Do you want to discuss boring politics? (76 Viewers)

[Jamesimus]

You're twisting my words now. You've quoted 'fair share' when I only used the word 'share' - world of difference. I also said I thought it was fair that I should pay more than lower earners. You've then therfore completely contradicted the post you're referring to and suggested that I said they shouldn't contribute more which is the exact opposite of what I said. In fact that post I made only made one point and is the one you didn't address, which regarded the paying of more based on my assets based on having saved for those assets (not inherited) using money that I've already been taxed on. If you think that's fair then you really are advocating a communist state.

If you have been able to save to afford assets, you don't think it's wrong that you pay the same as someone who has never been able to afford to save?

I'm asking that as someone who once had no savings and was on £8.50
an hour in the south east. To think that under this current tax I'd have to pay the same as I earn now is daft and unfair. And no I didn't "better myself" before anyone suggests it!

I understand saving is a "sacrifice" somewhat, but if you can afford to do it, you're doing alright.

 

---

[rob9872]

At the end of the day you think a tax hike that disproportionately affects those worse off is 'to be applauded' so that says all I need to know about your views.

In other words you can't counter what I've typed so having misquoted me you'd rather pin an opinion of me than apologise for having got it completely wrong. Okie dokie!

 

[rob9872]

If you have been able to save to afford assets, you don't think it's wrong that you pay the same as someone who has never been able to afford to save?

I'm asking that as someone who once had no savings and was on £8.50
an hour in the south east. To think that under this current tax I'd have to pay the same as I earn now is daft and unfair. And no I didn't "better myself" before anyone suggests it!

I understand saving is a "sacrifice" somewhat, but if you can afford to do it, you're doing alright.

Saving is a sacrifice. Saving for the future. And for that I should be penalised? Really? That's illogical. I should pay it on what I earn not what I have if it's income that I've already paid tax on. To suggest anything else is ridiculous.

 

[PVA]

In other words you can't counter what I've typed so having misquoted me you'd rather pin an opinion of me than apologise for having got it completely wrong. Okie dokie!

No, I just find it pretty reprehensible that you think disproportionately taxing those worse off is to be applauded so I'd rather leave it there than continue arguing semantics or he said she said with someone that has such views.

 

[rob9872]

No, I just find it pretty reprehensible that you think disproportionately taxing those worse off is to be applauded so I'd rather leave it there than continue arguing semantics or he said she said with someone that has such views.

No. You directly misquoted me and you still are. It is not disproportionate and I have not anywhere said it should be.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

Top tax rate up to 50%, government then invests in a few projects to stimulate economy, and to help that bumps inflation up to 5% for a while, but keep interest rates low... sorted

 

[PVA]

No. You directly misquoted me and you still are. It is not disproportionate and I have not anywhere said it should be.

Of course it's disproportionate. You either don't understand it or choose not to.

 

[Jamesimus]

Saving is a sacrifice. Saving for the future. And for that I should be penalised? Really? That's illogical. I should pay it on what I earn not what I have if it's income that I've already paid tax on. To suggest anything else is ridiculous.

I agree, it is. But also, you can afford to pay more than most people on your income if you have loads of expensive stuff knocking about.

I am in the same boat. I'd happily pay more so that some 20 year old hospitality worker doesn't have to pay the same as me, because a lot of us have been that person with the shite paid job in the past and it's tough. It's not just a case of "bettering yourself".

I'm also trying to plan for my future; as is everyone else?!

The illogical thing for me is people that get paid 9 quid an hour, have no savings whatsoever and can't afford to save or have their own house, paying the same as me or you or my boss with a Ferrari.

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

If you have been able to save to afford assets, you don't think it's wrong that you pay the same as someone who has never been able to afford to save?

I'm asking that as someone who once had no savings and was on £8.50
an hour in the south east. To think that under this current tax I'd have to pay the same as I earn now is daft and unfair. And no I didn't "better myself" before anyone suggests it!

I understand saving is a "sacrifice" somewhat, but if you can afford to do it, you're doing alright.

There is the argument that those that 'spunk it up the wall' are paying more tax because they're paying VAT on what they spend it on.

Showing restraint and saving shouldn't be discouraged but there has to come a point whereby the amount saved becomes extortionate and it should be taxable in some form.

One thing I think that should be brought in is to do away with rebates on things like losses for corp tax and carry back/forward of losses.

If I didn't earn anything in a particular year I can't then forward that onto subsequent years to reduce my tax in future. Or claim it against previous years earnings to get a rebate. So why should businesses be allowed to? If you make a loss that year you pay no tax that year. Simple.

As I've said before profit is a rubbish way of calculating a tax anyway. I don't get to offset my living costs against my income to reduce my tax. Especially ones which I can just pluck out of thin air, like the value of my car going down

 

[Jamesimus]

There is the argument that those that 'spunk it up the wall' are paying more tax because they're paying VAT on what they spend it on.

Showing restraint and saving shouldn't be discouraged but there has to come a point whereby the amount saved becomes extortionate and it should be taxable in some form.

One thing I think that should be brought in is to do away with rebates on things like losses for corp tax and carry back/forward of losses.

If I didn't earn anything in a particular year I can't then forward that onto subsequent years to reduce my tax in future. Or claim it against previous years earnings to get a rebate. So why should businesses be allowed to? If you make a loss that year you pay no tax that year. Simple.

As I've said before profit is a rubbish way of calculating a tax anyway. I don't get to offset my living costs against my income to reduce my tax. Especially ones which I can just pluck out of thin air, like the value of my car going down

I really don't know enough about tax law re; corporation tax and how that works, but our tax rules and regulations do seem extremely clunky and over-complicated. Perhaps it's that I just haven't got a clue haha.

I find all the differing versions of employment and self employment in construction for example to be very weird and feel many are unnecessary / don't sit well with me.

 

[rob9872]

Aside from this argument then, but in part linked, what realistically what do you think you need in your pension pot to be comfortable on without paying further taxes?

Let's for arguments sake, take our similar circumstances and assume on retiremennt we have very little savings, no other income than pension, married reducing to one car between us, own our own home with the mortgage by then paid and no outstanding loans or credit cards etc?

Would want to be comfortable without necessarily being rich and to holiday a couple of times a year?

Our aim is purely for £30k pa between us which doesn't seem excessive. To achieve that I reckon (assuming there will be no state pension (will be 68 for us minimum anyhow) that we need a pot of £600k-£700k.

I earn reasonable, but still have a mortgage and having started later, currently only £200k in the pension pot. My wife only has a nest type pot with little more than £20k in. I'm 49 she's 46. I can't see retirement much before 65 at that rate. I could go sooner but retirement would be longer and the pot wouldn't be as high. At that stage if I leave it longer and take the lump some (or even invest all of it thanks to George Osborne allowing me to), then I would be seen as having higher assets despite only having my home and future pension. Are you aiming for more/less do you think people in those circumstances should be taxed on their wealth on retirement with only that modest level of living?

 

[David O'Day]

Any tax increase that means the poorest pay more as a % of their income is morally wrong

End of

 

[David O'Day]

Oh Gavin

 

[skybluetony176]

Nope. The worst off are not working and don't contribute If I earn more than you I pay more. Also my employer pays the same. Is that not fair enough for you?

A wise man once said paying tax justifies the amount you earn.

 

[Jamesimus]

Aside from this argument then, but in part linked, what realistically what do you think you need in your pension pot to be comfortable on without paying further taxes?

Let's for arguments sake, take our similar circumstances and assume on retiremennt we have very little savings, no other income than pension, married reducing to one car between us, own our own home with the mortgage by then paid and no outstanding loans or credit cards etc?

Would want to be comfortable without necessarily being rich and to holiday a couple of times a year?

Our aim is purely for £30k pa between us which doesn't seem excessive. To achieve that I reckon (assuming there will be no state pension (will be 68 for us minimum anyhow) that we need a pot of £600k-£700k.

I earn reasonable, but still have a mortgage and having started later, currently only £200k in the pension pot. My wife only has a nest type pot with little more than £20k in. I'm 49 she's 46. I can't see retirement much before 65 at that rate. I could go sooner but retirement would be longer and the pot wouldn't be as high. At that stage if I leave it longer and take the lump some (or even invest all of it thanks to George Osborne allowing me to), then I would be seen as having higher assets despite only having my home and future pension. Are you aiming for more/less do you think people in those circumstances should be taxed on their wealth on retirement with only that modest level of living?

You don't have to share you're finances on an internet forum mate!

I'm no economist so it's not for me to say what that figure is.

I'm just here to point out that you could be paying the same amount on this tax as someone else of an equivalent age, who is single, with no pension as yet or plan for the future.

It seems to me though like you are planning well for the future so good for you.

 

[skybluetony176]

Here is a percentage figure

Top 1% of earners in UK account for more than a third of income tax

Tax revenues ever more reliant on small group of high earners, says Institute for Fiscal Studies

www.theguardian.com

That probably says more about the widening inequality gap than anything else.

 

[rob9872]

You don't have to share you're finances on an internet forum mate!

I'm no economist so it's not for me to say what that figure is.

I'm just here to point out that you could be paying the same amount on this tax as someone else of an equivalent age, who is single, with no pension as yet or plan for the future.

It seems to me though like you are planning well for the future so good for you.

I'm just curious really. We think we're planning but in reality are we - I'm sure many on here will have much more than us, some probably with less, but I have no idea what we need. The biggest factor of course could be if there is any state pension as we'd need much less if there is imo. As I say not about being rich, just comfortable.

 

[skybluetony176]

I see the Tories are playing the Ferage playbook at PMQ’s. NI raise you say, Ooo look an illegal immigrant.

 

[shmmeee]

Saving is a sacrifice. Saving for the future. And for that I should be penalised? Really? That's illogical. I should pay it on what I earn not what I have if it's income that I've already paid tax on. To suggest anything else is ridiculous.

“Sorry mate, I want a 20% discount on that KitKat cos I’ve already paid income tax”



If you’ve got wealth you should pay tax on it. Hoarding excess money doesn’t help the economy and using to to get rental income isn’t productive work. The point of money is to stimulate innovation and provide resource where the demand is, not reward lucky people or those who by chance got paid better earlier in their life.

We aren’t talking about rainy day funds and standard pensions here, but billions in inherited wealth, property, private pensions, stocks and shares, etc. For the last fifty years it’s been a one way street and capital has been more valuable than productivity, not only is it wildly unfair on a moral level, it’s economically stupid. People should be rewarded for hard work and innovation, not luck of the draw and age.

 

[skybluetony176]

It does make you wonder whether the NI hike has been done deliberately to make you think that the NHS needs privatising.

 

[rob9872]

“Sorry mate, I want a 20% discount on that KitKat cos I’ve already paid income tax”



If you’ve got wealth you should pay tax on it. Hoarding excess money doesn’t help the economy and using to to get rental income isn’t productive work. The point of money is to stimulate innovation and provide resource where the demand is, not reward lucky people or those who by chance got paid better earlier in their life.

We aren’t talking about rainy day funds and standard pensions here, but billions in inherited wealth, property, private pensions, stocks and shares, etc. For the last fifty years it’s been a one way street and capital has been more valuable than productivity, not only is it wildly unfair on a moral level, it’s economically stupid. People should be rewarded for hard work and innovation, not luck of the draw and age.

Comparing a rental property owner with your average joe isn't the way it works though. to be deemed as affording to pay you only need savings over £20k. Hardy makes you Richard Branson and yet the suggestion I replied to was that anyone in that bracket (eg with just over 20k in the bank the same as the very wealthy) should therefore pay tax and NI on their income in pension age.

*Edit - again if you want to put a minimum on that of say £1m then I have no issue with that, but lots would fall into that bracket without necessarily being wealthy having lived prudently.

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

Comparing a rental property owner with your average joe isn't the way it works though. to be deemed as affording to pay you only need savings over £20k. Hardy makes you Richard Branson and yet the suggestion I replied to was that anyone in that bracket (eg with just over 20k in the bank the same as the very wealthy) should therefore pay tax and NI on their income in pension age.

*Edit - again if you want to put a minimum on that of say £1m then I have no issue with that, but lots would fall into that bracket without necessarily being wealthy having lived prudently.

Which is why the rate of tax should increase the more you have.The more you take from the higher amounts (who will be more than able to get by without them) the less you need take from those with more moderate means.

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

I really don't know enough about tax law re; corporation tax and how that works, but our tax rules and regulations do seem extremely clunky and over-complicated. Perhaps it's that I just haven't got a clue haha.

I find all the differing versions of employment and self employment in construction for example to be very weird and feel many are unnecessary / don't sit well with me.

As a general rule the rules are clunky and over-complicated either because people have not been playing in the spirit of the system and they've needed to close loopholes or it's deliberate to make it very difficult to establish how much should be paid.

I don't know about the construction industry but I do remember the big employee/contractor thing (IR35) whereby businesses were avoiding taxes and things like pensions and other costs by claiming people working for them were self-employed contractors not employees. That has since seen the creation of zero-hours contracts as a means around them.

 

[fernandopartridge]

As a general rule the rules are clunky and over-complicated either because people have not been playing in the spirit of the system and they've needed to close loopholes or it's deliberate to make it very difficult to establish how much should be paid.

I don't know about the construction industry but I do remember the big employee/contractor thing (IR35) whereby businesses were avoiding taxes and things like pensions and other costs by claiming people working for them were self-employed contractors not employees. That has since seen the creation of zero-hours contracts as a means around them.

ZHC co existed with IR35, i don't think ZHC have much to do with closing the IR35 loophole.

The issue with IR35 was that people were being employed through umbrella companies under rules designed for temporary assignments in what were actually full time positions, and then the employee and employer tax / NI contributions were less than what they would be if somebody was employed directly.

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

“Sorry mate, I want a 20% discount on that KitKat cos I’ve already paid income tax”



If you’ve got wealth you should pay tax on it. Hoarding excess money doesn’t help the economy and using to to get rental income isn’t productive work. The point of money is to stimulate innovation and provide resource where the demand is, not reward lucky people or those who by chance got paid better earlier in their life.

We aren’t talking about rainy day funds and standard pensions here, but billions in inherited wealth, property, private pensions, stocks and shares, etc. For the last fifty years it’s been a one way street and capital has been more valuable than productivity, not only is it wildly unfair on a moral level, it’s economically stupid. People should be rewarded for hard work and innovation, not luck of the draw and age.

You’re saying this is in the most class obsessed country on the planet which has a hereditary HoS

 

[shmmeee]

You’re saying this is in the most class obsessed country on the planet which has a hereditary HoS

I just don’t get it. “Oh guvnor im just a simple worker I don’t deserve more than my lot *doffs cap*” “yes gov, the real enemy are people earning £2k/year more than me *salutes picture of the Queen*”

Grow a damn backbone. You’re having your pants pulled down by a bunch of inbred morons.

 

[Deleted member 9744]

I see the Tories are playing the Ferage playbook at PMQ’s. NI raise you say, Ooo look an illegal immigrant.

Of course.

Break a manifesto commitment, then it has to be 'look over there migrants crossing the Channel on small boats'. Happens every time. And of course, 'look at my nice big flag in the background in my home/office'.

 

[Ian1779]

Oh Gavin

 

[Liquid Gold]

Tories are fucking over people that don't vote for them in order to protect those that do. Quelle fucking surprise.

If only there was another party that actually represented those that have been fucked over in education and housing that will have to pay for the ludicrous costs of looking after those that have skewed the system against us while trying to protect the environment that they've fucked up.

 

[clint van damme]

I've said it before about her, and I'm not keen on a lot of her politics, but Rachael Reeves is very good performer, gets her message over well.

 

[Grendel]

Tories are fucking over people that don't vote for them in order to protect those that do. Quelle fucking surprise.

If only there was another party that actually represented those that have been fucked over in education and housing that will have to pay for the ludicrous costs of looking those that have skewed the system against us while trying to protect the environment that they've fucked up.

The policy changes are targeted at the very people who do vote for Tories

 

[shmmeee]

The policy changes are targeted at the very people who do vote for Tories

That’s literally what LG said. Aimed at those who don’t work.

 

[PVA]

About sums it up...

 

[Grendel]

That’s literally what LG said. Aimed at those who don’t work.

no it’s not. He said it’s aimed at people who don’t vote for them

Pensioners do and the triple lock pledge is not going to be well received

Small business owners do and the largely ignored policy change on dividends again is going to hit them harder than an average employee with a minor NI increase

 

[Liquid Gold]

oof suspended for 1 day, that must sting