Why the UKIP will never work....

[CamMoreRon]

sidicks said:

CamMoreRon said:

You were all over flat rates a few pages in.. something about "the poorest benefiting the most". You remember me quoting you on it?

Quite how you expect someone to benefit by more than 100%, I've no idea. Once again, figures are apparently not your strongest area!

You're spectacularly missing the point. Yes, someone on £13k might save a few hundred quid a year, but someone on £200k would save £~40k - 3 times what they make in a year.

sidicks said:

Plus of course higher tax income benefits the poorest the most as they receive the majority of the benefit of that through government spending.

Higher tax income.. from all those people taking 5-figure tax reductions? Please.
Do you really think people will flock to this country to pay tax, because we have a flat rate? If people are pathetic enough to choose their home country based on the tax regime, they will live in a tax haven.

sidicks said:

CamMoreRon said:

If only you could say anything even remotely constructive. I'm all ears if you know something I don't..

I've already explained it twice, just as I had to explain the debt / deficit thing to you about five times. Your ears might be fine but your comprehension / ability to process data appears sadly lacking.

Ever determined to divert attention to someone else..

sidicks said:

CamMoreRon said:

Nope.. based on your words. Do you not remember typing them? Or are you just trying to re-write history because someone called you on your bullst?

Given I've not said how much I earn or what tax allowance I'd suggest or what flat rate I'd apply. I'm struggling to see how you think you can calculate my tax saving, except to make a wild guess. Having said that, even with all the appropriate parameters I think you'd struggle to undertake the calculation!

You stated in another thread that you paid a 6-figure tax bill, so I went from there. Since you still refuse to disclose how much you stand to save on a flat rate tax system, it's all we have to go by. I estimate your saving to be around the £40k mark. As I said before, this was based on UKIP's proposed 30%.

sidicks said:

CamMoreRon said:

You pay your fair share, but you're selfish & greedy so you want to pay less.

As with 99% of stuff you post, it simply does not stand up to scrutiny.

We both have the same opportunities (if anything it sounds as though you had greater advantages than me) so quite why my "fair share" of tax should be 10-20 times as big as yours, I've no idea...

Further, the fact that, despite paying a large chunk of my earnings in tax, I still voluntarily give thousands more to charity suggests that most sensible people would find it hard to describe me as greedy or selfish.

I think you'll find it has stood up pretty well. My allegation against you was that you were attempting to make out that those on minimum wage stand to gain the most and high earners the least, and this has not stood up to scrutiny.

Your tax bill is larger than mine because you get paid more than I do. You may well pay 10-20 times what I do in tax, but your disposable income afterwards is also 10-20 times what mine is - that seems pretty fair to me. Tell me how it would be fair for me to pay double what I do now and have zero disposable income, and for you to pay half and have double? Like it or not, tax HAS to be paid in proportion to your ability to pay it. If people like you didn't constantly bh about their percentile shouldering the burden, people like me might be a hell of a lot more grateful for it. As it stands, you would reduce your burden in a heartbeat, and to hell with what that means for the rest of us.

[Esseesse]

s2art said:

vonuber said:

It's tongue in cheek; but the worrying thing is that he's not adverse to getting into bed with other very unpleasant Right Wing parties of that hue.

Check out some of the Tory and Labour fellow travelers in the EU parliament. It aint pretty.

Indeed. Also the party that that stupid image refers to was called the National Socialist German Workers Party, they were far left.

[sidicks]

CamMoreRon said:

Higher tax income.. from all those people taking 5-figure tax reductions? Please.
Do you really think people will flock to this country to pay tax, because we have a flat rate? If people are pathetic enough to choose their home country based on the tax regime, they will live in a tax haven.

I assume you've never heard of the Laffer curve. Ironic really given how vociferous you have been about the nasty rich people avoiding tax - so which is it? Are there lots of nasty rich people avoiding tax (but who might actually pay tax if the rate was more reasonable) or not???

I'm afraid the tone of your final sentence betrays your left wing jealousy.

CamMoreRon said:

Ever determined to divert attention to someone else..

So you still don't understand and won't listen? So much for bring 'all ears'....

CamMoreRon said:

Your tax bill is larger than mine because you get paid more than I do. You may well pay 10-20 times what I do in tax, but your disposable income afterwards is also 10-20 times what mine is - that seems pretty fair to me. Tell me how it would be fair for me to pay double what I do now and have zero disposable income, and for you to pay half and have double?

Why don't you work harder and make more of the sacrifices that I have done in the past so that you can earn more and hence contribute more? Why should other people have to subsidise your laziness?

CamMoreRon said:

Like it or not, tax HAS to be paid in proportion to your ability to pay it. If people like you didn't constantly bh about their percentile shouldering the burden, people like me might be a hell of a lot more grateful

It's quite obvious that people like you are far too jealous and envious to ever be grateful!

CamMoreRon said:

As it stands, you would reduce your burden in a heartbeat, and to hell with what that means for the rest of us.

So you would repeatedly claim, yet the fact is that I donate a significant portion of my excess income to charity so the evidence suggests I would continue to do this if my income increased.

Whereas, you appear to expect other people to pay for everyone else and apparently have no interest in putting in some extra effort to help others!

Edited by sidicks on Wednesday 26th November 09:56

[Axionknight]

sidicks said:

So you would repeatedly claim, yet the fact is that I donate a significant portion of my excess income to charity so the evidence suggests I would continue to do this if my income increased.

Whereas, you appear to expect other people to pay for everyone else and apparently have no interest in putting in some extra effort to help others!

Edited by sidicks on Wednesday 26th November 09:56

Probably because he thinks we are a pack of James Hunts,

[CamMoreRon]

sidicks said:

I assume you've never heard of the Laffer curve. Ironic really given how vociferous you have been about the nasty rich people avoiding tax - so which is it? Are there lots of nasty rich people avoiding tax (but who might actually pay tax if the rate was more reasonable) or not???

I'm afraid the tone of your final sentence betrays your left wing jealousy.

I've heard of it.. there is a lot of debate over skew. I'm sure people in your position who think they pay more than what's fair love to reference the curves skewed in their favour, and love to attack those that aren't.

sidicks said:

Why don't you work harder and make more of the sacrifices that I have done in the past so that you can earn more and hence contribute more? Why should other people have to subsidise your laziness?

Hahaha.. judging by the frequency of your posting and your post count, it's pretty likely I work harder than you.

For the record: I receive no government subsidy. I'm fortunate to have concentrated my efforts in an area that pays an adequate wage.

sidicks said:

CamMoreRon said:

Like it or not, tax HAS to be paid in proportion to your ability to pay it. If people like you didn't constantly bh about their percentile shouldering the burden, people like me might be a hell of a lot more grateful

It's quite obvious that people like you are far too jealous and envious to ever be grateful!

It's quite obvious that you don't understand a pretty simple moral objection. I'm hardly surprised, really. Anyone who resents your behaviour is jealous, because jealousy is all you can understand. I'll reiterate: I have great admiration for those who recognise the inequality in society, and consequently accept the burden on the wealthy to provide for the poor - after all, it is low wages (often as a direct result of their actions) that creates the wealth gap in the first place. It's people who only want to take and then complain when asked to give something back that people like me object to. That may well be too complex a concept for you to understand.

sidicks said:

So you would repeatedly claim, yet the fact is that I donate a significant portion of my excess income to charity so the evidence suggests I would continue to do this if my income increased.

Whereas, you appear to expect other people to pay for everyone else and apparently have no interest in putting in some extra effort to help others!

That's great, Sidney. I would have the utmost respect for you if it weren't for your greed-driven wish to keep an ever greater slice of the pie. (And the way you speak to people sometimes)

I've said before, I'm happy to pay the taxes I do. I hope people can see through your attempts to misrepresent me, as we have been over personal contributions to taxes and charity elsewhere.

[mrpurple]

CamMoreRon said:

Hahaha.. judging by the frequency of your posting and your post count, it's pretty likely I work harder than you. rofl

Sorry to butt in on a domestic but did you not say in a few of your many other posts that you were starting your own business soon?

Well, judging by the frequency of your posts, if you put as much time and energy into it as you do your posts on here it won't be long before you will be paying higher rate tax yourself.

In a similar vein how come you can spend so much time posting on here when you are working so hard?

[sidicks]

CamMoreRon said:

I've heard of it.. there is a lot of debate over skew. I'm sure people in your position who think they pay more than what's fair love to reference the curves skewed in their favour, and love to attack those that aren't.

Tha the Laffer curve exists is a mathematical fact, where we are on the curve is a matter for debate, but you must recognise the inconsistency in your claims about the 'rich avoiding tax', the impact of recent changes to the top rate of tax and to a claim that we are below the peak of the Laffer curve...!

CamMoreRon said:

Hahaha.. judging by the frequency of your posting and your post count, it's pretty likely I work harder than you.

It's quite obvious that my employer thinks otherwise. And your work can't be that productive!

CamMoreRon said:

For the record: I receive no government subsidy. I'm fortunate to have concentrated my efforts in an area that pays an adequate wage.

For the record, I receive no government subsidy, although I don't work for a tax avoiding multinational company like you...!

CamMoreRon said:

It's quite obvious that you don't understand a pretty simple moral objection. I'm hardly surprised, really. Anyone who resents your behaviour is jealous, because jealousy is all you can understand. I'll reiterate: I have great admiration for those who recognise the inequality in society, and consequently accept the burden on the wealthy to provide for the poor

You mean the sort of people who pay massive taxes (much of which is wasted) and then make significant additional contributions to support the poorest in society?

I appreciate your admiration for me!

CamMoreRon said:

- after all, it is low wages (often as a direct result of their actions) that creates the wealth gap in the first place.

Not necessarily, there are a huge number of reasons for this (and you appear to be confusing wealth and income).

CamMoreRon said:

It's people who only want to take and then complain when asked to give something back that people like me object to. That may well be too complex a concept for you to understand.

It's the people at the top who are doing all of the giving (but clearly this is too complex a subject for you to understand!)

CamMoreRon said:

That's great, Sidney.

Ah look, you've done it again. Deliberately misquoted my name as a sort of joke. How clever you are. I hope your jokes are appreciated by the 'big boys' when you move on from primary school!

CamMoreRon said:

I would have the utmost respect for you if it weren't for your greed-driven wish to keep an ever greater slice of the pie.

You fail to understand that I've helped to grow the pie and I don't expect to keep a larger proportion for mysefl, just to have greater control about how and to whom that pie is shared....

CamMoreRon said:

And the way you speak to people sometimes

Once again, given your track record in this area, I'm not sure you are in the best position to comment. Regardless, you will note that in the other thread (about the debt / deficit) I was perfectly polite to you when you were asking questions (no matter how stupid) and where you appeared to be demonstrating a genuine willingness to learn.

On the other hand, when you make aggressive posts you receive an aggressive and curt response. Seems fairly reasonable.

CamMoreRon said:

I've said before, I'm happy to pay the taxes I do. I hope people can see through your attempts to misrepresent me, as we have been over personal contributions to taxes and charity elsewhere.

Oh the irony, you complain about being misrepresented and yet you continue to misrepresent other people...

Edited by sidicks on Wednesday 26th November 11:10

[Countdown]

sidicks said:

Tha the Laffer curve exists is a mathematical fact, where we are on the curve is a matter for debate, but you must recognise the inconsistency in your claims about the 'rich avoiding tax', the impact of recent changes to the top rate of tax and to a claim that we are below the peak of the Laffer curve...!

I'd suggest that the Laffer Curve isn't mathematical fact. It's a (fairly simplistic) theory. Also the Flat rate tax means that people on average wages would end up paying more tax so would that not result in the Laffer Curve working in reverse?

Your position seems to suggest that "rich people paying less tax = more tax revenue" and "Average people paying more tax = more tax revenue". AFAICS tose statements aren't consistent.

[CamMoreRon]

fking hell.. Let's trim some of the irrelevant ad-hom out:

sidicks said:

CamMoreRon said:

It's quite obvious that you don't understand a pretty simple moral objection. I have great admiration for those who recognise the inequality in society, and consequently accept the burden on the wealthy to provide for the poor

You mean the sort of people who pay massive taxes (much of which is wasted) and then make significant additional contributions to support the poorest in society?

I appreciate your admiration for me!

It's quite likely I would admire your contributions, if you weren't so keen to reduce them to your definition of fair to the detriment of 99% of society.

Unfortunately my admiration for you as a person will likely never happen due to the way you speak to those you clearly deem below you.

sidicks said:

CamMoreRon said:

- after all, it is low wages (often as a direct result of their actions) that creates the wealth gap in the first place.

Not necessarily, there are a huge number of reasons for this (and you appear to be confusing wealth and income).

No confusion. We've been over the acquisition of wealth via income before. We can delve quite deep in to the reasons some people end up on minimum wage, but the fact will always remain that the minimum wage (and hence the incentive for people in that position to push upwards) is too low to allow for financial independence from the state due to the greed of those paying it. Keep pay low, keep profit high, let the state sort out the mess.

sidicks said:

You fail to understand that I've helped to grow the pie and I don't expect to keep a larger proportion for mysefl, just to have greater control about how and to whom that pie is shared....

And why should you decide who gets what?

sidicks said:

CamMoreRon said:

And the way you speak to people sometimes

Once again, given your track record in this area, I'm not sure you are in the best position to comment. Regardless, you will note that in the other thread (about the debt / deficit) I was perfectly polite to you when you were asking questions (no matter how stupid) and where you appeared to be demonstrating a genuine willingness to learn.

On the other hand, when you make aggressive posts you receive an aggressive and curt response. Seems fairly reasonable.

This is chicken / egg. Yes I'm quite happy to talk to you reasonably, as you may have noticed. It's just in this instance you were lying to someone and I wanted to call you on it. More often than not your attitude is what provokes me to speak to you how I do. You rarely put across a point.. 99% of the time it is an insult or a flat-out denial - occasionally both. I'm fully aware that I'm not perfect either.

[edh]

sidicks said:

For the record, I receive no government subsidy, although I don't work for a tax avoiding multinational company like you...!

I must have misunderstood, I thought you worked for a pensions company?

[CamMoreRon]

mrpurple said:

In a similar vein how come you can spend so much time posting on here when you are working so hard?

I take regular breaks. It's the most efficient way to be productive and not burn out.

[sidicks]

Countdown said:

I'd suggest that the Laffer Curve isn't mathematical fact. It's a (fairly simplistic) theory.

If you have a zero tax rate you have zero tax income.
If you have a 100% tax rate youd raise very little income (as good as zero for this purpose)
Therefore there exists at least one tax rate between 0% and 100% that maximises total tax income.
QED

Countdown said:

Also the Flat rate tax means that people on average wages would end up paying more tax so would that not result in the Laffer Curve working in reverse?

That depends on the tax free allowance chosen and the flat rate.

Countdown said:

Your position seems to suggest that "rich people paying less tax = more tax revenue" and "Average people paying more tax = more tax revenue". AFAICS tose statements aren't consistent.

Not that I'm proposing average people paying more (see above) but quite simply, average people are more likely to be on PAYE and hence have less opportunity to avoid (legally) taxes.

The same issue doesn't apply to the rich and in the extreme they may well move elsewhere rather than pay taxes in this country. Of course the cost and complexity of implementing tax avoidance is an issue and so if tax rates were lower there would be less incentive to undertake this avoidance.

In summary therefore, if you have more people paying tax, taxes can reduce for everyone!

[sidicks]

edh said:

I must have misunderstood, I thought you worked for a pensions company?

I don't.

But the subsidies for pensions go to there customer, not the company!

[CamMoreRon]

sidicks said:

In summary therefore, if you have more people paying tax, taxes can reduce for everyone!

That sounds awfully like an argument in favour of immigration on a UKIP thread..

[Mr Whippy]

sidicks said:

You fail to understand that I've helped to grow the pie and I don't expect to keep a larger proportion for mysefl, just to have greater control about how and to whom that pie is shared....

I think that is fair enough.

I feel the same way when I pay my taxes. To think that my total tax payments for a year might just go to do one gastric band operation on the NHS is pretty sickening.

So to imagine how someone paying a hundred times that feels to see they are paying for 20 fatties to have gastric bands, 20 people who abuse themselves with drink getting supported beyond a reasonable level, 20 dossers who can't be arsed with jobs getting paid to sit around, 20 council staff who do non-jobs for life with a better pension than most whinging about how hard life is... yeah it must be pretty grating!


But I think that being able to grow a pie using a society as the cooker, means that you need society (warts and all) to grow the pie to then pay to run the cooker. It's a circular system.


I'd personally be very happy, if I were making say £500,000 a year, to pay 50% on anything over £100,000 I think.

BUT I'd not be happy paying it all with the current waste and stupidity shown by the current showers of ste in power.

If we saw a shining beacon of honesty in politics, forward thinking and investment for the long term future for my children and childrens children, for everyone in society then I'd think 50p off every pound over £100k would be a cheap price to pay.


Whether UKIP can offer that or not is another thing.

It seems within a month they've gone from standing for what they believe, to just standing for whatever they think will get them the widest possible voter count... which is exactly what they shouldn't do.
I don't want politicians who make the popular easy decisions that don't make a material difference. I want politicians who will make the hard and unpopular decisions that will serve us all the best in the longer term!


Dave

[edh]

sidicks said:

edh said:

I must have misunderstood, I thought you worked for a pensions company?

I don't.

But the subsidies for pensions go to there customer, not the company!

..and those companies wouldn't exist (or at least be massively reduced) without taxpayer subsidy.

[anonymous-user]

Good piece by Andrew Rawnsley in Sunday's Observer, precis is "its time for fewer TV images of Nigel down the pub and a lot more questions about what he would do with power". Its worth a read despite what you think about the paper itself, I think Ranwsley is spot on. "The traditional parties and much of the media are still struggling with how to treat Ukip. Here’s an idea. Subject them to the robust interrogation of policies and postures that is applied to every other party that aspires to decide how we are governed. Fewer pictures of Nigel down the pub, more questions about what he would do with power. Ukip wants to be taken seriously. So it should be. But as the Lib Dems have painfully discovered, ultimately there may be nothing more disappointing for Ukip than having its dream come true"

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/nov/...

[sidicks]

Mr Whippy said:

I think that is fair enough.

I feel the same way when I pay my taxes. To think that my total tax payments for a year might just go to do one gastric band operation on the NHS is pretty sickening.

So to imagine how someone paying a hundred times that feels to see they are paying for 20 fatties to have gastric bands, 20 people who abuse themselves with drink getting supported beyond a reasonable level, 20 dossers who can't be arsed with jobs getting paid to sit around, 20 council staff who do non-jobs for life with a better pension than most whinging about how hard life is... yeah it must be pretty grating!


But I think that being able to grow a pie using a society as the cooker, means that you need society (warts and all) to grow the pie to then pay to run the cooker. It's a circular system.


I'd personally be very happy, if I were making say £500,000 a year, to pay 50% on anything over £100,000 I think.

BUT I'd not be happy paying it all with the current waste and stupidity shown by the current showers of ste in power.

If we saw a shining beacon of honesty in politics, forward thinking and investment for the long term future for my children and childrens children, for everyone in society then I'd think 50p off every pound over £100k would be a cheap price to pay.

Agree with most of the above. Unfortunately the current 'showers of ste' are the least worst option at the moment, In April 2015 that might change....

Mr Whippy said:

Whether UKIP can offer that or not is another thing.

It seems within a month they've gone from standing for what they believe, to just standing for whatever they think will get them the widest possible voter count... which is exactly what they shouldn't do.
I don't want politicians who make the popular easy decisions that don't make a material difference. I want politicians who will make the hard and unpopular decisions that will serve us all the best in the longer term!

Dave

Definitely agree!

Edited by sidicks on Wednesday 26th November 12:17

[sidicks]

edh said:

..and those companies wouldn't exist (or at least be massively reduced) without taxpayer subsidy.

Debatable, but not relevant...!

[sidicks]

CamMoreRon said:

That sounds awfully like an argument in favour of immigration on a UKIP thread..

That sounds like a comment from someone who doesnt understand the difference between controlled immigration and all immigration....!