Politics at Westminster | BREAKING: UKIP
- Thread starter Team Brian GB
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
I like different opinions. Much rather debate here than on Guido Fawkes or something similarly awful.
True enough but this is all above us to be honest. Without access to information and a couple of weeks in a dark room with a pen we're not going to be able to formulate the optimal tax system. As it is, it's unavoidable that people will avoid tax. It's also a undeniable fact that people who earn more can afford to do without more. It makes, at face value, logical sense to tax wealthier people more over a certain band. You ensure that the poorest get the majority chunk of their earning, while ensuring the wealthier get a similar proportion below some band, then chunks of money on top of that. We can disagree over the positioning of the bands and the values of taxation but I think the style of taxation we use in the UK is a very sound one. Any sort of flat or flatter style tax would surely struggle to generate anywhere near enough revenue without squeezing the poor far too much.
Okay, but the real powers that be in Europe are the nations themselves. The national parliments thrmselves.
Who are these people who aren't elected in the EU
That's 40% of the public.
40% believe "A 50p top tax rate should be introduced (even if it did not bring in any extra money) - it is morally right that the rich should pay higher taxes".
70% of Labour voters.
That's 40% of the public.
40% believe "A 50p top tax rate should be introduced (even if it did not bring in any extra money) - it is morally right that the rich should pay higher taxes".
70% of Labour voters.
What would that number drop to if the reality of the situation was explained? If the question read: "A 50p top tax rate should be introduced (even if it brought in less money) - it is morally right that the rich should pay higher taxes"
What do you mean "if the reality of the situation was explained?"?
This was the question: 'Imagine it was the case that a top tax rate of 50p did not bring in any extra money. Which of the following would best reflect your view?'
44% - If a 50p top tax rate would not bring in any extra money then it should not be introduced
40% - A 50p top tax rate should be introduced regardless of what it brings in - it is morally right that the rich should pay higher taxes
7% - Neither
10% - Don't know
http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.ne...ment/c1rz7jiy8q/YG-Archive-140127-50p-Tax.pdf
It shows that a huge part of the public are in favour of using progressive taxes as a way of improving equality.
Polls have also consistently shown the majority of the public are in favour of higher marginal taxes on the richest. A while ago a clear majority was in favour of a 60% top rate.
What do you mean "if the reality of the situation was explained?"?
This was the question: 'Imagine it was the case that a top tax rate of 50p did not bring in any extra money. Which of the following would best reflect your view?'
44% - If a 50p top tax rate would not bring in any extra money then it should not be introduced
40% - A 50p top tax rate should be introduced regardless of what it brings in - it is morally right that the rich should pay higher taxes
7% - Neither
10% - Don't know
http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.ne...ment/c1rz7jiy8q/YG-Archive-140127-50p-Tax.pdf
It shows that a huge part of the public are in favour of using taxes as a way of decreasing inequality.
Polls have also consistently shown the majority of the public are in favour of higher marginal taxes on the richest. A while ago a clear majority was in favour of a 60% top rate.
...I'm in favour of higher rates for the richest too. The point is, however, that there is a cold hard fact to be considered and that is that raising taxes does not always translate to raising tax revenues. We need to maximise the amount of money we make through tax without overly squeezing anyone in society. If we raise taxes on the rich too much we'll end up losing that revenue. Similar to the Tories raising tuition fees to 9 grand a year, it's going to cost them money in the long run since so many people won't pay it.
So the point is, whether it's "morally" right is irrelevant. If the poll explained that this tax hike could well reduce overall revenues (rather than simply not bringing in more money) then how many would actually be in favour of it? Much fewer, I imagine. That 40% would bring it in regardless of what it brings in (presumably even if it decreased revenues) simply because they feel it's "right" is exactly the problem I was talking about a few posts ago. Ideology should not dictate things like this.
It's dead simple to change - you put the onus on people to pay their due tax and make it a criminal offence to avoid paying tax by artificial means (ie fraud). Would knock out 90% of avoidance overnight. Corporately firms like Amazon would be required to pay a tax on UK earned income. It's not rocket science.
That is the current system, is it not?
It just so happens the wealthier you get, the more people you gather to you who know ways of sneaking through the system. When they are caught the tax is clawed back, but it's hard to create water tight tax law when people are literally paid to find "legal" ways around it.
Er, they're not empirical studies. There's plenty of data. And the downward pressure in certain sectors effect is a conclusion the studies draw. But it's slight, and not overall. And there's plenty of other factors which cause downward pressure much more than immigration that the type of parties who consider immigration a big problem encourage through their economic policies.
In the extreme short-term. But we shouldn't make policies based on the extreme short-term. And it's very easy to see how immigration can help to bring about economic growth. It's an incredibly basic theory. More people = bigger economy.
No, for example Gary Barlow would be heading for jail for fraud now.
Fair enough.
(Sorry, I missed this.)
You're talking about reaching the other side of the Laffer curve at 50%?
No-one really knows what the revenue-maximising top rate of tax is, but I doubt we're approaching it. From a U.S. / Europe perspective:
Indeed I am. I doubt 50% would hit it too, in all fairness, but the fact that there was a general disregard for the effect of the policy in favour of "because it's morally right" is what I object to. The result of any change should be the primary importance, not whether or not it fits with your ideology.
There's no evidence to support a Laffer effect in the absence of tax avoidance schemes.
For his music you mean?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...t-nearly-everything-survey-shows-8697821.html
Nope, fully clued up.
Are you on the Wind up Al? Your comment about asking people to outline just one lie or exaggeration from UKIP about immigration
, before trying to backtrack by saying you were actually talking about something else, would indicate that you are.http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...t-nearly-everything-survey-shows-8697821.html
Nope, fully clued up.
Are you on the Wind up Al? Your comment about asking people to outline just one lie or exaggeration from UKIP about immigration
I asked for one thing they said that wasn't true.
What I was trying to do was to highlight that they rely on exaggeration and on distorting reality to make their points, but they never outright lie.
That's a hanging offence.
Yes they do - all those 'numbers' about Romanian crime - all lies.
Exaggerating and lies, this is a first in uk politics, well done ukip
Like this then for example?
Abhorrent, not at all realistically true, but not an outright lie.
Can you not see what I'm saying?
Bongo Bongo land doesn't even exist either.
Yeah, you're saying it's okay to lie.
I can see what you're saying.
Unfortunately, it is wrong though.
Firstly, those 26 million include unemployed people in Britain. So yes, I would assume that most of them are looking for 'our jobs' considering they're included in the Us. First lie.
Secondly, it is an outright lie. There are 26 million unemployed in the EU, many of whom aren't looking for British jobs because many of them would likely already be here. To imply that every single unemployed European wants 'your job' is an outright lie.
Can you imagine how fecked a company would be if 26 million people applied for the same job, too?
It is an issue you shouldn't mess around with, though. Can end up with blood on your hands.
That figure IS a lie and total exaggeration. 26 million is pretty much the population of Romania and Bulgaria COMBINED. Besides, if its any country that UKIP should be worried for its Italy or Spain, that's where the Romanians and Bulgarians prefer to go due to some kind of cultural affinity.
Jesus Christ, we have Golden Dawn at 9.3% and the National Front have won in France.
So we now have Nazis in the European Parliament.
So we now have Nazis in the European Parliament.
Real anti establishment movement happening over europe.
Greece was odd. Far left or far right. Not much in between.
If you've got serious problems, people look for drastic solutions. You rarely get moderate suggestions gaining support if shit's going down.
I'm worried for Europe, what the feck is going on?
Austerity . When times are hard. These far right parties seem to thrive.
Did you people vote? Not sure about the turnout.
Christ, Miliband lost Doncaster.
Voted Labour, the lesser evil imo.
Yep.
The problem with EU elections is, those voting UKIP probably hold by far the strongest views on the EU, so they're guaranteed a proportionally high turn out.