Why the UKIP will never work....
Discussion
JustAnotherLogin said:
FiF said:
sidicks said:
I think it's great - it's showing up those who are most vociferously anti-UKIP for what they are - ignorant simpletons!
Upon reflection I can understand that viewpoint. In reality you may have been too complimentary of their intelligence. Clearly the interpretation of that is somewhat subjective, open to personal interpretation as to whether person A is included and Person B not, or both or indeed neither.
The interpretation that cannot be given to it is that it means all.
Hope that helps.
FiF said:
I suspect you have missed the significance of the inclusion of the words "most vociferously" in sidicks post.
Clearly the interpretation of that is somewhat subjective, open to personal interpretation as to whether person A is included and Person B not, or both or indeed neither.
The interpretation that cannot be given to it is that it means all.
Hope that helps.
Indeed.Clearly the interpretation of that is somewhat subjective, open to personal interpretation as to whether person A is included and Person B not, or both or indeed neither.
The interpretation that cannot be given to it is that it means all.
Hope that helps.
I thought this was obvious, hence hadn't responded further to this.
sidicks said:
Given that you struggled to work out the result of £1,400bn + £75bn - £75bn without the use of a spreadsheet, then I'm not sure I trust your calculations.
The UKIP proposed flat rate of tax is about 5 years out of date - do keep up.
I've never said that I wouldn't benefit from such a system - indeed there is a view that suggests that most people would benefit - but that wasn't the point.
The point was about taking the lowest paid out of tax.
Nice try at the ad-hominem.. swing and a miss. I don't remember making any calculations, I'm pretty sure I just asked YOU to tell us roughly how much you would benefit from a flat tax rate of, say, 30% (As proposed by UKIP up to about 5 mins ago when I guess they changed their minds again) so that we could judge whether you were just trying to mislead people or actually had a point.The UKIP proposed flat rate of tax is about 5 years out of date - do keep up.
I've never said that I wouldn't benefit from such a system - indeed there is a view that suggests that most people would benefit - but that wasn't the point.
The point was about taking the lowest paid out of tax.
You were trying to make out that the people who benefit MOST from a flat tax rate will be those at the bottom end of the scale, and I am simply calling bulls
t, using you as an example. Judging by your defensive remarks, it seems I was right.mrpurple said:
CamMoreRon said:
(As proposed by UKIP up to about 5 mins ago when I guess they changed their minds again)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-27654958Brackets are stupid, and a flat rate is stupid.
Just have something that smoothly moves from 0% at ~ £10,000, and then curves up to 50% by £250,000 or something. With an effective intersect of something like 30% by around £40,000...
Dave
– UKIP will increase personal allowance to the level of full-time minimum wage earnings (approx £13,500 by next election).
– We will introduce a 35p income tax rate between £42,285 and £55,000, whereupon the 40p rate becomes payable.
http://www.ukip.org/policies_for_people?utm_campai...
– We will introduce a 35p income tax rate between £42,285 and £55,000, whereupon the 40p rate becomes payable.
http://www.ukip.org/policies_for_people?utm_campai...
Mr Whippy said:
Why not just use some kind of polynomial curve to do a flat(ish) rate.
Brackets are stupid, and a flat rate is stupid.
Just have something that smoothly moves from 0% at ~ £10,000, and then curves up to 50% by £250,000 or something. With an effective intersect of something like 30% by around £40,000...
Dave
I fail to see how a flat tax rate (with a large personal allowance of say £15k) is "stupid". Other than playing the politics of envy there is no benefit to excessive taxes on the wealthy.Brackets are stupid, and a flat rate is stupid.
Just have something that smoothly moves from 0% at ~ £10,000, and then curves up to 50% by £250,000 or something. With an effective intersect of something like 30% by around £40,000...
Dave
What you propose is good in theory (albeit 50% is too high a tax rate IMO) but I suspect rather complicated/costly to implement.
CamMoreRon said:
Nice try at the ad-hominem.. swing and a miss.
ad hominem??Says the person who constantly throws out insults and who has repeatedly (and deliberately?) incorrectly stated my name on almost every response they have made...
CamMoreRon said:
I don't remember making any calculations, I'm pretty sure I just asked YOU to tell us roughly how much you would benefit from a flat tax rate of, say, 30% (As proposed by UKIP up to about 5 mins ago when I guess they changed their minds again) so that we could judge whether you were just trying to mislead people or actually had a point.
Wrong again.CamMoreRon said:
You were trying to make out that the people who benefit MOST from a flat tax rate will be those at the bottom end of the scale, and I am simply calling bullst, using you as an example. Judging by your defensive remarks, it seems I was right.
Those who gain most will be the poorest who move out of tax altogether (100% saving) and other low income earners who see their tax reduce by high percentages. Those at the top end of the scale will see their tax reduce by small percentages.t, using you as an example. Judging by your defensive remarks, it seems I was right.Plus of course, as explained already, a simplified system is likely to lead to increased revenue and hence more money spent on the poorest in society.
Sorry you don't understand this!
mrpurple said:
– UKIP will increase personal allowance to the level of full-time minimum wage earnings (approx £13,500 by next election).
– We will introduce a 35p income tax rate between £42,285 and £55,000, whereupon the 40p rate becomes payable.
http://www.ukip.org/policies_for_people?utm_campai...
All sounds great, but given a huge chunk of tax still goes out on stuff like petrol, VAT, etc, then it's not so clear cut if you'll be better or worse off.– We will introduce a 35p income tax rate between £42,285 and £55,000, whereupon the 40p rate becomes payable.
http://www.ukip.org/policies_for_people?utm_campai...
Just how they like it I suppose, which is why they don't like a single tax take rate!
Dave
Mr Whippy said:
Why not just use some kind of polynomial curve to do a flat(ish) rate.
Brackets are stupid, and a flat rate is stupid.
Just have something that smoothly moves from 0% at ~ £10,000, and then curves up to 50% by £250,000 or something. With an effective intersect of something like 30% by around £40,000...
Dave
1. A flat rate is not stupid. With an appropriate tax free allowance it is a) simple to administer and b) fair (in a sensible interpretation of the word)Brackets are stupid, and a flat rate is stupid.
Just have something that smoothly moves from 0% at ~ £10,000, and then curves up to 50% by £250,000 or something. With an effective intersect of something like 30% by around £40,000...
Dave
2. Your approach would mean that each additional penny of income would get charged at a different marginal rate, which would make no sense at all.
sidicks said:
1. A flat rate is not stupid. With an appropriate tax free allowance it is a) simple to administer and b) fair (in a sensible interpretation of the word)
2. Your approach would mean that each additional penny of income would get charged at a different marginal rate, which would make no sense at all.
How about a personal allowance of £30k and a flat rate of 50% above that ? This has the advantage of helping the low(er) paid whilst retaining the simplicity of the flat rate tax. 2. Your approach would mean that each additional penny of income would get charged at a different marginal rate, which would make no sense at all.
Mr Whippy said:
mrpurple said:
– UKIP will increase personal allowance to the level of full-time minimum wage earnings (approx £13,500 by next election).
– We will introduce a 35p income tax rate between £42,285 and £55,000, whereupon the 40p rate becomes payable.
http://www.ukip.org/policies_for_people?utm_campai...
All sounds great, but given a huge chunk of tax still goes out on stuff like petrol, VAT, etc, then it's not so clear cut if you'll be better or worse off.– We will introduce a 35p income tax rate between £42,285 and £55,000, whereupon the 40p rate becomes payable.
http://www.ukip.org/policies_for_people?utm_campai...
Just how they like it I suppose, which is why they don't like a single tax take rate!
Dave
sidicks said:
Countdown said:
Just raise the tax rate until it's revenue-neutral 
It never would be, as high earners wouldn't stay around to pay it.Plus let's bear in mind that A £30k allowance will make a real difference to hard working families and act as an incentive for people to move off benefits (which will reduce the spending on welfare), as well as reducing tax credits (where the taxpayer supports those in low paying jobs). Plus we have the all-important simplicity of a flat rate tax which will reduce the incentive for people to avoid/evade tax thereby increasing tax revenue.
Or are the flat rate tax advocates in favour only because it means "other people" pay more tax?
Countdown said:
Is it the top 10% of earners who currently pay 90% of tax anyway? With appropriate rates/tax bands all we would be doing is moving the tax burden downwards onto the people earning £30k- £150k. Why should those on £150k plus be paying so much tax? Equally £30k isn't a lot for a young couple/growing family/large mortgage.....
No, people up to £45k would be better off (in some cases much better off), so the burden is shifted to those on £45k plus.There simply aren't enough of them to meet the tax requirements.
£30k is about the cut off for 75% of workers.
£45k is about the cut off for 90% of workers
Countdown said:
Plus let's bear in mind that A £30k allowance will make a real difference to hard working families and act as an incentive for people to move off benefits (which will reduce the spending on welfare), as well as reducing tax credits (where the taxpayer supports those in low paying jobs). Plus we have the all-important simplicity of a flat rate tax which will reduce the incentive for people to avoid/evade tax thereby increasing tax revenue.
Or are the flat rate tax advocates in favour only because it means "other people" pay more tax?
"Hard working families" - are you Ed Milliband in disguise?Or are the flat rate tax advocates in favour only because it means "other people" pay more tax?
As explained previously, a simple and fair tax system makes it harder for high earners to avoid and gives them less reason to do so i.e. You increase the number contributing and generate higher taxes, even with lower take rates.
Edited by sidicks on Tuesday 25th November 13:10
sidicks said:
Mr Whippy said:
Why not just use some kind of polynomial curve to do a flat(ish) rate.
Brackets are stupid, and a flat rate is stupid.
Just have something that smoothly moves from 0% at ~ £10,000, and then curves up to 50% by £250,000 or something. With an effective intersect of something like 30% by around £40,000...
Dave
1. A flat rate is not stupid. With an appropriate tax free allowance it is a) simple to administer and b) fair (in a sensible interpretation of the word)Brackets are stupid, and a flat rate is stupid.
Just have something that smoothly moves from 0% at ~ £10,000, and then curves up to 50% by £250,000 or something. With an effective intersect of something like 30% by around £40,000...
Dave
2. Your approach would mean that each additional penny of income would get charged at a different marginal rate, which would make no sense at all.
Brackets are the stupid thing that make a flat rate silly.
We see brackets being the bane of the whole benefits system where people fit perfectly into certain zones of best outcome for example.
Or house prices sitting under stamp duty brackets.
If you're gonna have a tax free allowance, then a ramping rate makes more sense.
And it's not that complicated, it's a polynomial with stops. Throw in gross, out comes net. It's actually a simpler calculation than bracketed varieties where you need to apply each chunk a different percentage in multiple separate functions.
And yes the rich should pay more tax than people earning less. If you didn't believe in the tax free allowance then that is what IS happening. It's just blending it out with a curved balance.
What curve you choose is up to you but that curve is required to make it fair IF you're gonna have a tax free allowance.
Dave
sidicks said:
CamMoreRon said:
You were trying to make out that the people who benefit MOST from a flat tax rate will be those at the bottom end of the scale, and I am simply calling bullst, using you as an example. Judging by your defensive remarks, it seems I was right.
Those who gain most will be the poorest who move out of tax altogether (100% saving) and other low income earners who see their tax reduce by high percentages. Those at the top end of the scale will see their tax reduce by small percentages.t, using you as an example. Judging by your defensive remarks, it seems I was right.Plus of course, as explained already, a simplified system is likely to lead to increased revenue and hence more money spent on the poorest in society.
Sorry you don't understand this!
Given that the tax rate for high earners would be dropping by a fairly substantial percentage, they would save a significant amount of money. 5 figures, easily, for most.
So you're trying to bulls
t people in to thinking high earners will be making a sacrifice to low earners, when actually they stand to save a very large amount on their tax bills. Furthermore, those who will be below the new threshold still won't be making a living wage (and will therefore still require state subsidy) whereas high earners are making gains on already disposable income. And you have the audacity to try and deny your greed with my envy.. CamMoreRon said:
sidicks said:
CamMoreRon said:
You were trying to make out that the people who benefit MOST from a flat tax rate will be those at the bottom end of the scale, and I am simply calling bullst, using you as an example. Judging by your defensive remarks, it seems I was right.
Those who gain most will be the poorest who move out of tax altogether (100% saving) and other low income earners who see their tax reduce by high percentages. Those at the top end of the scale will see their tax reduce by small percentages.t, using you as an example. Judging by your defensive remarks, it seems I was right.Plus of course, as explained already, a simplified system is likely to lead to increased revenue and hence more money spent on the poorest in society.
Sorry you don't understand this!
Given that the tax rate for high earners would be dropping by a fairly substantial percentage, they would save a significant amount of money. 5 figures, easily, for most.
So you're trying to bulls
t people in to thinking high earners will be making a sacrifice to low earners, when actually they stand to save a very large amount on their tax bills. Furthermore, those who will be below the new threshold still won't be making a living wage (and will therefore still require state subsidy) whereas high earners are making gains on already disposable income. And you have the audacity to try and deny your greed with my envy.. MOAR, I WATN MOAR!!!
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff