We're All In This Together .....

[Beef Oven]

I don't think ahinton and others have been sufficiently clear on why they want reductions in income tax. Is it principally (a) to enable the Government to collect more in tax (b) to prevent fraud or (c) another reason and if this what?

I thought my post made it clear why I want to see a different tax regime. It's about supply-led demand for the purpose of economic growth in order to increase the commonwealth (excuse the old-speak :winkeye:).

[Lateralthinking1]

To ahinton, teamsaint, Beef Oven

Some further thoughts:

- Has there ever been an example where law avoidance has been dealt with by a policy that rewards many who have broken the law? I can't think of one.

- Income tax rates decreased from 1979 to the late 2000s, substantially and consistently. During that time, we had high unemployment and low unemployment, what appeared to be a functioning economy - although many would say it wasn't in actuality - and a virtual basket case. The latter seems likely to last sufficiently to be the ultimate consequence of this and other measures. What is the evidence that lower tax rates lead to efficiencies? I don't see it.

- Let us say that you have three children. During each of the next seven days, you would like to give each a dinner.
However, rather than having the money for 21 dinners, you only have the money for 9. You have a scale of merit - who does housework, who tries the hardest, who uses initiative, who doesn't steal - and you work out that on that scale Child A would get 5, Child B would get 3 and Child C would get 1. Do you stick to this scale or reallocate? If the latter, how and why?

- I think we need to ask questions about suppliers. A guy was on the radio, moaning about the tax rates. 20-30 years ago he had set up 83 shops. If it was now, he said, he wouldn't even begin in this country. There would be no point. What he omitted to say was that the tax rates were massively higher in his day. Is this a case perhaps of suppliers wanting just too much and needing to manage their expectations in a more businesslike way?

- One of the issues here is the people haven't got a lot to offer. I was a civil servant. From what I can see, low tax here is being argued by another ex-civil servant, someone in HR and a musician/curator. I am sure that everyone does tremendous work but you could bring the tax rates down to nil and it won't do anything for finite resources. I see it as a con.

[teamsaint]

i am not suggesting that we reward law breakers, or even those who use legal avoidance techniques.
I am suggesting that there can be a better system for raising the tax that we need to, and that this could have the added virtue of lower rates for all.
It is a mistake to confuse lower rates for income tax bands, with lower overall taxation.

It is certainly true that plenty of greedy people at the top want lower rates.But what they want is much lower rates for them, along with the current system that continues to allow wholesale avoidance alongside lower rates.

I think there is a big lie perpetrated also. The rich, as at present complain about high UK rates.......but 50% isn't high by international or historical standards. But be that as it may, a simpler system, lower rates,higher personal allowances, taxes that can't be avoided ,are goals to aim for, in the interests of all.

[Lateralthinking1]

i am not suggesting that we reward law breakers, or even those who use legal avoidance techniques. I am suggesting that there can be a better system for raising the tax that we need to, and that this could have the added virtue of lower rates for all. It is a mistake to confuse lower rates for income tax bands, with lower overall taxation. It is certainly true that plenty of greedy people at the top want lower rates.But what they want is much lower rates for them, along with the current system that continues to allow wholesale avoidance alongside lower rates. I think there is a big lie perpetrated also. The rich, as at present complain about high UK rates.......but 50% isn't high by international or historical standards. But be that as it may, a simpler system, lower rates,higher personal allowances, taxes that can't be avoided ,are goals to aim for, in the interests of all.

The law avoiders would have helped to perpetuate the move by suggesting that they then wouldn't act unlawfully. Their effective representative was putting forward that very argument for change on You and Yours on R4 last month. They would benefit.

I don't want lower tax rates even for those on average salaries. I was a civil servant on an average salary. I didn't want them. What good would they do if the millions still there did get them? None of them would be manufacturing or creating jobs. Most wouldn't even be buying a great deal more. They would be paying off their debts to big business. Fortunately, I was never a patsy to credit - and I wouldn't buy a great deal more if £100,000 suddenly dropped through the letterbox. There's little I want. That is the view incidentally from someone who wonders "how will I be housed and keep myself fed in two years time?"

Faith in the Commonwealth is smashing. Unfortunately it is not wholly shared by Government. That is why we pour
millions into Somalia in the forlorn hope that it will become a trader "one day" rather than being ravaged by warlords.

Business is shipping out jobs to Vietnam and paying a pittance. It has tried to establish the same regime here by "accepting" benefits people on work placement. Of course, it wants lower rates. Given what it is now prepared to pay staff, if anything at all, it has to have some way of ensuring that they aren't going to work weighing six stone because of hunger and unable to function.

There has never been a time in history when the rich have ever been able to say they are rich. It is the last taboo. The columns given over to the current bleating are probably a hundred times more in number than those who are arguing for higher benefits. It is really quite extraordinary how people have tolerated their destruction of the economy. They ain't going to do the same with democracy unless, that is, they are willing to barricade themselves in behind electric gates and never leave their houses.

[Beef Oven]

To ahinton, teamsaint, Beef Oven

Some further thoughts:

- Has there ever been an example where law avoidance has been dealt with by a policy that rewards many who have broken the law? I can't think of one.

- Income tax rates decreased from 1979 to the late 2000s, substantially and consistently. During that time, we had high unemployment and low unemployment, what appeared to be a functioning economy - although many would say it wasn't in actuality - and a virtual basket case. The latter seems likely to last sufficiently to be the ultimate consequence of this and other measures. What is the evidence that lower tax rates lead to efficiencies? I don't see it.

- Let us say that you have three children. During each of the next seven days, you would like to give each a dinner daily.
However, rather than having the money for 21 dinners, you only have the money for 9. You have a scale of merit - who does housework, who tries the hardest, who uses initiative, who doesn't steal - and you work out that on that scale Child A would get 5, Child B would get 3 and Child C would get 1. Do you stick to this scale or reallocate? If the latter, how and why?

- I think we need to ask questions about suppliers. A guy was on the radio, moaning about the tax rates. 20-30 years ago he had set up 83 shops. If it was now, he said, he wouldn't even begin in this country. There would be no point. What he omitted to say was that the tax rates were massively higher in his day. Is this a case perhaps of suppliers wanting just too much and needing to manage their expectations in a more businesslike way?

- One of the issues here is the people haven't got a lot to offer. I was a civil servant. From what I can see, low tax here is being argued by another ex-civil servant, someone in HR and a musician/curator. I am sure that everyone does tremendous work but you could bring the tax rates down to nil and it won't do anything for finite resources. I see it as a con.

Lateral

We might know more than you realise, and certainly the shakers and movers in Argentina, Mongolia and Turkey (that's to say nothing of Asia and China) have enjoyed economic and political success by avoiding the rather indulgent policies of Europe and America.

That's all I'm trying to say really.

[Lateralthinking1]

Lateral

We might know more than you realise, and certainly the shakers and movers in Argentina, Mongolia and Turkey (that's to say nothing of Asia and China) have enjoyed economic and political success by avoiding the rather indulgent policies of Europe and America.

That's all I'm trying to say really.

Well, let's all look forward to Britain putting in as effective a regime as Mongolia. The problem with the experts is that they have been wrong so many times - ie trickle down theory and all the rest - that it is really like listening to a bunch of Canutes.

[MrGongGong]

Well, let's all look forward to Britain putting in as an effective regime as Mongolia. The problem with the experts is that they have been wrong so many times - ie trickle down theory and all the rest - that it is really like listening to a bunch of Canutes.

Except that Canute was showing how powerless he was rather than thinking that he could hold back the tide, some things are more powerful than people etc etc

[Lateralthinking1]

Except that Canute was showing how powerless he was rather than thinking that he could hold back the tide, some things are more powerful than people etc etc

......and it depends who has the perception.

[MrGongGong]

......and it depends who has the perception.

indeed :winkeye:

[Beef Oven]

Well, let's all look forward to Britain putting in as an effective regime as Mongolia. The problem with the experts is that they have been wrong so many times - ie trickle down theory and all the rest - that it is really like listening to a bunch of Canutes.

If only we could do what Mongolia is doing! It's not what 'experts' are saying, it's all about what countries are DOING (Turkey has achieved 8/9% economic growth over the last few years!) and trickle-down theory is not what I am talking about - regarding this subject, you may be chewing more than you have bitten off. :winkeye:

.

[Lateralthinking1]

Turkey is second in Europe to Sweden which has always had high tax rates. Sweden's success has not stopped business from complaining about high tax. Turkey started from a pretty chronic position - even now unemployment is at 11% and inflation at over 7%.

A more general point. Looking at the detailed exit polls in Ohio, I am struck by the differences among Republicans by age group. Those who favour the lower tax rate candidates are among the least experienced.

17-24 - 65%
25-29 - 78%
30-39 - 72%
40-49 - 65%
50-64 - 60%
65 pls - 52%

The 25-39 year olds are also far more likely to oppose abortion and gay marriage than any other age group. In fact, there the differences are more pronounced. It is I think the parental instinct. No interference in our lives. Every interference in that of others. It wasn't always that way. It used to be that the oldest were the more economically and socially conservative. Most of the current parents were raised liberally. Perhaps too much so with hindsight. As adults, they have to have their own way.

[Beef Oven]

Turkey is second in Europe to Sweden which has always had high tax rates. Sweden's success has not stopped business from complaining about high tax. Turkey started from a pretty chronic position - even now unemployment is at 11% and inflation at over 7%.

A more general point. Looking at the detailed exit polls in Ohio, I am struck by the differences among Republicans by age group. Those who favour the lower tax rate candidates are among the least experienced.

17-24 - 65%
25-29 - 78%
30-39 - 72%
40-49 - 65%
50-64 - 60%
65 pls - 52%

The 25-39 year olds are also far more likely to oppose abortion and gay marriage than any other age group. In fact, there the differences are more pronounced. It is I think the parental instinct. No interference in our lives. Every interference in that of others. It wasn't always that way. It used to be that the oldest were the more economically and socially conservative.

Chewing more than you've bitten off #2

Turkey has driven down inflation from 67% to current levels through sensible economic supply-side policies, including LOW taxes, e.g. 15% lower rate income tax and 35% highest level income tax.

[Lateralthinking1]

Chewing more than you've bitten off #2 Turkey has driven down inflation from 67% to current levels through sensible economic supply-side policies, including LOW taxes, e.g. 15% lower rate income tax and 35% highest level income tax.

And some of Sweden's rates have been at 60%. They are doing better than Turkey. Furthermore, with high rates since the 1960s, they have been economically successful in comparative terms for half a century. They haven't had to get themselves out of one unholy mess.

You can take any isolated example over a short-term period and say "this improvement was because of this". All the evidence from Britain is that tax rates can be higher than they are now and not impede success. Ask Thorneycroft and Heathcoat-Amery. Ask Geoffrey Howe. Ask Nigel Lawson why for five of his six years as Chancellor the rates were higher or as high as they are now.

Ask George Osborne why he said:

A country with an almost double-digit deficit cannot add to its deficit in the middle of a sovereign debt storm to cut tax, presumably on a temporary basis, because you would have to then put it back up again to deal with the deficit. I don't think Britain has the fiscal luxury to do that sort of thing. Tax cuts should be for life not just for Christmas.

What is striking about the rates in Turkey is that they aren't very low. You are calling for 25%, not 35%, for higher earners.

[Beef Oven]

And some of Sweden's rates have been at 60%. They are doing better than Turkey. Furthermore, with high rates since the 1960s, they have been economically successful in comparative terms for half a century. They haven't had to get themselves out of one unholy mess.

You can take any isolated example over a short-term period and say "this improvement was because of this". All the evidence from Britain is that tax rates can be higher than they are now and not impede success. Ask Thorneycroft and Heathcoat-Amery. Ask Geoffrey Howe. Ask Nigel Lawson why for five of his six years as Chancellor the rates were higher or as high as they are now.

Ask George Osborne why he said:

A country with an almost double-digit deficit cannot add to its deficit in the middle of a sovereign debt storm to cut tax, presumably on a temporary basis, because you would have to then put it back up again to deal with the deficit. I don't think Britain has the fiscal luxury to do that sort of thing. Tax cuts should be for life not just for Christmas.

What is striking about the rates in Turkey is that they aren't very low. You are calling for 25%, not 35%, for higher earners.

Ah good, back to Britain. Yes 25%, flat rate, for life. The more you earn, the more you pay, just as it should be. You appear to be getting it now. :laugh:

P.S. And don't forget the 12k free-pay.

[Lateralthinking1]

just as it should be

Yes but I am interested in that idea. Why?

This was my starting point this evening. You could see it as being of high principle - "it's only fair" - but in complete fairness that would have to based on a direct link between the amount of earnings and some sort of recognised principle. Otherwise, "fair principle" would be highly selective.

We all know the obvious contrast between a nurse and a winner on X Factor. For sure, that is the market at work but I could never sign up to a situation where the amount of money was the only basis for equal principle. I'm not even sure I see any principle being attached to wads of cash.

Anyhow, there it is. People have different views.