If you ran your own state.....
Discussion
G_T said:
elster said:
You mean like £200 billion of the economy that is currently paid out isn't a lot of people depending on benefits. If they only got money for food and travel and long termers lived in nissen huts I bet there would be more people keen to work.
Are you for real? Do you really think that there is a massive labour shortage at the moment? Granted some a
holes don't want to work but at the moment thats the least of our problems...Anyway, as I've painstakingly tried to point out, and it has been conceded by some of you. The amount paid in benefits would only increase under your flat tax proposal. It's basic economics!
The only question here is whether or not the flat tax would be enough to try and convince people to come back and pay their taxes, largely out their own good will. I seriously cannot see it.
However they have also agreed it will never happen as the poor people wouldn't allow it.
They like to be subsidised.
G_T said:
elster said:
So you don't believe in equality?
Asking the poor to pay more than they already do and possibly rendering them destitute in the hope that foreign nationals will come back and give us money is not equality. There's more to it than just %'s on paper in my opinion.You can't just balance the validity of a flat rate tax on it's singular impact (ie, more direct tax), what about no tax on fags and booze. For them, that would probably outweigh their extra tax payment already anyway, considering how small it probably is vs those very high tax products!
G_T, I don't want to fall out with you or anything, but your arguements sound like the arguements typical of people looking at others with more, and being jealous. I hate to be an arse, but to claim a good trader is just a "tt in a suit" isn't exactly showing understanding of real life.
You say you grewq up in poverty, and I suspect that is an overstatement - unless you went down the pit at 14, or are from a thirld world country. I'm also curious as to why, if the situation where people who earn more can afford more than you can, why you're not out doing somthing about it? I see that in your profile you seem to be quite proud of doing the bare minimum at work, maybe this is your problem - if you apply yourself to your job as much as you do on here complaining about the rich getting a good deal, and you never know, you might just get a promotion. No arguements regarding background are valid excuses IMO, I once knew a very wealthy man who was a coal miner aged 15 he died a very wealthy man. Meanwhile, a lad I knew at sachool, ho's best qualification was GNVQ manufacturing is tooling around in a lovely S4 he owns outright, having noone's help but his own.
Just think, with a flat rate tax, it might force even people like yourself into working harder in order to have more of life's little luxuries?
t in a suit" isn't exactly showing understanding of real life.You say you grewq up in poverty, and I suspect that is an overstatement - unless you went down the pit at 14, or are from a thirld world country. I'm also curious as to why, if the situation where people who earn more can afford more than you can, why you're not out doing somthing about it? I see that in your profile you seem to be quite proud of doing the bare minimum at work, maybe this is your problem - if you apply yourself to your job as much as you do on here complaining about the rich getting a good deal, and you never know, you might just get a promotion. No arguements regarding background are valid excuses IMO, I once knew a very wealthy man who was a coal miner aged 15 he died a very wealthy man. Meanwhile, a lad I knew at sachool, ho's best qualification was GNVQ manufacturing is tooling around in a lovely S4 he owns outright, having noone's help but his own.
Just think, with a flat rate tax, it might force even people like yourself into working harder in order to have more of life's little luxuries?
10 Pence Short said:
G_T said:
El Guapo said:
G_T said:
Spiritual_Beggar said:
Flat Income Tax rate.
Seriously?That makes less sense than the toxic gas thing!
The true cost of living stays the same irrespective of your income. i.e. petrol, bread, milk all cost the same if you're prince or pauper.
So it means that the high earners get a great deal and the lower earners get screwed (as it will certainly raise their taxes!). So it seems fair that you will contribute more to the society that has given you more as you have more to spare?
It's perfectly logical to have increased levels of taxes for increased earnings. As much as many people won't like it. I'm not sure whether a flat rate is communism or capitalism gone mad but either way it seems daft to me.
Anyway... I really can't be bothered arguing the toss over this. I've already filled my arguementative b
d quota for the day.Taking into account NI, which is just an extra income tax, the result is very close to a flat tax system.
The hidden part of our tax system is that as income tax goes up to the top rate so NI falls.
It was fairly easy to select a personal allowance and tax rate that makes less than 1% difference to take home pay for the vast majority of people.
I propose:
No more VAT, stamp duty, NI, IHT, fuel tax. No more state pension, maternity pay, child benefit, housing benefit or job seekers. No more 16 hours a week rule on benefits.
Everyone gets taxed the same way. One allowance and one rate.
Everyone gets something, the universal allowance.
If you contribute you qualify for more if you need it, the variable benefit.
No more getting extra if you make your situation worse. Working always makes you better off as the payments are universal or related to tax payments. The student grant is effectively restored (they get the basic payment). Everyone is in the benefits system so there is no stigma to claiming, mothers and housewives are effectively paid to do their jobs.
There are no more 40 page forms for incapacitated people to fill in, no more complex rules for the elderly to battle through, no more utterly futile and bureaucratic attempts to "target the needy", which is where we keep going wrong.
Base the budget for this on the current system but freeze it until it gradually becomes a smaller portion of our national expenditure. Then maintain it at the new lower level.
So the proposal is fair, simple, and removes the oddities of the current system.
It doesn't need to be any more complex. There is a rather silly argument that somehow our society is so complex that all our rules and regulations must be complex as well otherwise, somehow, via a means that's never explained, the sky will fall. Has anyone ever told you that filling in more complex forms would improve their life? Has anyone ever told you that they look forward to a more complex future? Has anyone ever told that they're glad that the government have introduced thousands of pieces of EU legislation? Have any of the laws introduced in your lifetime made you substantially happier or wealthier? No? Didn't think so.
Some of our current system is just totally wierd. Take stamp duty and fuel tax. I drive to work and I'd like to cut down my big petrol bill but the cost of stamp duty on a house move makes it barely worthwhile so I carry on burning the fossil fuels they want me not to burn because I'm effectively being fined to reduce congestion and pollution. The 16 hours a week limit on benefits is another example, try to get work and you get clobbered so why bother?
There are only two reasons for a complex system: they have lost control or they are trying to hide the truth.
- one rate of income tax
- one personal allowance
- one flat rate benefit for every adult in the UK
- a system of variable benefits that depend on circumstances and how much you've paid in taxes
No more VAT, stamp duty, NI, IHT, fuel tax. No more state pension, maternity pay, child benefit, housing benefit or job seekers. No more 16 hours a week rule on benefits.
Everyone gets taxed the same way. One allowance and one rate.
Everyone gets something, the universal allowance.
If you contribute you qualify for more if you need it, the variable benefit.
No more getting extra if you make your situation worse. Working always makes you better off as the payments are universal or related to tax payments. The student grant is effectively restored (they get the basic payment). Everyone is in the benefits system so there is no stigma to claiming, mothers and housewives are effectively paid to do their jobs.
There are no more 40 page forms for incapacitated people to fill in, no more complex rules for the elderly to battle through, no more utterly futile and bureaucratic attempts to "target the needy", which is where we keep going wrong.
Base the budget for this on the current system but freeze it until it gradually becomes a smaller portion of our national expenditure. Then maintain it at the new lower level.
So the proposal is fair, simple, and removes the oddities of the current system.
It doesn't need to be any more complex. There is a rather silly argument that somehow our society is so complex that all our rules and regulations must be complex as well otherwise, somehow, via a means that's never explained, the sky will fall. Has anyone ever told you that filling in more complex forms would improve their life? Has anyone ever told you that they look forward to a more complex future? Has anyone ever told that they're glad that the government have introduced thousands of pieces of EU legislation? Have any of the laws introduced in your lifetime made you substantially happier or wealthier? No? Didn't think so.
Some of our current system is just totally wierd. Take stamp duty and fuel tax. I drive to work and I'd like to cut down my big petrol bill but the cost of stamp duty on a house move makes it barely worthwhile so I carry on burning the fossil fuels they want me not to burn because I'm effectively being fined to reduce congestion and pollution. The 16 hours a week limit on benefits is another example, try to get work and you get clobbered so why bother?
There are only two reasons for a complex system: they have lost control or they are trying to hide the truth.
G_T said:
Menguin said:
The bottom line is: It is in poor people's best interests for the government to collect the highest amount of money possible (irrespective of where it comes from) as then more money can be spent on welfare and breaks for the poor.
It is in rich people's best interests to get taxed as little as possible as a %age of their income because they work fecking hard and have worked to get to where they are.
So you honestly believe it's better to have a nation dependant on benefits? Further chastising the poor and giving the government even more power over them?It is in rich people's best interests to get taxed as little as possible as a %age of their income because they work fecking hard and have worked to get to where they are.
Sounds like absolute lunacy to me. I sincerely doubt that these people would "come back" as well. Realistically how could our government possibly lower their taxes to compete with other countries? I think you put to high a value on patriotism.
- Two tier rate of tax - 15% on all (no allowances) to £25,000, then 25% on earnings above this.
- NHS Equivelent, but those that opt to go private can have a tax break of some sorts.
- Ban on all immigration with the exception of skilled workers where there is a deficit of workers.
- Rigid sentencing framework for the justice system
- Labour camps/forced work for those within the justice system - repairing roads, public service etc.
- Less paperwork / more man hours for the police force.
- Huge funding for excellent public transportation - trains, trams etc. (No buses).
- Abolish RFL, instead adding 3p per litre to the cost of fuel (The more you drive, the more you pay).
- Incentives for entreprenurialism / small businesses - low corporation tax.
- No tax on savings income up to £50,000 pa.
- NHS Equivelent, but those that opt to go private can have a tax break of some sorts.
- Ban on all immigration with the exception of skilled workers where there is a deficit of workers.
- Rigid sentencing framework for the justice system
- Labour camps/forced work for those within the justice system - repairing roads, public service etc.
- Less paperwork / more man hours for the police force.
- Huge funding for excellent public transportation - trains, trams etc. (No buses).
- Abolish RFL, instead adding 3p per litre to the cost of fuel (The more you drive, the more you pay).
- Incentives for entreprenurialism / small businesses - low corporation tax.
- No tax on savings income up to £50,000 pa.
grumbledoak said:
cymtriks said:
It was fairly easy to select a personal allowance and tax rate that makes less than 1% difference to take home pay for the vast majority of people.
What would those numbers be, exactly?My Island would be £15k and 25%
allowance of 6475, 20 percent tax from the allowance up to 37400 thereafter 40 percent
NI of 11% starting at 110pwk and reducing to 1% over 844 pwk
gives take home pay of:
10000 = 8824
30000 = 22624
60000 = 41710
90000 = 59411
a flat rate tax of 31% and allowance of 6220
gives take home pay of:
10000 = 8828
30000 = 22628
60000 = 43328
90000 = 64028
For most people a flat rate tax would make no difference, we almost have one already, it is just hidden behind a smokescreen of numbers.
G_T said:
elster said:
Why should those who earn more have to pay a greater percentage of their income?
Because it takes X billion to run a country. This is paid for by us. Currently the rich pay more towards this. A flat tax system, unless you can prove otherwise, would produce a defecit which would result in the taxation increasing on the poor. I.e. a flat rate of 25% still represents an increase on our lowest earners who need the money the most.elster said:
As for the defecit, more people would be willing to pay tax so wouldn't avoid it. Even the tax man will get to see I earn more than 10k.
Some people pay fractions of the tax abroad. Despite what some people believe the government could not offer them even close to that! Even 25% flat tax is 20% more than in some countries. They won't come back because of the gesture shown by our government alone.Incentives make far more sense. Tax relief to individuals based on circumstance.
elster said:
Think of how much paperwork and people to shuffle through the paperwork you would get rid of by having a flat rate system!
Can't argue this one. Although admittedly I first saw it on presented on The Simpsons.Go do some research.
Good starting point is wikipedia - flat taxation
will lead you to 130+page paper analysing basis of flat tax system.
You don't really understand the concept. You fail to recognise thst a flat tax system still includes a non tax threshold for low income earners. You fail to recognise that initial shortfall in tax receipts is offset by greatly reduced costs of administration and collection, in addition to lesser incentive to avoid tax.
There are fairly well developed arguments for a flat taxation system (which would encompass equivalent and simplified VAT, capital gains etc)
go do some reading.
I'd reduce the law to, approximately "No thieving, no thuggery, keep left"
I'd guarantee the religious freedom of children by abolishing all faith schools and banning the genital mutilation of boys as well as girls.
Constitution guaranteeing personal freedom and massively constraining the power of the state.
No extra urban speed limits, no FPNs, no electronic surveillance, no victimless crimes, no thought crimes, no arbitrary limits on anything, no prohibition whatsoever.
Simplified tax system - flatish if not flat.
No votes for the innumerate.
I'd guarantee the religious freedom of children by abolishing all faith schools and banning the genital mutilation of boys as well as girls.
Constitution guaranteeing personal freedom and massively constraining the power of the state.
No extra urban speed limits, no FPNs, no electronic surveillance, no victimless crimes, no thought crimes, no arbitrary limits on anything, no prohibition whatsoever.
Simplified tax system - flatish if not flat.
No votes for the innumerate.
Airbag said:
Anyone who thinks a flat tax isn't regressive needs their head examined.
Check my figures above. With a bit of adjustment it is possible to get so close to our current system that it makes no difference.We already have the tax rate of a flat rate tax, just with vastly more complication that you pay for.
G_T said:
Spiritual_Beggar said:
Flat Income Tax rate.
Seriously?That makes less sense than the toxic gas thing!
12% flat income tax would improve quality of life for everyone in the country other than the literally thousands of HMRC monkeys you simply would not need any more.
Plotloss said:
G_T said:
Spiritual_Beggar said:
Flat Income Tax rate.
Seriously?That makes less sense than the toxic gas thing!
12% flat income tax would improve quality of life for everyone in the country other than the literally thousands of HMRC monkeys you simply would not need any more.
My simple spreadsheet suggests circa 30% and an allowance of around 6K to match the total of tax and NI (i.e the true income tax rate that is hidden from us by calling some of it something else)
Plotloss said:
It was a report made to the government a while back.
Adam Smith Institute seems to suggest 22% with a 12K allowance.
I think 12% was with no allowance.
It costs £30Bn to run HMRC which seems utterly utterly absurd to me.
I have been told varyinging numbers between 20-25%. That is why I went for the high end.Adam Smith Institute seems to suggest 22% with a 12K allowance.
I think 12% was with no allowance.
It costs £30Bn to run HMRC which seems utterly utterly absurd to me.
I will assume that is with an allowance, I must not getdrunk when discussing things. It fades the old grey matter.
Graham E said:
G_T, I don't want to fall out with you or anything, but your arguements sound like the arguements typical of people looking at others with more, and being jealous. I hate to be an arse, but to claim a good trader is just a "tt in a suit" isn't exactly showing understanding of real life.
You say you grewq up in poverty, and I suspect that is an overstatement - unless you went down the pit at 14, or are from a thirld world country. I'm also curious as to why, if the situation where people who earn more can afford more than you can, why you're not out doing somthing about it? I see that in your profile you seem to be quite proud of doing the bare minimum at work, maybe this is your problem - if you apply yourself to your job as much as you do on here complaining about the rich getting a good deal, and you never know, you might just get a promotion. No arguements regarding background are valid excuses IMO, I once knew a very wealthy man who was a coal miner aged 15 he died a very wealthy man. Meanwhile, a lad I knew at sachool, ho's best qualification was GNVQ manufacturing is tooling around in a lovely S4 he owns outright, having noone's help but his own.
Just think, with a flat rate tax, it might force even people like yourself into working harder in order to have more of life's little luxuries?
I don't want to fall out with anybody Graham, but I'm not understanding how anybody doesn't understand that (1) A flat tax favours the wealthy and (2) that I'm not saying we should all earn the same etc. I'm just suggesting that the current system is the fairer than a flat tax system.t in a suit" isn't exactly showing understanding of real life.You say you grewq up in poverty, and I suspect that is an overstatement - unless you went down the pit at 14, or are from a thirld world country. I'm also curious as to why, if the situation where people who earn more can afford more than you can, why you're not out doing somthing about it? I see that in your profile you seem to be quite proud of doing the bare minimum at work, maybe this is your problem - if you apply yourself to your job as much as you do on here complaining about the rich getting a good deal, and you never know, you might just get a promotion. No arguements regarding background are valid excuses IMO, I once knew a very wealthy man who was a coal miner aged 15 he died a very wealthy man. Meanwhile, a lad I knew at sachool, ho's best qualification was GNVQ manufacturing is tooling around in a lovely S4 he owns outright, having noone's help but his own.
Just think, with a flat rate tax, it might force even people like yourself into working harder in order to have more of life's little luxuries?
My "
in a suit" statement has been taken out of context. I'm afraid to say my use of English is typically callous but meant to be harmless. I was simply showing that people are valued by the capitalist society we inhabit and are largely of no other intrinsic value. My personal circumstances are irrelevent Graham. You're suggesting that I'm "having a go at the higher earners", I have categorically stated that I am not. I am in defence of the poor who would be persecuted. As such your anecdote is misplaced. Contrary to what I say about myself on a car website, my work ethic is fine and I have every intention of joining the "high earners" and being crucified in taxes. Please don't make this personal.
I hope that clears things up a bit.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff