People want to visit ASAP before it goes down the ****ter.

Spot on!:thumbs:
They want to be able to tell their grand children ''i was there before it was destroyed by Brexit and it wasn't half bad''.:laugh:

It's going to cost people alot more otherwise, look at medical costs in the states, crazy

If people earn a lot of money, they shouldn't have to pay a higher percentage of their money. 20% of £150k is still a lot of money, and they want to pay more of it, there's plenty of charities they can give to.

They already pay 40% on anything over £43K on top of the normal allowances that other people get.

Yup, and they shouldn't pay more than 20%, like the lesser earners. There should be a flat tax rate.

I totally agree.

I strongly believe that the best thing for the economy is for more disposable income to be in the hands of people who will actually spend it; i.e. working people (and also those in receipt of benefit). So in principle, I'm actually in favour of the highest tax rate being the 40% rate (no 45% or 50% rate), and also, I would raise the thresholds of each band rather than lowering it, including the 0% band (I think 0% under 14k would be reasonable).

I would definitely not support a 20% tax band across the board on all earnings... it would be unworkable. Full time minimum wage is roughly £1200 a month which is ALREADY only just about enough to scrape rent, bills and food.... if you take 20% off of that then min wage take home would be closer to £950 a month.

There HAS to be a basic threshold of subsistence (shelter, fuel, food) that is allowed for before the government starts taking a slice of the pie.

Also remember that the 0% band doesn't only apply to people on low incomes... the first £11.5k of your earnings is tax free no matter HOW much you earn.



Current rates are:

Personal Allowance (0%)
Up to £11,500

Basic rate (20%)
£11,501 to £45,000

Higher rate (40%)
£45,001 to £150,000

Additional rate (45%)
over £150,000


I personally would support:

Personal Allowance (0%)
Up to £14,000

Basic rate (20%)
£14,001 to £55,000

Higher rate (40%)
£55,001 and above

Additional rate
none


Though obviously you couldn't do something that drastic over night, it would be a significant restructuring of tax income.



Oh... also I would never have VAT any higher than 12.5%. 20% is a ridiculous VAT rate.

Oh and I also think that a couple's tax free allowance should be fully transferrable. IMO it's somewhat ridiculous that a family with two working parents on £25,000 currently has a significantly higher take-home pay than a couple with one earner on £50k and the other stay-at-home. In other words, for families, tax rates should apply to the household rather than each individual. Literally everything else that is means-tested is tested against household income so why isn't tax?

When I say there should be a flat rate, I still believe in the current tax-free allowance, and even that it should be higher - but I also think everyone who does pay tax should pay the same percentage.

I don't know but I would imagine it may be related to the higher costs/expenses of a two-parent income i.e. childcare. One would assume that the non-working parent is providing childcare.

I would tax everyone I would have a 5% rate for those under 11,500 just so nobody can say that they aren't contributing but like TS I would offset that by reducing VAT.
I would come after tax avoiders.

Corporation tax is the problem. http://www.progressivepulse.org/econ...tity-of-money/ Its economic incompetence.

A flat tax rate is not workable. It puts too much burden on the lower incomes who are simply unable to pay as much as the higher incomes. A progressive taxation system is much fairer regarding a more equal distribution of wealth.

Its a fascinating subject that cannot easily be summed up in a nice 20 - 30 word post. There are many economic theories that all work but the best system is to pull the best ideas from each theory.

The question is how does a country become a rich country? And I dont believe a flat or regressive tax rate can achieve growth at a sufficient rate.

I would like to see the tax free allowance taken up to £15K.

They wouldn't be paying as much - 20% of £16k is less than 20% of £100k.

Percentage its the same but proportionally its much more. The logic being that the person on 16k paying 20% would impact their disposable income much more than a person paying 20% on 100k. :thumbs:

Someone who earns £100k evidently works much harder than someone earning £16k, why shouldn't they have more disposable income? What's more, people live to their means. Someone who bought a sic mansion and keep it ticking along with their family inside wouldn't appreciate being told to pay more tax.

I bring you back to the question I posed - How does a country become rich?

What do you mean by "a country" ? /if you mean the people within it, they can become rich by working hard, and if they don't work hard they don't deserve to be rich.

Oh dear. :facepalm:

What's the difference between microeconomics and macroeconomics?

The American Dream? I'm pretty sure even Americans don't believe in that any more :joker:.

This is such a neoliberal way of thinking.

My husband earns considerably more money than I do but its a business he inherited some years ago that just earns him money without him doing very much at all. I could work a forty hour week doing a professional job and never earn what he earns working a ten to fifteen hour week. I don't begrudge him his earnings because I benefit from it too but please don't suggest my job has less value than his.

This is such a neoliberal way of thinking.

So what's your definition of "a country", and how can it be made rich?

Someone worked hard to build that business. By running it he's creating and maintaining jobs - that's pretty darn valuable.