"You have to get to the top 40 per cent before you can claim to be a net contributor. Households in the fourth quintile pay £4,113 more in tax than they take out, while the top 20 per cent of earners pay a whopping £20,125 more in than they get back."
=====
By which metric is this the case? Sounds nonsensical to me because everything the rich have they take out of society.
comment by Mamba the Chief Disinformation Officer on JA606 (U1282)
posted 1 minute ago
"You have to get to the top 40 per cent before you can claim to be a net contributor. Households in the fourth quintile pay £4,113 more in tax than they take out, while the top 20 per cent of earners pay a whopping £20,125 more in than they get back."
=====
By which metric is this the case? Sounds nonsensical to me because everything the rich have they take out of society.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That’s why I pointed out business owners and corporations benefit from the current system.
Still doesn't answer my question. That paragraph sounds like some cherry picked stats for propaganda services. Seemingly arguing that the rich are somehow the actual victims of taxation. You gotta be kidding me.
comment by goadocwatson (U1016)
posted 3 hours, 9 minutes ago
I did not mean that sportswomen are moaning as I think they are happy with the progress they are making.
It's the latest bunch of people with a bandwagon to roll on - WASPI
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Aye, and the bird in the headlines (former primary headteacher) is on £30k pension and had a lumper of £75k.
Source- first cousin who has a pension of £30k and a bumper of £75 k.
They get no sympathy from me, there's a reason we die younger too and it's all the bastrin grafting we do to keep their nails looking nice.
comment by Mamba the Chief Disinformation Officer on JA606 (U1282)
posted 4 minutes ago
Still doesn't answer my question. That paragraph sounds like some cherry picked stats for propaganda services. Seemingly arguing that the rich are somehow the actual victims of taxation. You gotta be kidding me.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Depends how you define “rich”, which is my point. The media make out that being a higher makes you rich, it doesn’t.
The middle class have been squeezed most by a lack of pay rises, rising costs and taxes over the past 20 years. Earning £50k-£70k used to mean you were a good earner, those goalposts have shifted so far in recent times and because of the tax system pay rises at that bracket mean little.
So equality for men then and both sexes retire at the same age?
comment by Busby (U19985)
posted 15 minutes ago
comment by Mamba the Chief Disinformation Officer on JA606 (U1282)
posted 4 minutes ago
Still doesn't answer my question. That paragraph sounds like some cherry picked stats for propaganda services. Seemingly arguing that the rich are somehow the actual victims of taxation. You gotta be kidding me.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Depends how you define “rich”, which is my point. The media make out that being a higher makes you rich, it doesn’t.
The middle class have been squeezed most by a lack of pay rises, rising costs and taxes over the past 20 years. Earning £50k-£70k used to mean you were a good earner, those goalposts have shifted so far in recent times and because of the tax system pay rises at that bracket mean little.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But you can't blame the tax system for all that though. The corporate culture that outs regular working class people behind the rich and the corporates is far more to blame for that.
Despite this people have voted Tory for a long time when their economic outlook is to privatise everything by selling it off to their buddies in exchange for donations, holidays and new curtains, trickle down economics of fattening the rich and corporates hoping it trickles down to you and me and other middle class squeezing policies.
Meanwhile people like Corbyn are shouting from the roof tops about the growing inequality, not just in this country but across the world and pushing all the policies the middle class should want and need but making no headway whatsoever.
We live in an idiocracy.
comment by Mamba the Chief Disinformation Officer on JA606 (U1282)
posted 58 minutes ago
Still doesn't answer my question. That paragraph sounds like some cherry picked stats for propaganda services. Seemingly arguing that the rich are somehow the actual victims of taxation. You gotta be kidding me.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Tory busby strikes affair
comment by Mamba the Chief Disinformation Officer on JA60... (U1282)
posted 1 hour, 44 minutes ago
comment by Busby (U19985)
posted 15 minutes ago
comment by Mamba the Chief Disinformation Officer on JA606 (U1282)
posted 4 minutes ago
Still doesn't answer my question. That paragraph sounds like some cherry picked stats for propaganda services. Seemingly arguing that the rich are somehow the actual victims of taxation. You gotta be kidding me.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Depends how you define “rich”, which is my point. The media make out that being a higher makes you rich, it doesn’t.
The middle class have been squeezed most by a lack of pay rises, rising costs and taxes over the past 20 years. Earning £50k-£70k used to mean you were a good earner, those goalposts have shifted so far in recent times and because of the tax system pay rises at that bracket mean little.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But you can't blame the tax system for all that though. The corporate culture that outs regular working class people behind the rich and the corporates is far more to blame for that.
Despite this people have voted Tory for a long time when their economic outlook is to privatise everything by selling it off to their buddies in exchange for donations, holidays and new curtains, trickle down economics of fattening the rich and corporates hoping it trickles down to you and me and other middle class squeezing policies.
Meanwhile people like Corbyn are shouting from the roof tops about the growing inequality, not just in this country but across the world and pushing all the policies the middle class should want and need but making no headway whatsoever.
We live in an idiocracy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In the UK, annual tax receipts total about £1000bn.
Of which Income tax accounts for about £250bn, NI £180bn, VAT £160bn and Corp tax about £85bn
The top 10% of earners account for about 33% or income earned, although this is heavily skewed by the top 1 % who earn 12.5%
However, the top 1% also have a 29% share of total tax paid, and the 9% below that (90-99th percentile) contribute 31% of total tax paid. SO the top 10% of earners pay more than 60% of tax personal tax in the UK
When you consider that the average wage of an earner in the 90-99th percentile is £65k, then you can draw a conclusion that the these earners carry the biggest burden
65K is comfortably in the top tax threshold and while some may disagree, does not make someone a good earner or wealthy!
In my experience, what i have seen over my 25+ year career is tax thresholds barely moving, then some proper movement when the 0% threshold also moved upwards, and now back to no movement. More and more people being dragged into the top rate (about £50k) when that level of earning is not considered to be high and as Busby says, pay rises have little impact when over 50% is going in tax and NI.
But while some will say that the higher earners, the top 1% need to take more of the burden, the stats above show that they already are.
Of course rich people pay more tax but that doesn't mean they are taking more of the burden. We are giving money, tax breaks, concessions etc for free to corporates and big business FFS, to make them profitable while regular folk to death, and the corporates still offshore all the money and move heaven and earth to pay as little tax as possible.
My mother-in-law is a WASPI, her husband is of the same age (70) they’ve just sold their business and retired. They both deferred their pension until they retired. The mother-in-law is spitting feathers because her state pension is less than the old pension (rightly so), but what I find even more unfair is she gets around £50 per week more than her husband because she had 8 years of deferred pension and he only had 5 years.
comment by Mamba the Chief Disinformation Officer on JA606 (U1282)
posted 2 hours, 46 minutes ago
Of course rich people pay more tax but that doesn't mean they are taking more of the burden. We are giving money, tax breaks, concessions etc for free to corporates and big business FFS, to make them profitable while regular folk to death, and the corporates still offshore all the money and move heaven and earth to pay as little tax as possible.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I totally agree, in regards to corporations, particularly the large ones you reference. They’re protected to the extent that cannot fail.
I think both devonshire and I were referring mostly to income tax and how the brackets haven’t moved in line with inflation, thus even the higher earners are a lot poorer.
There’s significant help for the poorest (no issue with that), but noting of note for those on okay salaries who have worked hard to get there.
There’s significant help for the poorest (no issue with that), but noting of note for those on okay salaries who have worked hard to get there.
=====
Loaded statement. The poorest are also hard workers. It's like your statement assumes they aren't. It's not just those on OK salaries that work hard and people on OK salaries need less help than the poor. You are advocating for help for people on OK salaries on the basis that they have worked hard, so by default others have not worked hard?
Income tax is all over the place partly because of the approach to and priority in policy, which is the big corporations and the rich. We give them everything and leave large deficits in our budgets which we force the people to cover. We lose well over 100b in possible taxes to these corporations annually, probably more.
Take that away and tax off shored money and relieve the people. The people should always come first. Now they're leaving us down here to argue with each other and take away help from the poor because there is no money, while still spending our taxes to help commit genocide in foreign lands.
They can fack off with that bullsheet. There is more than enough money if we use it well and always put the people first.
I must be missing something here.
The Government told women about the rise in pension age years back but the BBC is littered with women claiming they knew nothing about it with some saying they spent thousands on having to re-train because they were suddenly out of work.
If women think they're due compo for having to work until they're 66 to get State Pension then surely (in the name of equality) so are men.
“Loaded statement. The poorest are also hard workers. It's like your statement assumes they aren't. It's not just those on OK salaries that work hard and people on OK salaries need less help than the poor. You are advocating for help for people on OK salaries on the basis that they have worked hard, so by default others have not worked hard?”
Just to be clear, this isn’t what meant. In the current system, rewards for progression are becoming slimmer and slimmer.
comment by Mamba the Chief Disinformation Officer on JA60... (U1282)
posted 2 hours, 43 minutes ago
There’s significant help for the poorest (no issue with that), but noting of note for those on okay salaries who have worked hard to get there.
=====
Loaded statement. The poorest are also hard workers. It's like your statement assumes they aren't. It's not just those on OK salaries that work hard and people on OK salaries need less help than the poor. You are advocating for help for people on OK salaries on the basis that they have worked hard, so by default others have not worked hard?
Income tax is all over the place partly because of the approach to and priority in policy, which is the big corporations and the rich. We give them everything and leave large deficits in our budgets which we force the people to cover. We lose well over 100b in possible taxes to these corporations annually, probably more.
Take that away and tax off shored money and relieve the people. The people should always come first. Now they're leaving us down here to argue with each other and take away help from the poor because there is no money, while still spending our taxes to help commit genocide in foreign lands.
They can fack off with that bullsheet. There is more than enough money if we use it well and always put the people first.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Corporation tax currently raises about 8% of tax revenue.
I accept that large corps are able to offshore money and avoid tax and benefit from some breaks but I think the impact of this on the tax receipts overall, "big black hole" this leaves in the national finances is exaggerated. Corp tax only contributes 8% of tax revenue and even if this were increased by 25% it would add only 2% to overall tax revenues.
As for personal tax, I am not sure what significant tax breaks the rich benefit from which causes such significant black holes that skew tax revenues. What examples are there. Most I am aware of offer marginal savings from an otherwise fairly high tax burden
Corp tax only contributes 8% of tax revenue and even if this were increased by 25% it would add only 2% to overall tax revenues.
=======
Eh?
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 1 hour, 29 minutes ago
comment by Mamba the Chief Disinformation Officer on JA60... (U1282)
posted 2 hours, 43 minutes ago
There’s significant help for the poorest (no issue with that), but noting of note for those on okay salaries who have worked hard to get there.
=====
Loaded statement. The poorest are also hard workers. It's like your statement assumes they aren't. It's not just those on OK salaries that work hard and people on OK salaries need less help than the poor. You are advocating for help for people on OK salaries on the basis that they have worked hard, so by default others have not worked hard?
Income tax is all over the place partly because of the approach to and priority in policy, which is the big corporations and the rich. We give them everything and leave large deficits in our budgets which we force the people to cover. We lose well over 100b in possible taxes to these corporations annually, probably more.
Take that away and tax off shored money and relieve the people. The people should always come first. Now they're leaving us down here to argue with each other and take away help from the poor because there is no money, while still spending our taxes to help commit genocide in foreign lands.
They can fack off with that bullsheet. There is more than enough money if we use it well and always put the people first.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Corporation tax currently raises about 8% of tax revenue.
I accept that large corps are able to offshore money and avoid tax and benefit from some breaks but I think the impact of this on the tax receipts overall, "big black hole" this leaves in the national finances is exaggerated. Corp tax only contributes 8% of tax revenue and even if this were increased by 25% it would add only 2% to overall tax revenues.
As for personal tax, I am not sure what significant tax breaks the rich benefit from which causes such significant black holes that skew tax revenues. What examples are there. Most I am aware of offer marginal savings from an otherwise fairly high tax burden
----------------------------------------------------------------------
My premise is from long-term observation. I see examples regularly in the news and it's been a topic in UK media for a long time, and I'm sure some examples could be found via a simple Google search.
comment by Mamba the Chief Disinformation Officer on JA60... (U1282)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 1 hour, 29 minutes ago
comment by Mamba the Chief Disinformation Officer on JA60... (U1282)
posted 2 hours, 43 minutes ago
There’s significant help for the poorest (no issue with that), but noting of note for those on okay salaries who have worked hard to get there.
=====
Loaded statement. The poorest are also hard workers. It's like your statement assumes they aren't. It's not just those on OK salaries that work hard and people on OK salaries need less help than the poor. You are advocating for help for people on OK salaries on the basis that they have worked hard, so by default others have not worked hard?
Income tax is all over the place partly because of the approach to and priority in policy, which is the big corporations and the rich. We give them everything and leave large deficits in our budgets which we force the people to cover. We lose well over 100b in possible taxes to these corporations annually, probably more.
Take that away and tax off shored money and relieve the people. The people should always come first. Now they're leaving us down here to argue with each other and take away help from the poor because there is no money, while still spending our taxes to help commit genocide in foreign lands.
They can fack off with that bullsheet. There is more than enough money if we use it well and always put the people first.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Corporation tax currently raises about 8% of tax revenue.
I accept that large corps are able to offshore money and avoid tax and benefit from some breaks but I think the impact of this on the tax receipts overall, "big black hole" this leaves in the national finances is exaggerated. Corp tax only contributes 8% of tax revenue and even if this were increased by 25% it would add only 2% to overall tax revenues.
As for personal tax, I am not sure what significant tax breaks the rich benefit from which causes such significant black holes that skew tax revenues. What examples are there. Most I am aware of offer marginal savings from an otherwise fairly high tax burden
----------------------------------------------------------------------
My premise is from long-term observation. I see examples regularly in the news and it's been a topic in UK media for a long time, and I'm sure some examples could be found via a simple Google search.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes but you are making big statements like "We give them [the rich] everything and leave large deficits in our budgets"
And that just isnt supported by facts.
If you take this article for example:
https://www.resolutionfoundation.org/press-releases/five-terrible-tax-breaks-are-costing-taxpayers-4-billion-a-year/
It identifies tax relief that the wealthiest 70,000 get comes at a cost of 4bn. SO yes, that is money that would ideally be taken as tax rather than as a relief, but £4bn in a total tax landscape of £1000bn is nothing like the "large deficit" that skews the burden onto others.
While i do not disagree with the principle of what you are saying, i think you are guilty of churning out your own 'propaganda' in how you have responded.
comment by Mamba the Chief Disinformation Officer on JA60... (U1282)
posted 19 minutes ago
Corp tax only contributes 8% of tax revenue and even if this were increased by 25% it would add only 2% to overall tax revenues.
=======
Eh?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
of total tax revenues of about £1000bn, Corporation tax contributes £80bn or 8%.
If you increased corporation tax or were stricter with it and increased that contribution from £80bn to £100bn (a 25% increase). it would only increase total tax revenues by 2% (to £1020bn). Small fry in the big picture
A bit of a waste of time because corporation tax includes tax from all incorporated entities, not just big corporations.
Big difference between the incorporated corner store with 2-20 employees and a behemoth like Shell Petroleum.
comment by Mamba the Chief Disinformation Officer on JA60... (U1282)
posted 1 hour, 37 minutes ago
A bit of a waste of time because corporation tax includes tax from all incorporated entities, not just big corporations.
Big difference between the incorporated corner store with 2-20 employees and a behemoth like Shell Petroleum.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah but if you are going to make the claim that these are the areas where big shortfalls are created then the figures needs considering otherwise its an unsubstantiated cliam.
Also, its not UK tax policy per se that allows Shell, for example, to pay little or no tax in the UK, and this is an issue faced all over the world where multinationals will pay their tax in the most efficient way. Last figures showed Shell paid about £6bn in Norway and £15m in UK tax. Not denying that their strategy leaves a hole in UK tax income, along with many others (amazon paid £0 in '22, despite posting >£200m UK profits) but this isnt a Tory tax concession to the benefit of the rich, it's just big business being big business and its a global issue . In fact it is other countries and governments that entice these businesses with lower tax rates (like Ireland do), although work has begun to address this behaviour by multi national companies.
Sign in if you want to comment
Equality..
Page 2 of 2
posted on 21/3/24
"You have to get to the top 40 per cent before you can claim to be a net contributor. Households in the fourth quintile pay £4,113 more in tax than they take out, while the top 20 per cent of earners pay a whopping £20,125 more in than they get back."
=====
By which metric is this the case? Sounds nonsensical to me because everything the rich have they take out of society.
posted on 21/3/24
comment by Mamba the Chief Disinformation Officer on JA606 (U1282)
posted 1 minute ago
"You have to get to the top 40 per cent before you can claim to be a net contributor. Households in the fourth quintile pay £4,113 more in tax than they take out, while the top 20 per cent of earners pay a whopping £20,125 more in than they get back."
=====
By which metric is this the case? Sounds nonsensical to me because everything the rich have they take out of society.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That’s why I pointed out business owners and corporations benefit from the current system.
posted on 21/3/24
Still doesn't answer my question. That paragraph sounds like some cherry picked stats for propaganda services. Seemingly arguing that the rich are somehow the actual victims of taxation. You gotta be kidding me.
posted on 21/3/24
comment by goadocwatson (U1016)
posted 3 hours, 9 minutes ago
I did not mean that sportswomen are moaning as I think they are happy with the progress they are making.
It's the latest bunch of people with a bandwagon to roll on - WASPI
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Aye, and the bird in the headlines (former primary headteacher) is on £30k pension and had a lumper of £75k.
Source- first cousin who has a pension of £30k and a bumper of £75 k.
They get no sympathy from me, there's a reason we die younger too and it's all the bastrin grafting we do to keep their nails looking nice.
posted on 21/3/24
comment by Mamba the Chief Disinformation Officer on JA606 (U1282)
posted 4 minutes ago
Still doesn't answer my question. That paragraph sounds like some cherry picked stats for propaganda services. Seemingly arguing that the rich are somehow the actual victims of taxation. You gotta be kidding me.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Depends how you define “rich”, which is my point. The media make out that being a higher makes you rich, it doesn’t.
The middle class have been squeezed most by a lack of pay rises, rising costs and taxes over the past 20 years. Earning £50k-£70k used to mean you were a good earner, those goalposts have shifted so far in recent times and because of the tax system pay rises at that bracket mean little.
posted on 21/3/24
So equality for men then and both sexes retire at the same age?
posted on 21/3/24
comment by Busby (U19985)
posted 15 minutes ago
comment by Mamba the Chief Disinformation Officer on JA606 (U1282)
posted 4 minutes ago
Still doesn't answer my question. That paragraph sounds like some cherry picked stats for propaganda services. Seemingly arguing that the rich are somehow the actual victims of taxation. You gotta be kidding me.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Depends how you define “rich”, which is my point. The media make out that being a higher makes you rich, it doesn’t.
The middle class have been squeezed most by a lack of pay rises, rising costs and taxes over the past 20 years. Earning £50k-£70k used to mean you were a good earner, those goalposts have shifted so far in recent times and because of the tax system pay rises at that bracket mean little.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But you can't blame the tax system for all that though. The corporate culture that outs regular working class people behind the rich and the corporates is far more to blame for that.
Despite this people have voted Tory for a long time when their economic outlook is to privatise everything by selling it off to their buddies in exchange for donations, holidays and new curtains, trickle down economics of fattening the rich and corporates hoping it trickles down to you and me and other middle class squeezing policies.
Meanwhile people like Corbyn are shouting from the roof tops about the growing inequality, not just in this country but across the world and pushing all the policies the middle class should want and need but making no headway whatsoever.
We live in an idiocracy.
posted on 21/3/24
comment by Mamba the Chief Disinformation Officer on JA606 (U1282)
posted 58 minutes ago
Still doesn't answer my question. That paragraph sounds like some cherry picked stats for propaganda services. Seemingly arguing that the rich are somehow the actual victims of taxation. You gotta be kidding me.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Tory busby strikes affair
posted on 21/3/24
comment by Mamba the Chief Disinformation Officer on JA60... (U1282)
posted 1 hour, 44 minutes ago
comment by Busby (U19985)
posted 15 minutes ago
comment by Mamba the Chief Disinformation Officer on JA606 (U1282)
posted 4 minutes ago
Still doesn't answer my question. That paragraph sounds like some cherry picked stats for propaganda services. Seemingly arguing that the rich are somehow the actual victims of taxation. You gotta be kidding me.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Depends how you define “rich”, which is my point. The media make out that being a higher makes you rich, it doesn’t.
The middle class have been squeezed most by a lack of pay rises, rising costs and taxes over the past 20 years. Earning £50k-£70k used to mean you were a good earner, those goalposts have shifted so far in recent times and because of the tax system pay rises at that bracket mean little.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But you can't blame the tax system for all that though. The corporate culture that outs regular working class people behind the rich and the corporates is far more to blame for that.
Despite this people have voted Tory for a long time when their economic outlook is to privatise everything by selling it off to their buddies in exchange for donations, holidays and new curtains, trickle down economics of fattening the rich and corporates hoping it trickles down to you and me and other middle class squeezing policies.
Meanwhile people like Corbyn are shouting from the roof tops about the growing inequality, not just in this country but across the world and pushing all the policies the middle class should want and need but making no headway whatsoever.
We live in an idiocracy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In the UK, annual tax receipts total about £1000bn.
Of which Income tax accounts for about £250bn, NI £180bn, VAT £160bn and Corp tax about £85bn
The top 10% of earners account for about 33% or income earned, although this is heavily skewed by the top 1 % who earn 12.5%
However, the top 1% also have a 29% share of total tax paid, and the 9% below that (90-99th percentile) contribute 31% of total tax paid. SO the top 10% of earners pay more than 60% of tax personal tax in the UK
When you consider that the average wage of an earner in the 90-99th percentile is £65k, then you can draw a conclusion that the these earners carry the biggest burden
65K is comfortably in the top tax threshold and while some may disagree, does not make someone a good earner or wealthy!
In my experience, what i have seen over my 25+ year career is tax thresholds barely moving, then some proper movement when the 0% threshold also moved upwards, and now back to no movement. More and more people being dragged into the top rate (about £50k) when that level of earning is not considered to be high and as Busby says, pay rises have little impact when over 50% is going in tax and NI.
But while some will say that the higher earners, the top 1% need to take more of the burden, the stats above show that they already are.
posted on 21/3/24
Of course rich people pay more tax but that doesn't mean they are taking more of the burden. We are giving money, tax breaks, concessions etc for free to corporates and big business FFS, to make them profitable while regular folk to death, and the corporates still offshore all the money and move heaven and earth to pay as little tax as possible.
posted on 21/3/24
My mother-in-law is a WASPI, her husband is of the same age (70) they’ve just sold their business and retired. They both deferred their pension until they retired. The mother-in-law is spitting feathers because her state pension is less than the old pension (rightly so), but what I find even more unfair is she gets around £50 per week more than her husband because she had 8 years of deferred pension and he only had 5 years.
posted on 21/3/24
comment by Mamba the Chief Disinformation Officer on JA606 (U1282)
posted 2 hours, 46 minutes ago
Of course rich people pay more tax but that doesn't mean they are taking more of the burden. We are giving money, tax breaks, concessions etc for free to corporates and big business FFS, to make them profitable while regular folk to death, and the corporates still offshore all the money and move heaven and earth to pay as little tax as possible.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I totally agree, in regards to corporations, particularly the large ones you reference. They’re protected to the extent that cannot fail.
I think both devonshire and I were referring mostly to income tax and how the brackets haven’t moved in line with inflation, thus even the higher earners are a lot poorer.
There’s significant help for the poorest (no issue with that), but noting of note for those on okay salaries who have worked hard to get there.
posted on 22/3/24
There’s significant help for the poorest (no issue with that), but noting of note for those on okay salaries who have worked hard to get there.
=====
Loaded statement. The poorest are also hard workers. It's like your statement assumes they aren't. It's not just those on OK salaries that work hard and people on OK salaries need less help than the poor. You are advocating for help for people on OK salaries on the basis that they have worked hard, so by default others have not worked hard?
Income tax is all over the place partly because of the approach to and priority in policy, which is the big corporations and the rich. We give them everything and leave large deficits in our budgets which we force the people to cover. We lose well over 100b in possible taxes to these corporations annually, probably more.
Take that away and tax off shored money and relieve the people. The people should always come first. Now they're leaving us down here to argue with each other and take away help from the poor because there is no money, while still spending our taxes to help commit genocide in foreign lands.
They can fack off with that bullsheet. There is more than enough money if we use it well and always put the people first.
posted on 22/3/24
I must be missing something here.
The Government told women about the rise in pension age years back but the BBC is littered with women claiming they knew nothing about it with some saying they spent thousands on having to re-train because they were suddenly out of work.
If women think they're due compo for having to work until they're 66 to get State Pension then surely (in the name of equality) so are men.
posted on 22/3/24
“Loaded statement. The poorest are also hard workers. It's like your statement assumes they aren't. It's not just those on OK salaries that work hard and people on OK salaries need less help than the poor. You are advocating for help for people on OK salaries on the basis that they have worked hard, so by default others have not worked hard?”
Just to be clear, this isn’t what meant. In the current system, rewards for progression are becoming slimmer and slimmer.
posted on 22/3/24
comment by Mamba the Chief Disinformation Officer on JA60... (U1282)
posted 2 hours, 43 minutes ago
There’s significant help for the poorest (no issue with that), but noting of note for those on okay salaries who have worked hard to get there.
=====
Loaded statement. The poorest are also hard workers. It's like your statement assumes they aren't. It's not just those on OK salaries that work hard and people on OK salaries need less help than the poor. You are advocating for help for people on OK salaries on the basis that they have worked hard, so by default others have not worked hard?
Income tax is all over the place partly because of the approach to and priority in policy, which is the big corporations and the rich. We give them everything and leave large deficits in our budgets which we force the people to cover. We lose well over 100b in possible taxes to these corporations annually, probably more.
Take that away and tax off shored money and relieve the people. The people should always come first. Now they're leaving us down here to argue with each other and take away help from the poor because there is no money, while still spending our taxes to help commit genocide in foreign lands.
They can fack off with that bullsheet. There is more than enough money if we use it well and always put the people first.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Corporation tax currently raises about 8% of tax revenue.
I accept that large corps are able to offshore money and avoid tax and benefit from some breaks but I think the impact of this on the tax receipts overall, "big black hole" this leaves in the national finances is exaggerated. Corp tax only contributes 8% of tax revenue and even if this were increased by 25% it would add only 2% to overall tax revenues.
As for personal tax, I am not sure what significant tax breaks the rich benefit from which causes such significant black holes that skew tax revenues. What examples are there. Most I am aware of offer marginal savings from an otherwise fairly high tax burden
posted on 22/3/24
Corp tax only contributes 8% of tax revenue and even if this were increased by 25% it would add only 2% to overall tax revenues.
=======
Eh?
posted on 22/3/24
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 1 hour, 29 minutes ago
comment by Mamba the Chief Disinformation Officer on JA60... (U1282)
posted 2 hours, 43 minutes ago
There’s significant help for the poorest (no issue with that), but noting of note for those on okay salaries who have worked hard to get there.
=====
Loaded statement. The poorest are also hard workers. It's like your statement assumes they aren't. It's not just those on OK salaries that work hard and people on OK salaries need less help than the poor. You are advocating for help for people on OK salaries on the basis that they have worked hard, so by default others have not worked hard?
Income tax is all over the place partly because of the approach to and priority in policy, which is the big corporations and the rich. We give them everything and leave large deficits in our budgets which we force the people to cover. We lose well over 100b in possible taxes to these corporations annually, probably more.
Take that away and tax off shored money and relieve the people. The people should always come first. Now they're leaving us down here to argue with each other and take away help from the poor because there is no money, while still spending our taxes to help commit genocide in foreign lands.
They can fack off with that bullsheet. There is more than enough money if we use it well and always put the people first.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Corporation tax currently raises about 8% of tax revenue.
I accept that large corps are able to offshore money and avoid tax and benefit from some breaks but I think the impact of this on the tax receipts overall, "big black hole" this leaves in the national finances is exaggerated. Corp tax only contributes 8% of tax revenue and even if this were increased by 25% it would add only 2% to overall tax revenues.
As for personal tax, I am not sure what significant tax breaks the rich benefit from which causes such significant black holes that skew tax revenues. What examples are there. Most I am aware of offer marginal savings from an otherwise fairly high tax burden
----------------------------------------------------------------------
My premise is from long-term observation. I see examples regularly in the news and it's been a topic in UK media for a long time, and I'm sure some examples could be found via a simple Google search.
posted on 22/3/24
comment by Mamba the Chief Disinformation Officer on JA60... (U1282)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 1 hour, 29 minutes ago
comment by Mamba the Chief Disinformation Officer on JA60... (U1282)
posted 2 hours, 43 minutes ago
There’s significant help for the poorest (no issue with that), but noting of note for those on okay salaries who have worked hard to get there.
=====
Loaded statement. The poorest are also hard workers. It's like your statement assumes they aren't. It's not just those on OK salaries that work hard and people on OK salaries need less help than the poor. You are advocating for help for people on OK salaries on the basis that they have worked hard, so by default others have not worked hard?
Income tax is all over the place partly because of the approach to and priority in policy, which is the big corporations and the rich. We give them everything and leave large deficits in our budgets which we force the people to cover. We lose well over 100b in possible taxes to these corporations annually, probably more.
Take that away and tax off shored money and relieve the people. The people should always come first. Now they're leaving us down here to argue with each other and take away help from the poor because there is no money, while still spending our taxes to help commit genocide in foreign lands.
They can fack off with that bullsheet. There is more than enough money if we use it well and always put the people first.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Corporation tax currently raises about 8% of tax revenue.
I accept that large corps are able to offshore money and avoid tax and benefit from some breaks but I think the impact of this on the tax receipts overall, "big black hole" this leaves in the national finances is exaggerated. Corp tax only contributes 8% of tax revenue and even if this were increased by 25% it would add only 2% to overall tax revenues.
As for personal tax, I am not sure what significant tax breaks the rich benefit from which causes such significant black holes that skew tax revenues. What examples are there. Most I am aware of offer marginal savings from an otherwise fairly high tax burden
----------------------------------------------------------------------
My premise is from long-term observation. I see examples regularly in the news and it's been a topic in UK media for a long time, and I'm sure some examples could be found via a simple Google search.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes but you are making big statements like "We give them [the rich] everything and leave large deficits in our budgets"
And that just isnt supported by facts.
If you take this article for example:
https://www.resolutionfoundation.org/press-releases/five-terrible-tax-breaks-are-costing-taxpayers-4-billion-a-year/
It identifies tax relief that the wealthiest 70,000 get comes at a cost of 4bn. SO yes, that is money that would ideally be taken as tax rather than as a relief, but £4bn in a total tax landscape of £1000bn is nothing like the "large deficit" that skews the burden onto others.
While i do not disagree with the principle of what you are saying, i think you are guilty of churning out your own 'propaganda' in how you have responded.
posted on 22/3/24
comment by Mamba the Chief Disinformation Officer on JA60... (U1282)
posted 19 minutes ago
Corp tax only contributes 8% of tax revenue and even if this were increased by 25% it would add only 2% to overall tax revenues.
=======
Eh?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
of total tax revenues of about £1000bn, Corporation tax contributes £80bn or 8%.
If you increased corporation tax or were stricter with it and increased that contribution from £80bn to £100bn (a 25% increase). it would only increase total tax revenues by 2% (to £1020bn). Small fry in the big picture
posted on 22/3/24
A bit of a waste of time because corporation tax includes tax from all incorporated entities, not just big corporations.
Big difference between the incorporated corner store with 2-20 employees and a behemoth like Shell Petroleum.
posted on 22/3/24
comment by Mamba the Chief Disinformation Officer on JA60... (U1282)
posted 1 hour, 37 minutes ago
A bit of a waste of time because corporation tax includes tax from all incorporated entities, not just big corporations.
Big difference between the incorporated corner store with 2-20 employees and a behemoth like Shell Petroleum.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah but if you are going to make the claim that these are the areas where big shortfalls are created then the figures needs considering otherwise its an unsubstantiated cliam.
Also, its not UK tax policy per se that allows Shell, for example, to pay little or no tax in the UK, and this is an issue faced all over the world where multinationals will pay their tax in the most efficient way. Last figures showed Shell paid about £6bn in Norway and £15m in UK tax. Not denying that their strategy leaves a hole in UK tax income, along with many others (amazon paid £0 in '22, despite posting >£200m UK profits) but this isnt a Tory tax concession to the benefit of the rich, it's just big business being big business and its a global issue . In fact it is other countries and governments that entice these businesses with lower tax rates (like Ireland do), although work has begun to address this behaviour by multi national companies.
Page 2 of 2