Discussion
Rovinghawk said:
edh said:
tax cuts for the better off
May I rephrase that?"tax cuts for those that pay the most tax"
[and before you jump in, yes I know the top 1% pay a third of income tax - it was a joke..] Anyway, as life's so cushy on benefits, there's always another option to people who are fed up of paying taxes..edh said:
Rovinghawk said:
edh said:
tax cuts for the better off
May I rephrase that?"tax cuts for those that pay the most tax"
Anyway, as life's so cushy on benefits, there's always another option to people who are fed up of paying taxes..Tax evasion can't be recommended surely
edh said:
sorry but no
1. tax cut for high earners by raising the 40% band - does nothing for low and middle earners. Remember that only 15% of taxpayers pay this rate.
Highest earners don't get the personal allowance. Depends on your definition of middle earners.1. tax cut for high earners by raising the 40% band - does nothing for low and middle earners. Remember that only 15% of taxpayers pay this rate.
edh said:
2. higher earners benefit more from a raising of personal allowances (no marginal tax rate associated with reduction of benefits for them) - that's why this govt has squeezed down the 40% band in the last few years as they raised the personal allowance.
The highest earners don't get the personal allowance.edh said:
3. The lowest earners - those earning below the personal allowance don't benefit at all. Possibly up to 1 in 6 of all workers.
Really? Those who don't pay income tax don't benefit from income tax reductions? Thanks for your enlightening comments.edh said:
All academic as it's promised for 2020 and there's no hope they can pay for it, unless they decide to borrow more to pay for a tax cut
- as Osborne said in 2008 “Well if he doesn’t explain how it is going to be paid for then it isn’t a tax cut, it is a complete tax con”
To be determined in due course.- as Osborne said in 2008 “Well if he doesn’t explain how it is going to be paid for then it isn’t a tax cut, it is a complete tax con”
Edited by sidicks on Wednesday 1st October 14:29
edh said:
1. tax cut for high earners by raising the 40% band - does nothing for low and middle earners. Remember that only 15% of taxpayers pay this rate.
So in your view, anyone paying 40% tax is a 'high earner'?Raising the 40% tax bracket will benefit what I consider to be 'middle earners' more than anyone else. And I can see it being a very popular policy come May next year.
Alex said:
Rovinghawk said:
May I rephrase that?
"tax cuts for those that pay the most tax"
May I also?"tax cuts for those that pay the most tax"
"Tax cuts for the most productive"
edh said:
Tell me how BTL landlords "create wealth" and are "productive" I suspect Rovinghawk may have an opinion..
Since you ask, I created some wealth by taking a wreck of a house & turning it into a nice place to live. Your political position seems to predominantly involve wanting to take some of that wealth & giving it to those who haven't done similar work.
Apart from that, it's also about providing a needed service. Those who defend 'non-productive' doctors & nurses will argue a similar position. You might equally question how bus/train drivers create wealth.
Edited by Rovinghawk on Wednesday 1st October 14:29
king heard it all now 
sidicks said:
edh said:
sorry but no
1. tax cut for high earners by raising the 40% band - does nothing for low and middle earners. Remember that only 15% of taxpayers pay this rate.
Highest earners don't get the personal allowance. Depends on your definition of middle earners.1. tax cut for high earners by raising the 40% band - does nothing for low and middle earners. Remember that only 15% of taxpayers pay this rate.
Middle earners - the ones in the middle of the income distribution. If you really want to put numbers on it, how about those between 25 and 75% of all taxpayers be earnings? Not in the top 15%. Unless your definition of middle is substantially different
sidicks said:
edh said:
2. higher earners benefit more from a raising of personal allowances (no marginal tax rate associated with reduction of benefits for them) - that's why this govt has squeezed down the 40% band in the last few years as they raised the personal allowance.
The highest earners don't get the personal allowance.sidicks said:
edh said:
3. The lowest earners - those earning below the personal allowance don't benefit at all. Possibly up to 1 in 6 of all workers.
Really? This who don't oay income tax don't benefit from income tax reductions? Thanks for your enlightening comments.sidicks said:
edh said:
All academic as it's promised for 2020 and there's no hope they can pay for it, unless they decide to borrow more to pay for a tax cut
- as Osborne said in 2008 “Well if he doesn’t explain how it is going to be paid for then it isn’t a tax cut, it is a complete tax con”
To be determined in due course.- as Osborne said in 2008 “Well if he doesn’t explain how it is going to be paid for then it isn’t a tax cut, it is a complete tax con”
fblm said:
edh said:
2. higher earners benefit more from a raising of personal allowances
I didn't think higher earners were entitled to the personal allowance any more? Even if they are how in gods name do higher earners beenfit more from a raising of the allowance than anyone else?http://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/6045
oh and if a low earner has an increase in net income as a result of the tax cut, they are likely to face a withdrawal of some WTC or CTC.
edh said:
Are you really saying that people on higher tax bands don't get their personal allowance tax free?
Yes, shouldn't you know the basics if you are going to try and debate this?edh said:
Middle earners - the ones in the middle of the income distribution. If you really want to put numbers on it, how about those between 25 and 75% of all taxpayers be earnings? Not in the top 15%. Unless your definition of middle is substantially different
Middle earners tens to be thought of as those approaching the 40% tax bucket. At least when the public sector is talking about certain teachers, civil servants, NHS staff who are at that level, they don't consider themselves 'high earners'....edh said:
You tried to claim that a rise in personal allowances helps low earners - then you say you know it doesn't help the bottom 15% of earners. Make your mind up.
Tax cuts help those who pay tax. To expect another result is foolish,many that was the context of the discussion.edh said:
not really - sounds like an unfunded tax cut to me, as it's unfunded.
I'm not sure you've seem the full spending plans for 2020 to make that comment...edh said:
So tax cuts most benefit those that pay the most tax. This is what I said earlier.edh said:
if a low earner has an increase in net income as a result of the tax cut, they are likely to face a withdrawal of some WTC or CTC.
So if they can stand on their own two feet they get less help than those that can't. Sounds reasonable to me.Justayellowbadge said:
edh said:
Are you really saying that people on higher tax bands don't get their personal allowance tax free?
Yes. People are saying just that. It makes the marginal tax rate at 100-110k a little punitive.
edh said:
Justayellowbadge said:
edh said:
Are you really saying that people on higher tax bands don't get their personal allowance tax free?
Yes. People are saying just that. It makes the marginal tax rate at 100-110k a little punitive.
edh said:
fblm said:
edh said:
2. higher earners benefit more from a raising of personal allowances
I didn't think higher earners were entitled to the personal allowance any more? Even if they are how in gods name do higher earners beenfit more from a raising of the allowance than anyone else?http://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/6045
oh and if a low earner has an increase in net income as a result of the tax cut, they are likely to face a withdrawal of some WTC or CTC.
http://www.holderandcombes.co.uk/our-services/tax-...
Higher earners do not get the personal allowance. You are wrong.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff