Well, I'd rather not live on your planet if it's all the same to you - I want to live in a healthy world.
Ironically, I think with your environmental views you would have been well at home in the filth-producing Soviet Union.
LOL - I would have thought that almost a 100 years of experience of Socialist/Communist governments would have told you that Environmental protection was not very high on the States agenda.
SO are you saying that Tory MPs DIDN'T laugh at the people having to use food banks? or that IDS didn't 'sneak out' of the house when food banks were being discussed?
Because I think you will find that that is "the whole premise for this thread"
here ya go, just in case you missed it, or think it never happened,
<...remaining anti-Tory mindless shite snipped for brevity...>
That's what you're getting so worked up about...? Seriously?!
Do you ever watch debates in the house of Commons? Do you have any idea how often front bench spokesmen (of any governing party over the years) leave the Commons once the front bench ministers have spoken and it switches to a back bench debate? I'll give you a clue... it's pretty much all of them.
Funnily enough, I can't remember reading one of your rants aimed at the Labour front bench team who also left during the debate; or your criticism of any of the Labour MPs who also laughed and joked their way through the session... For my view, go back and read my first post in this thread where I've already commented on those on BOTH sides of the house who were laughing & otherwise distracted.
As for quoting the Daily Mirror, ffs, you might as well quote the Morning Star given how absurdly biased it is.
so i take it you are happy then that the 45% rate has been imposed by this government, which is higher than it ever was (apart from the last 3 months) under the previous government.
Well it hasn't exactly been imposed has it?
It has been lowered from 50% and will be lowered back to 40% if the Tories win the next election.
In fact you could say that the Tories are playing politics with people's money. If they could have lowered it to 40% and got away with it then they would have. That is the only reason it is not 40% now.
LOL - I would have thought that almost a 100 years of experience of Socialist/Communist governments would have told you that Environmental protection was not very high on the States agenda.
There's none so blind,, etc...etc...
Environmental protection hasn't been on anybody's agenda for very long - including the US, as you say here.
Anyway, your vision of a future UK with wall- to-wall nuclear reactors and fracking sites is a nightmare to me, so please excuse my not wanting any part of it.
Environmental protection hasn't been on anybody's agenda for very long - including the US, as you say here.
Anyway, your vision of a future UK with wall- to-wall nuclear reactors and fracking sites is a nightmare to me, so please excuse my not wanting any part of it.
Oh brave new world!
Oh dear, still peddling your one party 'social democracy' vision.
Oh dear, still peddling your one party 'social democracy' vision.
No. I believe in parliamentary democracy so that is highly unlikely. (And I am trying to protect the country from Majis's hellish vision for a toxic Britain).
... We are a country where more or less every person in the country contributes tax into a pot to provide for societies weakest members. If the pot isnt providing, things are broken, not healthy.
Or we've reached a point where more is being taken out than being put in.
Maybe we need people to voluntary put more in. Looks like we need more people with a sense of charity and not those for foreign recipients.
The point is Income Tax for the rich should have been much higher under Labour as well - two wrongs don't make a right.
quite. two wrongs do not make a right. i just wanted OHG to admit that the higher paid in our society are paying a higher rate of income tax under the tories than under labour.
and no, i disagree, the tax rate should not have been much higher. 45% is high enough.
It has been lowered from 50% and will be lowered back to 40% if the Tories win the next election.
In fact you could say that the Tories are playing politics with people's money. If they could have lowered it to 40% and got away with it then they would have. That is the only reason it is not 40% now.
why hasn't it been imposed?
are your last two paragraphs opinion or fact, cos if they are facts can you post a link.
quite. two wrongs do not make a right. i just wanted OHG to admit that the higher paid in our society are paying a higher rate of income tax under the tories than under labour.
and no, i disagree, the tax rate should not have been much higher. 45% is high enough.
why hasn't it been imposed?
are your last two paragraphs opinion or fact, cos if they are facts can you post a link.
Labour imposed the 50% tax rate and the Tories maintained it then lowered it. They didn't impose it - to say so would be factually incorrect.
HAS IT? well it's a damn good job it didn't die before there was time to give the wealthiest people in the country a massive income boost,
or to give MPs an 11% pay rise,
or before it was decided there was no need for a mansion tax, but it was absolutely necessary to punish poor people who happen to have a room that Dave and his chums have decided they don't "need"
or before it was decided that bankers bonuses don't need taxing or capping, but housing benefit for the poor DOES,
Or before they can commit to spending billions on a new train system in order to help London and the south get even more money and investment,
Or before we can spend billions on "bigger and better" nuclear weapons,
Or to hand the health Gestapo (ATOS) even more money to help them carry out their "selection" and "final solution" to "the disabled problem"
no reason at all why the remploy factories that give disabled people a JOB and lift them out of quite a lot of benefit dependency should stay open, because we can afford to throw thousands of WORKING disabled people out of work and onto benefits where they then become "scroungers" and "work shy" and are summoned before said health Gestapo and told "YOU MUST WORK YOU LAZY SCROUNGER"
no need at all to scrap those plans due to "the death of the money tree",
even though we (the 7th richest country on the planet)seem unable to find the money for the sick and the disabled and even the WORKING low paid, who will be fined if they happen to have a room that the "caring Conservatives" have decided they don't "need"
feel free to add stuff that we seem to be able to find the money for folks,
It seems we can afford to turn down money from the EU to feed the poor
Environmental protection hasn't been on anybody's agenda for very long - including the US, as you say here.
Anyway, your vision of a future UK with wall- to-wall nuclear reactors and fracking sites is a nightmare to me, so please excuse my not wanting any part of it.
Oh brave new world!
So even against all the evidence that socialist/communist countries have worse environmental protection records than capitalist, you still peddle the socialist nirvanna tosh.
It has been lowered from 50% and will be lowered back to 40% if the Tories win the next election.
In fact you could say that the Tories are playing politics with people's money. If they could have lowered it to 40% and got away with it then they would have. That is the only reason it is not 40% now.
I suppose it depends on what your reason is for wanting them to pay tax is in the first place.
If punishing people for making money is the purpose then yes put it back up to 50% or even higher. However if generating income for the State is the main purpose then history shows that lower rates achieve more.
During the 1970s the top one per cent of earners contributed 11pc of income tax. By 1986-87, with the top rate down to 60pc, that had increased to 14pc. After the top rate fell to 40pc in 1988, the top 1pc’s share jumped, reaching 21.3pc by 1999-2000, 24.4pc in 2007-08 and 26.5pc in 2009-10.
Some people forget that it's the taxes the rich pay that finance benefits for the poor.
Just to put the record straight, this government have taxed the rich far more than the last labour government
It isn't quite that simple though is it?
The rich and the businessmen prosper best when the economy is stable, people have money in their pockets to buy the goods they are selling and the infrastructure of the country is properly maintained. And when I mean businessmen I mean your common and garden businessmen not the exploitative ones at the very top.
What we have increasingly seen is businessmen and multi-national corporations use loopholes in tax law to keep more of the cake for themselves and have parliamentary parties, especially right-wing ones, balance the shortfall by cutting benefits and welfare. The problem of this is that is doesn't occur in a vacuum. If the people at the bottom have less to spend then this works its way up through the system. We have seen this through lower wages and shorter hours - made worse by the EU freedom of movement depressing wages even more.
The people at the top may pay more taxes but they all benefit the most as all money works its way back to the top. That is the biggest flaw with capitalism - left unchecked the money will always find its way to a rich elite. Fortunately we have two mechanisms to redistribute money throughout all levels of society to keep capitalism working - these methods are taxation and wages. Unfortunately for capitalism both wages and taxes are being manipulated by the people at the top so they can can keep a bigger slice of the cake. It is left to the people unable to exploit these flaws - the hard working middle-earners suffer from this - who then are taxed so the corporations can pick and choose their rate of tax. So we do not have the money redistributing itself properly through society. This came to pass in 2008 with the financial crisis. The only way economies could keep going or growing was through increasing amounts of debt - and then came the inevitable crash.
The solution is to have a global economic policy set in stone which allows the money to be properly redistributed so that the big flaw in capitalism can be managed as well as it can be. At the moment the rich businessmen and corporations are exploiting the loopholes in national economies because they have already embraced global economic policies for themselves. Governments are going to have to play catch-up. Of course there will be many who don't want them to play catch-up as they can make money for themselves as a result of these loopholes.
I suppose it depends on what your reason is for wanting them to pay tax is in the first place.
If punishing people for making money is the purpose then yes put it back up to 50% or even higher. However if generating income for the State is the main purpose then history shows that lower rates achieve more.
During the 1970s the top one per cent of earners contributed 11pc of income tax. By 1986-87, with the top rate down to 60pc, that had increased to 14pc. After the top rate fell to 40pc in 1988, the top 1pc’s share jumped, reaching 21.3pc by 1999-2000, 24.4pc in 2007-08 and 26.5pc in 2009-10.
So ya pays your money...:kitty:
As per my lengthier post above don't you agree that if all governments got on top of tax abuses then we could see room to cut tax rates even further? Is it right that some corporations can choose what rate and where they pay their corporation tax to where as hard-working sole traders/small businessmen do not have that luxury?
Don't you agree that businesses and businessmen prosper from a properly run country with decent infrastructure and people at all levels of society have disposable income to spend rather than having to rely on the unsustainable method of buying through debt?
Some people forget that it's the taxes the rich pay that finance benefits for the poor.
Just to put the record straight, this government have taxed the rich far more than the last labour government
And as I said a few pages back, that is just plain wrong.
I pay much the same percentage now as I did under labour, or indeed under Major.
The fallacy is thinking the headline rate even has any connection to the amount of tax paid by anyone who can afford reasonable financial representation. Which is anyone paying the highest rate tax.
So even against all the evidence that socialist/communist countries have worse environmental protection records than capitalist, you still peddle the socialist nirvanna tosh.
Points for persistance if nothing else..:D
Deflection. I want a future green state. What other countries environmental crimes - Capitalist or Socialist - were in the past is irrelevant.
What is important is that your future plans for the UK in terms of the environment are truly frightening.
We should hang our heads in shame that in our rich country, people are having to resort to food banks, whilst on TV most of the programmes are about lavish Christmas recipes, parties, lunches, decorating huge properties etc, etc (not to mention Liberties, where your shoes determine if you are a fit person to deal with or not!), - just to rub in the gap between the rich and the poor. Shame on us:( That is all.
And as I said a few pages back, that is just plain wrong.
I pay much the same percentage now as I did under labour, or indeed under Major.
The fallacy is thinking the headline rate even has any connection to the amount of tax paid by anyone who can afford reasonable financial representation. Which is anyone paying the highest rate tax.
So why on earth bang on about the tories cutting taxes for the rich then?
We should hang our heads in shame that in our rich country, people are having to resort to food banks, whilst on TV most of the programmes are about lavish Christmas recipes, parties, lunches, decorating huge properties etc, etc (not to mention Liberties, where your shoes determine if you are a fit person to deal with or not!), - just to rub in the gap between the rich and the poor. Shame on us:( That is all.
Help people to help themselves. If they dont then that is where my compassion runs out. There is no reason to allow your finances to be managed so badly that you cannot afford food.
Comments
LOL - I would have thought that almost a 100 years of experience of Socialist/Communist governments would have told you that Environmental protection was not very high on the States agenda.
There's none so blind,, etc...etc...
That's what you're getting so worked up about...? Seriously?!
Do you ever watch debates in the house of Commons? Do you have any idea how often front bench spokesmen (of any governing party over the years) leave the Commons once the front bench ministers have spoken and it switches to a back bench debate? I'll give you a clue... it's pretty much all of them.
Funnily enough, I can't remember reading one of your rants aimed at the Labour front bench team who also left during the debate; or your criticism of any of the Labour MPs who also laughed and joked their way through the session... For my view, go back and read my first post in this thread where I've already commented on those on BOTH sides of the house who were laughing & otherwise distracted.
As for quoting the Daily Mirror, ffs, you might as well quote the Morning Star given how absurdly biased it is.
Well it hasn't exactly been imposed has it?
It has been lowered from 50% and will be lowered back to 40% if the Tories win the next election.
In fact you could say that the Tories are playing politics with people's money. If they could have lowered it to 40% and got away with it then they would have. That is the only reason it is not 40% now.
Environmental protection hasn't been on anybody's agenda for very long - including the US, as you say here.
Anyway, your vision of a future UK with wall- to-wall nuclear reactors and fracking sites is a nightmare to me, so please excuse my not wanting any part of it.
Oh brave new world!
Oh dear, still peddling your one party 'social democracy' vision.
No. I believe in parliamentary democracy so that is highly unlikely. (And I am trying to protect the country from Majis's hellish vision for a toxic Britain).
Still, feel free to fabricate, as per........
Or we've reached a point where more is being taken out than being put in.
Maybe we need people to voluntary put more in. Looks like we need more people with a sense of charity and not those for foreign recipients.
quite. two wrongs do not make a right. i just wanted OHG to admit that the higher paid in our society are paying a higher rate of income tax under the tories than under labour.
and no, i disagree, the tax rate should not have been much higher. 45% is high enough.
why hasn't it been imposed?
are your last two paragraphs opinion or fact, cos if they are facts can you post a link.
Labour imposed the 50% tax rate and the Tories maintained it then lowered it. They didn't impose it - to say so would be factually incorrect.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10509537/David-Cameron-hints-he-wants-to-cut-the-top-rate-of-income-tax-to-40-per-cent.html
Link for Cameron saying he wants to cut the top rate back down to 40%. If the Tories get a majority he will see it as a mandate to do so.
It seems we can afford to turn down money from the EU to feed the poor
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/dec/17/government-under-fire-eu-funding-food-banks
Yet wealthy land owners, including the Queen, get millions in EU agricultural subsidies.
Just to put the record straight, this government have taxed the rich far more than the last labour government
Who was the Boss that paid less tax than his cleaner?
Percentage ways, the poor/ working class will pay more in tax IMO.
So even against all the evidence that socialist/communist countries have worse environmental protection records than capitalist, you still peddle the socialist nirvanna tosh.
Points for persistance if nothing else..:D
I suppose it depends on what your reason is for wanting them to pay tax is in the first place.
If punishing people for making money is the purpose then yes put it back up to 50% or even higher. However if generating income for the State is the main purpose then history shows that lower rates achieve more.
During the 1970s the top one per cent of earners contributed 11pc of income tax. By 1986-87, with the top rate down to 60pc, that had increased to 14pc. After the top rate fell to 40pc in 1988, the top 1pc’s share jumped, reaching 21.3pc by 1999-2000, 24.4pc in 2007-08 and 26.5pc in 2009-10.
So ya pays your money...:kitty:
It isn't quite that simple though is it?
The rich and the businessmen prosper best when the economy is stable, people have money in their pockets to buy the goods they are selling and the infrastructure of the country is properly maintained. And when I mean businessmen I mean your common and garden businessmen not the exploitative ones at the very top.
What we have increasingly seen is businessmen and multi-national corporations use loopholes in tax law to keep more of the cake for themselves and have parliamentary parties, especially right-wing ones, balance the shortfall by cutting benefits and welfare. The problem of this is that is doesn't occur in a vacuum. If the people at the bottom have less to spend then this works its way up through the system. We have seen this through lower wages and shorter hours - made worse by the EU freedom of movement depressing wages even more.
The people at the top may pay more taxes but they all benefit the most as all money works its way back to the top. That is the biggest flaw with capitalism - left unchecked the money will always find its way to a rich elite. Fortunately we have two mechanisms to redistribute money throughout all levels of society to keep capitalism working - these methods are taxation and wages. Unfortunately for capitalism both wages and taxes are being manipulated by the people at the top so they can can keep a bigger slice of the cake. It is left to the people unable to exploit these flaws - the hard working middle-earners suffer from this - who then are taxed so the corporations can pick and choose their rate of tax. So we do not have the money redistributing itself properly through society. This came to pass in 2008 with the financial crisis. The only way economies could keep going or growing was through increasing amounts of debt - and then came the inevitable crash.
The solution is to have a global economic policy set in stone which allows the money to be properly redistributed so that the big flaw in capitalism can be managed as well as it can be. At the moment the rich businessmen and corporations are exploiting the loopholes in national economies because they have already embraced global economic policies for themselves. Governments are going to have to play catch-up. Of course there will be many who don't want them to play catch-up as they can make money for themselves as a result of these loopholes.
As per my lengthier post above don't you agree that if all governments got on top of tax abuses then we could see room to cut tax rates even further? Is it right that some corporations can choose what rate and where they pay their corporation tax to where as hard-working sole traders/small businessmen do not have that luxury?
Don't you agree that businesses and businessmen prosper from a properly run country with decent infrastructure and people at all levels of society have disposable income to spend rather than having to rely on the unsustainable method of buying through debt?
We saw where that Labour "boom" got us eh?
And as I said a few pages back, that is just plain wrong.
I pay much the same percentage now as I did under labour, or indeed under Major.
The fallacy is thinking the headline rate even has any connection to the amount of tax paid by anyone who can afford reasonable financial representation. Which is anyone paying the highest rate tax.
Deflection. I want a future green state. What other countries environmental crimes - Capitalist or Socialist - were in the past is irrelevant.
What is important is that your future plans for the UK in terms of the environment are truly frightening.
So why on earth bang on about the tories cutting taxes for the rich then?
Help people to help themselves. If they dont then that is where my compassion runs out. There is no reason to allow your finances to be managed so badly that you cannot afford food.
I've never said they had.