Why the UKIP will never work....

[don4l]

Countdown said:

I was surprised at how some people thought that "everybody else" paying more tax was fairer.....

It has always been thus.

[CamMoreRon]

sidicks said:

CamMoreRon said:

I'm not going to get into a multiquote battle with you; why don't you try making one concise point, rather than spew out a bunch of hastily-written trash?

Seeing as you poo-pooed the idea of a £30k tax allowance on the last page, I think your idea of a large personal allowance is some piecemeal rise of £3k or so.

As ever, what you think is usually wrong and without foundation.

You're wriggling.. moving the goalposts of the argument, as ever.

Sidney said:

CamMoreRon said:

As I have said a few times now, this still keeps those who earn very little on state subsidy as they are still earning below what is deemed to be a living wage - i.e. a wage that you can actually live on unassisted.

Except it doesn't. So you are wrong again - a remarkably consistent pattern...

If those on minimum wage were not forced to pay tax on those earnings then they'd have broadly the same as the net (after tax) amount of the 'living wage'.

Right.. and your point is? How does this fit in with your ideal of a flat tax rate for all? I don't doubt that an increased personal allowance is a good thing for those on minimum wage, but it isn't enough. As I said, they will still need subsidy if their pay is below what a person can actually live on. And like I also said, don't sit there and pretend those at the bottom benefit most when you get a 5-figure tax reduction on flat rate.

To reiterate: long may you keep paying your fair share.

[sidicks]

CamMoreRon said:

Right.. and your point is? How does this fit in with your ideal of a flat tax rate for all?

When was it my idea?

CamMoreRon said:

I don't doubt that an increased personal allowance is a good thing for those on minimum wage, but it isn't enough. As I said, they will still need subsidy if their pay is below what a person can actually live on.

Except the figures suggest otherwise - if only you could do sums!

CamMoreRon said:

And like I also said, don't sit there and pretend those at the bottom benefit most when you get a 5-figure tax reduction on flat rate.

That's based on your (false) assumptions rather than anything I've actually said.

CamMoreRon said:

To reiterate: long may you keep paying your fair share.

To reiterate, I pay much more than my fair share, to support people like you who pay less!

[don4l]

CamMoreRon said:

To reiterate: long may you keep paying your fair share.

Surely, the fairest thing would be that we all pay our own way.

Why should I subsidise you? You probably waste loads of money on necessities like Sky Sports, a mobile phone, and a 60 inch HD Television.

[ClaphamGT3]

[Einion Yrth]

ClaphamGT3 said:

You are a fking idiot.

[XJ Flyer]

don4l said:

CamMoreRon said:

To reiterate: long may you keep paying your fair share.

Surely, the fairest thing would be that we all pay our own way.

Why should I subsidise you? You probably waste loads of money on necessities like Sky Sports, a mobile phone, and a 60 inch HD Television.

Great idea lets close down consumer spending wherever possible and what we do buy we import and that will make everything better.Which is where the economy is now.IE a stagnant debt ridden mess with an unsustainable trade deficit.

As for everyone 'paying their own way' the way to do that is for the working class to ditch the idea of socialism and use unions for the job they are meant to do.Which means telling the employers that employed workers are not a charity just as any other business isn't.They have to pay their own way which means enough wages to pay for private income protection insurance,,private education for their children,savings for retirement and private health care to cover a family.

That and enough disposable income to keep a modern industrialised economy moving.In an environment where the object isn't to import labour or export jobs and import goods in order to minimise wage costs.

Edited by XJ Flyer on Tuesday 25th November 21:16

[FredClogs]

ClaphamGT3 said:

First they came for the memes, and I said nothing...

[Countdown]

ClaphamGT3 said:

[vonuber]

Einion Yrth said:

ClaphamGT3 said:

You are a fking idiot.

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.

[s2art]

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.

[CamMoreRon]

sidicks said:

CamMoreRon said:

Right.. and your point is? How does this fit in with your ideal of a flat tax rate for all?

When was it my idea?

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

sidicks said:

CamMoreRon said:

I don't doubt that an increased personal allowance is a good thing for those on minimum wage, but it isn't enough. As I said, they will still need subsidy if their pay is below what a person can actually live on.

Except the figures suggest otherwise - if only you could do sums!

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

sidicks said:

CamMoreRon said:

And like I also said, don't sit there and pretend those at the bottom benefit most when you get a 5-figure tax reduction on flat rate.

That's based on your (false) assumptions rather than anything I've actually 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?

sidicks said:

CamMoreRon said:

To reiterate: long may you keep paying your fair share.

To reiterate, I pay much more than my fair share, to support people like you who pay less!

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

[JustAnotherLogin]

sidicks said:

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.

Yet you are also in favour of the current UKIP policy, which adds an additional tax bracket over the current system, and doesn't decrease the marginal tax rate for the higher earners, so by your rational leads to fewer paying and thus lower tax yields

If the old UKIP policy was good for its simplicity and flat rate, how is the new UKIP policy good for its additional complexity and equivalent progressiveness?

[sidicks]

JustAnotherLogin said:

Yet you are also in favour of the current UKIP policy, which adds an additional tax bracket over the current system, and doesn't decrease the marginal tax rate for the higher earners, so by your rational leads to fewer paying and thus lower tax yields

If the old UKIP policy was good for its simplicity and flat rate, how is the new UKIP policy good for its additional complexity and equivalent progressiveness?

I am?

Perhaps you'll you provide a quote that supports that claim.

Edited by sidicks on Tuesday 25th November 23:27

[sidicks]

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!

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

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.

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!

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.

Edited by sidicks on Tuesday 25th November 23:30

Edited by sidicks on Wednesday 26th November 00:02

[smegmore]

Einion Yrth said:

ClaphamGT3 said:

You are a fking idiot.

Yes, what a crock of sh*te, the fear is palpable in the established political elite. When some maverick appears on the scene and dares to speak the truth the denizens of our fair and just political system st their pants and resort to insults.

Nice.

[AJS-]

What a silly image.

The whole idea of a united Europe doesn't have a great track record either.

[NicD]

JustAnotherLogin said:

Yet you are also in favour of the current UKIP policy, which adds an additional tax bracket over the current system, and doesn't decrease the marginal tax rate for the higher earners, so by your rational leads to fewer paying and thus lower tax yields

If the old UKIP policy was good for its simplicity and flat rate, how is the new UKIP policy good for its additional complexity and equivalent progressiveness?

This is the current tax policy, it is slightly better than currently for me so I like it, but carry on with your rambling nonsense. 40% as a maximum is definitely high enough for the top earners, especially combined with intensive anti-avoidance measures. It removes the incentive to hide the earnings and thus maximises total return.

http://www.ukip.org/policies_for_people

– We will introduce a 35p income tax rate between £42,285 and £55,000, whereupon the 40p rate becomes payable.
UKIP will increase personal allowance to the level of full-time minimum wage earnings (approx £13,500 by next election).
– Inheritance tax will be abolished.

– UKIP will set up a Treasury Commission to design a turnover tax to ensure big businesses pay a minimum floor rate of tax as a proportion of their UK turnover.
– UKIP will reduce Barnett Formula spending and give devolved parliaments and assemblies further tax powers to compensate.

[Countdown]

NicD said:

This is the current tax policy, it is slightly better than currently for me so I like it, but carry on with your rambling nonsense. 40% as a maximum is definitely high enough for the top earners, especially combined with intensive anti-avoidance measures. It removes the incentive to hide the earnings and thus maximises total return.

http://www.ukip.org/policies_for_people

– We will introduce a 35p income tax rate between £42,285 and £55,000, whereupon the 40p rate becomes payable.
UKIP will increase personal allowance to the level of full-time minimum wage earnings (approx £13,500 by next election).
– Inheritance tax will be abolished.
.

This will reduce the overall tax revenue. Given that we already have a significant deficit how is UKIP going to pay for it?

[JustAnotherLogin]

NicD said:

JustAnotherLogin said:

Yet you are also in favour of the current UKIP policy, which adds an additional tax bracket over the current system, and doesn't decrease the marginal tax rate for the higher earners, so by your rational leads to fewer paying and thus lower tax yields

If the old UKIP policy was good for its simplicity and flat rate, how is the new UKIP policy good for its additional complexity and equivalent progressiveness?

This is the current tax policy, it is slightly better than currently for me so I like it, but carry on with your rambling nonsense. 40% as a maximum is definitely high enough for the top earners, especially combined with intensive anti-avoidance measures. It removes the incentive to hide the earnings and thus maximises total return.

http://www.ukip.org/policies_for_people

– We will introduce a 35p income tax rate between £42,285 and £55,000, whereupon the 40p rate becomes payable.
UKIP will increase personal allowance to the level of full-time minimum wage earnings (approx £13,500 by next election).
– Inheritance tax will be abolished.

– UKIP will set up a Treasury Commission to design a turnover tax to ensure big businesses pay a minimum floor rate of tax as a proportion of their UK turnover.
– UKIP will reduce Barnett Formula spending and give devolved parliaments and assemblies further tax powers to compensate.

And what in what you have posted, is anything different to what I posted?
Same upper rates, but an additional 35p rate. So extra complexity.

So quick with the accusations of "rambling nonsense", so deficient with the facts.