Your voting intentions
Poll: Your voting intentions
Total Members Polled: 1233
Discussion
bad company said:
hidetheelephants said:
Is that a campaigning point for the deranged right wing loony party? It's not true and if it ever was hasn't been for 30+ years.
Labour have always been a high tax party. In the 1970’s I think they peaked at 83%!!!hidetheelephants said:
bad company said:
hidetheelephants said:
Is that a campaigning point for the deranged right wing loony party? It's not true and if it ever was hasn't been for 30+ years.
Labour have always been a high tax party. In the 1970’s I think they peaked at 83%!!!bad company said:
hidetheelephants said:
bad company said:
hidetheelephants said:
Is that a campaigning point for the deranged right wing loony party? It's not true and if it ever was hasn't been for 30+ years.
Labour have always been a high tax party. In the 1970’s I think they peaked at 83%!!!hidetheelephants said:
If they raise income tax at all I'll be very surprised, not least because they've spent the last 12 months saying they won't; the odds of an 83% supertax rate are about the same as winning the lottery.
MP's should bet on it - they seem to be betting on everything else 
hidetheelephants said:
bad company said:
hidetheelephants said:
bad company said:
hidetheelephants said:
Is that a campaigning point for the deranged right wing loony party? It's not true and if it ever was hasn't been for 30+ years.
Labour have always been a high tax party. In the 1970’s I think they peaked at 83%!!!As much as I despise the idea of wealth redistribution on principle there has to be a point where unearned income and 'wealth' should have a level playing field in comparison with income tax.
The higher rate PAYE employees are the tethered goats of the UK tax system. Income Tax is already progressive, that's how percentages work.
The 'escape velocity' to get yourself into a comfortable position is getting higher and higher all the time and there is a point were the futility of trying to build any sort of financial security independent of work or welfare becomes so demoralising that you start to feel aggrieved.
I don't expect sympathy and someone will no doubt produce a graph that shows that I'm completely wrong but I know how it feel to work a shed load overtime and expect to have something to show for it only to fall into the marginal 60% tax trap, with no ability to avoid or plan around it as you are PAYE.
If I was self employed or ran a company I could manage that in may legitimate ways.
You cannot keep coming back and back to people on £60-£150k a year and hitting them with tax after tax because they are 'rich'.
We don't feel rich.
The higher rate PAYE employees are the tethered goats of the UK tax system. Income Tax is already progressive, that's how percentages work.
The 'escape velocity' to get yourself into a comfortable position is getting higher and higher all the time and there is a point were the futility of trying to build any sort of financial security independent of work or welfare becomes so demoralising that you start to feel aggrieved.
I don't expect sympathy and someone will no doubt produce a graph that shows that I'm completely wrong but I know how it feel to work a shed load overtime and expect to have something to show for it only to fall into the marginal 60% tax trap, with no ability to avoid or plan around it as you are PAYE.
If I was self employed or ran a company I could manage that in may legitimate ways.
You cannot keep coming back and back to people on £60-£150k a year and hitting them with tax after tax because they are 'rich'.
We don't feel rich.
Stick Legs said:
As much as I despise the idea of wealth redistribution on principle there has to be a point where unearned income and 'wealth' should have a level playing field in comparison with income tax.
The higher rate PAYE employees are the tethered goats of the UK tax system. Income Tax is already progressive, that's how percentages work.
The 'escape velocity' to get yourself into a comfortable position is getting higher and higher all the time and there is a point were the futility of trying to build any sort of financial security independent of work or welfare becomes so demoralising that you start to feel aggrieved.
I don't expect sympathy and someone will no doubt produce a graph that shows that I'm completely wrong but I know how it feel to work a shed load overtime and expect to have something to show for it only to fall into the marginal 60% tax trap, with no ability to avoid or plan around it as you are PAYE.
If I was self employed or ran a company I could manage that in may legitimate ways.
You cannot keep coming back and back to people on £60-£150k a year and hitting them with tax after tax because they are 'rich'.
We don't feel rich.
I'd agree with most of that, but as I've matured, I've also come to recognise that many of us on higher salaries would struggle to justify them.The higher rate PAYE employees are the tethered goats of the UK tax system. Income Tax is already progressive, that's how percentages work.
The 'escape velocity' to get yourself into a comfortable position is getting higher and higher all the time and there is a point were the futility of trying to build any sort of financial security independent of work or welfare becomes so demoralising that you start to feel aggrieved.
I don't expect sympathy and someone will no doubt produce a graph that shows that I'm completely wrong but I know how it feel to work a shed load overtime and expect to have something to show for it only to fall into the marginal 60% tax trap, with no ability to avoid or plan around it as you are PAYE.
If I was self employed or ran a company I could manage that in may legitimate ways.
You cannot keep coming back and back to people on £60-£150k a year and hitting them with tax after tax because they are 'rich'.
We don't feel rich.
Why, for example, can people make a lot of money running active investment funds when tracker funds almost invariably outperform them long term? Why do software sales people typically earn a lot more than the coders without whom they wouldn't have a product to sell?
Add in the fact that without people to provide us with nursing, childcare, teachers, people putting food on the shelves in the supermarkets and so on, we wouldn't have the time to earn the high salaries because we'd be having to do all the subsistence stuff ourselves and whilst I have absolutely zero sympathy for people who aren't willing to work, I am increasingly starting to think we should be looking for a better way to value what people add to society.
Kermit power said:
Why, for example, can people make a lot of money running active investment funds when tracker funds almost invariably outperform them long term?
Because some people don't want long term trackers or s
t active funds?Kermit power said:
Why do software sales people typically earn a lot more than the coders without whom they wouldn't have a product to sell?
Because they bring all the money without which the coder would have none. It'd be nice if writing code magically brought the money in, but it doesn't.Kermit power said:
Add in the fact that without people to provide us with nursing, childcare, teachers, people putting food on the shelves in the supermarkets and so on, we wouldn't have the time to earn the high salaries because we'd be having to do all the subsistence stuff ourselves and whilst I have absolutely zero sympathy for people who aren't willing to work, I am increasingly starting to think we should be looking for a better way to value what people add to society.
The trouble is, you can fudge the market a bit, but you run the risk of disrupting it to the point that you break the desire to do certain jobs. People will take reduced salaries for a stress free life or stop working altogether. At some point it stops being capitalism, which for all its faults, has given us huge innovation and economic growth. Without having something better to replace it we risk leveling down.768 said:
Kermit power said:
Why, for example, can people make a lot of money running active investment funds when tracker funds almost invariably outperform them long term?
Because some people don't want long term trackers or st active funds?Kermit power said:
Why do software sales people typically earn a lot more than the coders without whom they wouldn't have a product to sell?
Because they bring all the money without which the coder would have none. It'd be nice if writing code magically brought the money in, but it doesn't.Kermit power said:
Add in the fact that without people to provide us with nursing, childcare, teachers, people putting food on the shelves in the supermarkets and so on, we wouldn't have the time to earn the high salaries because we'd be having to do all the subsistence stuff ourselves and whilst I have absolutely zero sympathy for people who aren't willing to work, I am increasingly starting to think we should be looking for a better way to value what people add to society.
The trouble is, you can fudge the market a bit, but you run the risk of disrupting it to the point that you break the desire to do certain jobs. People will take reduced salaries for a stress free life or stop working altogether. At some point it stops being capitalism, which for all its faults, has given us huge innovation and economic growth. Without having something better to replace it we risk leveling down.t active funds? There are plenty of academic publications out there debating whether it's even possible to beat the market long term!Coders vs sellers is a symbiotic relationship where each needs the other just as much.
Overall, though, none of those fund managers, coders or sellers would be able to work without the frequently far less well paid support infrastructure around them. If you're having to pick an immigrant, is it better to have one who creates enough direct value to justify a £50k wage, or one who might only get paid £25k themselves but enables 5 other people to generate an additional £25k each?
Kermit power said:
Overall, though, none of those fund managers, coders or sellers would be able to work without the frequently far less well paid support infrastructure around them. If you're having to pick an immigrant, is it better to have one who creates enough direct value to justify a £50k wage, or one who might only get paid £25k themselves but enables 5 other people to generate an additional £25k each?
I'm reading some good stuff on here the last few days. Stuff i doubt i would have seen here 10 years ago, maybe there is hope for the UK after all Stick Legs said:
As much as I despise the idea of wealth redistribution on principle there has to be a point where unearned income and 'wealth' should have a level playing field in comparison with income tax.
The higher rate PAYE employees are the tethered goats of the UK tax system. Income Tax is already progressive, that's how percentages work.
The 'escape velocity' to get yourself into a comfortable position is getting higher and higher all the time and there is a point were the futility of trying to build any sort of financial security independent of work or welfare becomes so demoralising that you start to feel aggrieved.
I don't expect sympathy and someone will no doubt produce a graph that shows that I'm completely wrong but I know how it feel to work a shed load overtime and expect to have something to show for it only to fall into the marginal 60% tax trap, with no ability to avoid or plan around it as you are PAYE.
If I was self employed or ran a company I could manage that in may legitimate ways.
You cannot keep coming back and back to people on £60-£150k a year and hitting them with tax after tax because they are 'rich'.
We don't feel rich.
I still find it bonkers that we chuck benefits at people on good incomes for child benefit. Our issue is such a massive bloated welfare system, none of it encouraging anyone to work. I don't blame those who claim or don't work because why would you when you are better off staying at home and breeding?The higher rate PAYE employees are the tethered goats of the UK tax system. Income Tax is already progressive, that's how percentages work.
The 'escape velocity' to get yourself into a comfortable position is getting higher and higher all the time and there is a point were the futility of trying to build any sort of financial security independent of work or welfare becomes so demoralising that you start to feel aggrieved.
I don't expect sympathy and someone will no doubt produce a graph that shows that I'm completely wrong but I know how it feel to work a shed load overtime and expect to have something to show for it only to fall into the marginal 60% tax trap, with no ability to avoid or plan around it as you are PAYE.
If I was self employed or ran a company I could manage that in may legitimate ways.
You cannot keep coming back and back to people on £60-£150k a year and hitting them with tax after tax because they are 'rich'.
We don't feel rich.
This is one of the toxic legacies created by Blair and Brown, redistributing in the form of Tax Credits (all about the branding). Problem is that it is easy to give but very hard to take away and sadly the 14 years of tory government have done nothing to undo this. PFI was one of the other major contributors although that is far harder to undo.
Edited by Tom8 on Wednesday 26th June 09:55
Kermit power said:
I'd agree with most of that, but as I've matured, I've also come to recognise that many of us on higher salaries would struggle to justify them.
Why, for example, can people make a lot of money running active investment funds when tracker funds almost invariably outperform them long term? Why do software sales people typically earn a lot more than the coders without whom they wouldn't have a product to sell?
Add in the fact that without people to provide us with nursing, childcare, teachers, people putting food on the shelves in the supermarkets and so on, we wouldn't have the time to earn the high salaries because we'd be having to do all the subsistence stuff ourselves and whilst I have absolutely zero sympathy for people who aren't willing to work, I am increasingly starting to think we should be looking for a better way to value what people add to society.
AgreeWhy, for example, can people make a lot of money running active investment funds when tracker funds almost invariably outperform them long term? Why do software sales people typically earn a lot more than the coders without whom they wouldn't have a product to sell?
Add in the fact that without people to provide us with nursing, childcare, teachers, people putting food on the shelves in the supermarkets and so on, we wouldn't have the time to earn the high salaries because we'd be having to do all the subsistence stuff ourselves and whilst I have absolutely zero sympathy for people who aren't willing to work, I am increasingly starting to think we should be looking for a better way to value what people add to society.
S600BSB said:
Kermit power said:
I'd agree with most of that, but as I've matured, I've also come to recognise that many of us on higher salaries would struggle to justify them.
Why, for example, can people make a lot of money running active investment funds when tracker funds almost invariably outperform them long term? Why do software sales people typically earn a lot more than the coders without whom they wouldn't have a product to sell?
Add in the fact that without people to provide us with nursing, childcare, teachers, people putting food on the shelves in the supermarkets and so on, we wouldn't have the time to earn the high salaries because we'd be having to do all the subsistence stuff ourselves and whilst I have absolutely zero sympathy for people who aren't willing to work, I am increasingly starting to think we should be looking for a better way to value what people add to society.
AgreeWhy, for example, can people make a lot of money running active investment funds when tracker funds almost invariably outperform them long term? Why do software sales people typically earn a lot more than the coders without whom they wouldn't have a product to sell?
Add in the fact that without people to provide us with nursing, childcare, teachers, people putting food on the shelves in the supermarkets and so on, we wouldn't have the time to earn the high salaries because we'd be having to do all the subsistence stuff ourselves and whilst I have absolutely zero sympathy for people who aren't willing to work, I am increasingly starting to think we should be looking for a better way to value what people add to society.
Stick Legs said:
As much as I despise the idea of wealth redistribution on principle there has to be a point where unearned income and 'wealth' should have a level playing field in comparison with income tax.
The higher rate PAYE employees are the tethered goats of the UK tax system. Income Tax is already progressive, that's how percentages work.
The 'escape velocity' to get yourself into a comfortable position is getting higher and higher all the time and there is a point were the futility of trying to build any sort of financial security independent of work or welfare becomes so demoralising that you start to feel aggrieved.
I don't expect sympathy and someone will no doubt produce a graph that shows that I'm completely wrong but I know how it feel to work a shed load overtime and expect to have something to show for it only to fall into the marginal 60% tax trap, with no ability to avoid or plan around it as you are PAYE.
If I was self employed or ran a company I could manage that in may legitimate ways.
You cannot keep coming back and back to people on £60-£150k a year and hitting them with tax after tax because they are 'rich'.
We don't feel rich.
Absolutely spot on. The higher rate PAYE employees are the tethered goats of the UK tax system. Income Tax is already progressive, that's how percentages work.
The 'escape velocity' to get yourself into a comfortable position is getting higher and higher all the time and there is a point were the futility of trying to build any sort of financial security independent of work or welfare becomes so demoralising that you start to feel aggrieved.
I don't expect sympathy and someone will no doubt produce a graph that shows that I'm completely wrong but I know how it feel to work a shed load overtime and expect to have something to show for it only to fall into the marginal 60% tax trap, with no ability to avoid or plan around it as you are PAYE.
If I was self employed or ran a company I could manage that in may legitimate ways.
You cannot keep coming back and back to people on £60-£150k a year and hitting them with tax after tax because they are 'rich'.
We don't feel rich.
Imagine a world in which a large part of the national burden of income tax was removed from us in our working lives, and placed on unearned income, wealth, and, yes, things like Inheritance instead. Young people would suddenly have far more of their income for themselves, rather than having to wait to inherit their parents' assets, which for many of us doesn't happen until near the end of our own working lives.
The tax set up in the country is mental, unbalanced, unfair, and severely overly complex. Absolute rethink from the ground up required. We could look at places like Estonia which had the opportunity to build something new after independence, and have subsequently surged and prospered.
Tom8 said:
I still find it bonkers that we chuck benefits at people on good incomes for child benefit. Our issue is such a massive bloated welfare system, none of it encouraging anyone to work. I don't blame those who claim or don't work because why would you when you are better off staying at home and breeding?
This is one of the toxic legacies created by Blair and Brown, redistributing in the form of Tax Credits (all about the branding). Problem is that it is easy to give but very hard to take away and sadly the 14 years of tory government have done nothing to undo this. PFI was one of the other major contributors although that is far harder to undo.
If people are better off "staying at home and breeding", why do we have such a big problem with an ageing population?This is one of the toxic legacies created by Blair and Brown, redistributing in the form of Tax Credits (all about the branding). Problem is that it is easy to give but very hard to take away and sadly the 14 years of tory government have done nothing to undo this. PFI was one of the other major contributors although that is far harder to undo.
We've not been having enough kids to maintain a stable population since the 1960s.
There are four choices...
1. Work until you die of old age.
2. Logan's Run.
3. Have more immigrants.
4. Have more kids.
1 & 2 are electorally challenging options for a government to pursue, and 3 apparently is increasingly so too, so that just leaves option 3.
If people who want kids can't afford them and people who can afford them don't want them, then unless you're willing to revisit options 1 to 3, the only remaining choice is to redistribute funds from the don't wants to the can't affords, and if anything it needs to be done more aggressively, not less.
Kermit power said:
Tom8 said:
I still find it bonkers that we chuck benefits at people on good incomes for child benefit. Our issue is such a massive bloated welfare system, none of it encouraging anyone to work. I don't blame those who claim or don't work because why would you when you are better off staying at home and breeding?
This is one of the toxic legacies created by Blair and Brown, redistributing in the form of Tax Credits (all about the branding). Problem is that it is easy to give but very hard to take away and sadly the 14 years of tory government have done nothing to undo this. PFI was one of the other major contributors although that is far harder to undo.
If people are better off "staying at home and breeding", why do we have such a big problem with an ageing population?This is one of the toxic legacies created by Blair and Brown, redistributing in the form of Tax Credits (all about the branding). Problem is that it is easy to give but very hard to take away and sadly the 14 years of tory government have done nothing to undo this. PFI was one of the other major contributors although that is far harder to undo.
The ageing population is a 'big problem'? If so, blame the NHS.
turbobloke said:
Kermit power said:
Tom8 said:
I still find it bonkers that we chuck benefits at people on good incomes for child benefit. Our issue is such a massive bloated welfare system, none of it encouraging anyone to work. I don't blame those who claim or don't work because why would you when you are better off staying at home and breeding?
This is one of the toxic legacies created by Blair and Brown, redistributing in the form of Tax Credits (all about the branding). Problem is that it is easy to give but very hard to take away and sadly the 14 years of tory government have done nothing to undo this. PFI was one of the other major contributors although that is far harder to undo.
If people are better off "staying at home and breeding", why do we have such a big problem with an ageing population?This is one of the toxic legacies created by Blair and Brown, redistributing in the form of Tax Credits (all about the branding). Problem is that it is easy to give but very hard to take away and sadly the 14 years of tory government have done nothing to undo this. PFI was one of the other major contributors although that is far harder to undo.
The ageing population is a 'big problem'? If so, blame the NHS.
Kermit power said:
turbobloke said:
Kermit power said:
Tom8 said:
I still find it bonkers that we chuck benefits at people on good incomes for child benefit. Our issue is such a massive bloated welfare system, none of it encouraging anyone to work. I don't blame those who claim or don't work because why would you when you are better off staying at home and breeding?
This is one of the toxic legacies created by Blair and Brown, redistributing in the form of Tax Credits (all about the branding). Problem is that it is easy to give but very hard to take away and sadly the 14 years of tory government have done nothing to undo this. PFI was one of the other major contributors although that is far harder to undo.
If people are better off "staying at home and breeding", why do we have such a big problem with an ageing population?This is one of the toxic legacies created by Blair and Brown, redistributing in the form of Tax Credits (all about the branding). Problem is that it is easy to give but very hard to take away and sadly the 14 years of tory government have done nothing to undo this. PFI was one of the other major contributors although that is far harder to undo.
The ageing population is a 'big problem'? If so, blame the NHS.
Dodge the issue by all means.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff