but it's surely not a good deed if you only donated after having a gun put to your head.

    Seems not.

    There appears to be plenty of folk on this board who have a fondness for violence,whilst equating it with morality.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    seeker wrote:
    violence
    snoring.gif
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    And they do by earning more.

    In society the wealthy have a moral obligation to help the poor, just as in the world wealthier nations have a moral obligation to help poorer nations. However, the goodness of a charitable act is absent if the action was forced. If you give £20 to Oxfam voluntarily you've performed a good deed but it's surely not a good deed if you only donated after having a gun put to your head.


    actually the poorest in this nation pay more tax as a %

    some aspects of this thing i agree with, abolishing the 10% tax rate would be good, as would upping the minumum wage to a 'living wage' and removing tax credits and more VAT exempt items

    first i'd like to see the ID card system scrapped and the national debt paid off though, scrap road tax and compensate it in fuel duty which then would punish people who pollute more

    id merge NI and income tax on the employee side

    another would be to up passenger duty on aircraft flights or charge VAT on EU flights

    and so many more changes

    i could write a manifesto i think :D
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    And they do by earning more.

    Spectaularly failing to engage with the points put to you. Again.
    In society the wealthy have a moral obligation to help the poor, just as in the world wealthier nations have a moral obligation to help poorer nations. However, the goodness of a charitable act is absent if the action was forced. If you give £20 to Oxfam voluntarily you've performed a good deed but it's surely not a good deed if you only donated after having a gun put to your head.

    What the fuck? :confused::confused:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Blagsta wrote:
    What the fuck? :confused::confused:

    Spectacularly failing to engage with the point put to you. :rolleyes:

    You think high earners have a moral duty to pay more tax to help the poor. The idea that someone can be performing a moral duty by doing something mandatory does not make sense. The rationale behind levying additional taxes on higher earners with a higher rate is generally that the rich have a duty to help the poor. They do - but coercing them to perform that duty negates any basis in morality and makes the notion of duty defunct. (In contrast to helping the poor through private charity for instance)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    another would be to up passenger duty on aircraft flights or charge VAT on EU flights

    Why? And make air travel the preserve of the rich again?
Sign In or Register to comment.