The Politics Thread 2019

[Grumpy Git]

4 minutes ago, AdamRam said:

Why ? Apply a 1% to all those earning above 30k, what is wrong with that ?

You said everyone in your first post.

[alexxxxx]

1 minute ago, Angry Ram said:

Dunno, you tell me exactly what his situation is.. Child care, looking after an elderly relative financially.. 

I will check back but was in not just a glib comment with no back up? I maybe wrong and there was context and if so, no problem, I was wrong. All I am saying, is don’t shoot the fella without knowing what that 80k goes on. Unless of course you do know and can enlighten the great unwashed left of the situation.. 

Yeah but that's the what I'm struggling to understand - I'm not saying that people on 80k don't necessarily face tight finances sometimes, I'm struggling to see how the problems that someone who earns 80k is any different to someone who earns 25k.

[jono]

33 minutes ago, Grumpy Git said:

Fair enough and good for you.

Do you have any empathy for people earning the minimum wage bearing the biggest burden of the tax take as a proportion of their earnings? Remember it was George Osborne who hiked VAT up by 2.5% to 20% to pay for "austerity". I think that hurts someone on £320/week a lot more than someone on £1,500/week, afterall a pint costs the same no matter how rich you are.

I'm also old enough to remember Margaret Thatcher's government hike VAT from 8% to 15%. That was a nice one for the working man to take on the chin.

The Tories also increased it again from 15% to 17.5% to pay for the disaster that was the Poll Tax. People have very short memories.

Statistics are a wonderful thing. But we do have a progressive tax system.
Of that 320 quid most of it is tax free. To the extent that that 320 quid person is paying about 20 / 25 quid in total income tax. It’s not a big ask is it ? Don’t we all want to give something to the whole ? 
 

[AdamRam]

1 minute ago, Grumpy Git said:

You said everyone in your first post.

If you want to take my post literally then yes I said everyone, however as I stated an austerity tax, therefore it would go to address that situation and therefore they wouldn’t obviously pay for it.

[Angry Ram]

1 minute ago, alexxxxx said:

Yeah but that's the what I'm struggling to understand - I'm not saying that people on 80k don't necessarily face tight finances sometimes, I'm struggling to see how the problems that someone who earns 80k is any different to someone who earns 25k.

Depends if that 25k is all his or hers.. Perhaps that 25k has little coming out of it. I don’t know, all I am saying is don’t judge a book by its cover. 

[Grumpy Git]

7 minutes ago, AdamRam said:

Why, you can’t apply a different VAT rate based upon what you earn, therefore you apply it at source. Unless you are labour of course, then you just give free stuff away to buy votes and tax the rich to pay for it ?

I know you can't, but VAT affects lower incomes by many more times than someone wealthy, that's why the Tories love indirect tax.

A bloke earning £20K a year buying a new £15K car will be paying 12.5% of his income in VAT.

A bloke earning £150K a year buying a new £50K car will be paying 5.5% of his income in VAT and if he only bought the £15K car, he would be paying 1.7% of his income in VAT.

[GboroRam]

16 minutes ago, AdamRam said:

Why ? Apply a 1% to all those earning above 30k, what is wrong with that ?

Because the people who earn 30k can afford it less than the people who earn 40k, and the people who earn 40k can afford it less than 50k. Etc. 

Honestly I wouldn't have a problem with that, but it's not an option on Thursday. 

I want to see public services funded and don't trust the party that cut it in the first place. Who do I have the option to vote for? 

[Gritstone Ram]

6 minutes ago, Grumpy Git said:

I know you can't, but VAT affects lower incomes by many more times than someone wealthy, that's why the Tories love indirect tax.

A bloke earning £20K a year buying a new £15K car will be paying 12.5% of his income in VAT.

A bloke earning £150K a year buying a new £50K car will be paying 5.5% of his income in VAT and if he only bought the £15K car, he would be paying 1.7% of his income in VAT.

Two couples live next door to each other and the household income for both is £80k one couple pays £12k tax the other £24k. Who is the greater tax payer? Yet both have the same lifestyles.

[Grumpy Git]

1 minute ago, Van Gritters said:

Two couples live next door to each other and the household income for both is £80k one couple pays £12k tax the other £24k. Who is the greater tax payer? Yet both have the same lifestyles.

Sorry, but what has that got to do with anything? If one half of one couple earns all the £80K then what is stopping the non earning half getting a job?

[AdamRam]

1 minute ago, GboroRam said:

Because the people who earn 30k can afford it less than the people who earn 40k, and the people who earn 40k can afford it less than 50k. Etc. 

Honestly I wouldn't have a problem with that, but it's not an option on Thursday. 

I want to see public services funded and don't trust the party that cut it in the first place. Who do I have the option to vote for? 

But it’s a percentage, the higher earners would still be paying more overall to the pot.

It’s not an option because by penalising the 5% you are not alienating the majority of the voters. 

And you trust Labour, or is it just that you have always been brought up to vote that side ?  

[AdamRam]

Just now, Grumpy Git said:

Sorry, but what has that got to do with anything? If one half of one couple earns all the £80K then what is stopping the non earning half getting a job?

A lot of things, that’s like saying what’s stopping someone who earns minimum wage from getting a higher paid job.

[G STAR RAM]

4 hours ago, 1of4 said:

Gave up asking the same question many moons ago.

I have been told repeatedly that leave means leave. 

Which doesn't really answer the question.

Gave up asking or gave up pretending that people hadnt already given answers?

[Gritstone Ram]

1 minute ago, Grumpy Git said:

Sorry, but what has that got to do with anything? If one half of one couple earns all the £80K then what is stopping the non earning half getting a job?

They probably would have to.

[Highgate]

1 hour ago, jono said:

I need to do some more reading, I have a dim recollection that it was Trotsky who was the  “purist” in terms of Marxism but fell foul of internal politics in the various factions of the early Soviet Union ? 

Yeah....me too.  I think anyone would have been more of a purist than Stalin, who was an inhuman monster.  It's certainly easier to talk specifically about Marxism, Leninism, Stalinism or whatever rather than just 'communism', as there are so many different versions and interpretations of what communism was and is.  And it's often seen as the spectre on the left, equal in magnitude and malevolence to it's Fascist/Nazi counterpart on the right.  But a misleading and simplistic viewpoint in my opinion.  Now if they talked about Stalinism as the counterpoint to Nazism instead....then that would be more accurate.

 

[Gritstone Ram]

1 minute ago, AdamRam said:

A lot of things, that’s like saying what’s stopping someone who earns minimum wage from getting a higher paid job.

Or working more hours. 

[Grumpy Git]

3 minutes ago, AdamRam said:

And you trust Labour, or is it just that you have always been brought up to vote that side ?  

... and you trust Johnson?

[G STAR RAM]

1 hour ago, i-Ram said:

Care to share who you are thinking of, or is this just casual shitslinging?

On the assumption that one of them is me, the poster was spot on.

I'm used to having mud slung though, water off a ducks back.

The thing I find sad is that rather than debate the points the person has made, they find it easier just to label him a racist and sweep the issue under the carpet rather than risk offending people.

 

[AdamRam]

1 minute ago, Grumpy Git said:

... and you trust Johnson?

I don’t trust any politician.

[jono]

We actually have a good and fair basic income tax system. Additionally All governments prefer none income tax taxes because I suspect they are easier and simpler to collect. Yeah a plumber might dodge a bit of VAT but selling petrol and you can’t avoid it. But you can’t push it too far or you end up with a second economy. 
 

the thing that is really wrong is how the law is drawn and enforced. Large corporations dodging tax legally because they reduce profits by adding ahem cough cough “admin costs” from a Luxembourg parent. I am sure there are a raft of other schemes as well. I’d be saying “Oi stop being a clever bugger or we’ll just add a company specific invoice tax.” Google, Amazon et al please note. 

You could of course slash the corporation tax and make yourself the new Luxembourg but on a big scale that might be a race to the bottom .? Ideologues feel free to comment ?

[GboroRam]

8 minutes ago, AdamRam said:

But it’s a percentage, the higher earners would still be paying more overall to the pot.

It’s not an option because by penalising the 5% you are not alienating the majority of the voters. 

And you trust Labour, or is it just that you have always been brought up to vote that side ?  

I trust Corbyn more than any leader in my lifetime. I come from a small mining village which had its heart ripped out by the tories in the 80s, so I learned quickly what anti worker politics does.