[the truth]

a sliding scale of income tax

all way the way from those who earn millions per annum at 50% down to those who earn £15,000 at 10%


close ALL loopholes....all tax must be paid by all.

eu , united nations, usa etc all agree worldwide to close all tax loopholes

scrap every single stealth tax in the world , scarp every single public parking charge in the world, scarp all vat the worlds greatest enslavement tax which simply robs from the poor and is reclaimed by the rich

scrap all tax on all goods all fuel everything

the sheer amount of missing billions/trillions this cleaner clearer system would collect would cover all the petty pocket pinching stealth taxes

this would be a simple effective transparent way of taxing everyone

there is simply no need for the million and 1 taxes and 1001 tax loopholes its a game that's grown out of control or any understanding


the end result of all this would be simple

A fairer society for all, enough funding for the vital stuff i.e. health health health and education and housing

it would also ensure millions of small businesses grew across the globe....and every one of them could have a chance to grow and compete with the bigger corporations because they wouldn't have the VAT hurdle to overcome...business would be simple, buy low sell high, make a profit, pay a flat rate of tax, happy days...such a society would create a healthier business competitive environment, not a closed shop or cartel and would kill greedy complacent illegal monopolies

that's it, the end

[JoshBB]

I believe taxation should be more progressive and focus on equality and distribution of wealth. The lowest paid should pay significantly less - the 10p rate seems reasonable. And those at earnings over £150,000 should pay 60% as the greens are suggesting. My personal view is that anything over 2mil should be 75% as well.

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by JoshBB

I believe taxation should be more progressive and focus on equality and distribution of wealth. The lowest paid should pay significantly less - the 10p rate seems reasonable. And those at earnings over £150,000 should pay 60% as the greens are suggesting. My personal view is that anything over 2mil should be 75% as well.

No ONE on wages under £25,000 should pay ANY TAX.

[Vicky.]

We wouldnt even need to do everything else tbh, closing the tax loopholes would suffice. But no government would be willing to do that as it would affect themselves/friends/donors. I would personally have a kinda sliding tax scale

No tax paid on first 25k of earnings
20% up to 35k (so if your wage was 40k, first 25k is disregarded, rest taxed)
30% up to 50k (25k disregarded. 20% on 15k, plus 30% on 10k)
40% up to 60k
50% on everything above 100k. Something like that anyway...

We could get away with lower taxes on middle/high earners if large corporations paid their taxes like everyone else has to...

Also I know Milliband has said this so often it sounds a joke now, but I would tax bankers bonuses too Infact I don't think the fatcats should get bonuses at all until we are out of the recession that they contributed to.

VAT would be gone. Awful awful tax. Meant to be a tax on luxuries and has evolved into an excuse to charge us more for pretty much everything...

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

We wouldnt even need to do everything else tbh, closing the tax loopholes would suffice. But no government would be willing to do that as it would affect themselves/friends/donors. I would personally have a kinda sliding tax scale

No tax paid on first 25k of earnings
20% up to 35k (so if your wage was 40k, first 25k is disregarded, rest taxed)
30% up to 50k (25k disregarded. 20% on 15k, plus 30% on 10k)
40% up to 60k
50% on everything above 100k. Something like that anyway...

We could get away with lower taxes on middle/high earners if large corporations paid their taxes like everyone else has to...

Also I know Milliband has said this so often it sounds a joke now, but I would tax bankers bonuses too Infact I don't think the fatcats should get bonuses at all until we are out of the recession that they contributed to.

VAT would be gone. Awful awful tax. Meant to be a tax on luxuries and has evolved into an excuse to charge us more for pretty much everything...

The fucking greedy British banks were a MAJOR cause of the Property Market collapse to start with when they they bought up as many US ‘bad’ mortgage loans as they could and exposed themselves to billions of pounds worth of losses when the US Housing market imploded.

The corrupt government bailed out these greedy bastards and preserved their businesses and fat cat jobs and every 'caveat' which the government put into place (for the sake of being seen by the public to be 'doing the right thing') has been ignored, and almost immediately, the bankers used the tax payers bail out money to reward themselves for abject failure' with million pound bonuses.

Which is just one of a Hundred reasons why Farage is getting my vote.

[the truth]

the banks are legalised crooks, theyre still not lending any money at all? they were lent 100s of billions yet had virtually no strings attached? these politicians are simply morons.....Lloyds were a disaster 20 years ago then they took over tsb and I think bank of Scotland what a joke....at least Obama did tie them to many new rules and regs and fined them 100s of billions. the amount they robbed is even greater than the amount now being stolen from working class people

[Livia]

Income tax does need a good shake-up, and those at the bottom should pay a much lower rate obviously. Maybe a percentage of your earnings would be the answer? Back in the 60s the top rate of tax was 90% which meant rich people, the employers, the investors, went abroad. And if we're going to abolish VAT, that lost revenue has to come from somewhere.

[MTVN]

Originally Posted by Livia

Income tax does need a good shake-up, and those at the bottom should pay a much lower rate obviously. Maybe a percentage of your earnings would be the answer? Back in the 60s the top rate of tax was 90% which meant rich people, the employers, the investors, went abroad. And if we're going to abolish VAT, that lost revenue has to come from somewhere.

Yeah I'm pretty sure when Darling raised it to 50% it brought in no extra money as well and France's takings from income tax have gone down since they've taxed such a hugh percentage of the wealthiests earnings. That's why it doesn't work that the Greens would bring in billions more through raising the rate because it takes no account for people's behaviour where they will simply move or find other ways to ensure they do not fall into that band

[the truth]

Originally Posted by MTVN

Yeah I'm pretty sure when Darling raised it to 50% it brought in no extra money as well and France's takings from income tax have gone down since they've taxed such a hugh percentage of the wealthiests earnings. That's why it doesn't work that the Greens would bring in billions more through raising the rate because it takes no account for people's behaviour where they will simply move or find other ways to ensure they do not fall into that band

only because governments allow them to avoid tax, legally and illegally...this is why it needs international agreement to close these tax loopholes and tax havens...this is also a reason why we must not become too enslaved to the big corporations and why vat must go to help build small businesses....we should have allowed banks to fold and break up intoloads fo smaller banks....thus creating competition and better personalised service. it would have also shown these crooks they are liable and they are accountable

ps we must also stop publicly funding supposedly privatised services...the trains is aperfect example....were basically buying rich people a 60 billion train set and theyre creaming all the profits and NO ONE HAS ACTUALLY POINTED THIS OUT? ITS INSANE

[LeatherTrumpet]

Originally Posted by Livia

Income tax does need a good shake-up, and those at the bottom should pay a much lower rate obviously. Maybe a percentage of your earnings would be the answer? Back in the 60s the top rate of tax was 90% which meant rich people, the employers, the investors, went abroad. And if we're going to abolish VAT, that lost revenue has to come from somewhere.

I think I heard one of the Stones say that by the late 60s they earned so much that they just paid all their earnings to the tax man

[the truth]

THE NUMBER OF BILLIONAIRES I THE USA has gone from 41 to 469 in 21 years? many just give a few 100 million away to charity in the end because they've simply got too much money

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by MTVN

Yeah I'm pretty sure when Darling raised it to 50% it brought in no extra money as well and France's takings from income tax have gone down since they've taxed such a hugh percentage of the wealthiests earnings. That's why it doesn't work that the Greens would bring in billions more through raising the rate because it takes no account for people's behaviour where they will simply move or find other ways to ensure they do not fall into that band

Good points Matt - 'Soaking the rich' has never been a good idea and there must be upper limits as well as lower. Striking an equitable balance seems to be a problem beyond any government so far.

[MTVN]

Originally Posted by the truth

only because governments allow them to avoid tax, legally and illegally...this is why it needs international agreement to close these tax loopholes and tax havens...this is also a reason why we must not become too enslaved to the big corporations and why vat must go to help build small businesses....we should have allowed banks to fold and break up intoloads fo smaller banks....thus creating competition and better personalised service. it would have also shown these crooks they are liable and they are accountable

ps we must also stop publicly funding supposedly privatised services...the trains is aperfect example....were basically buying rich people a 60 billion train set and theyre creaming all the profits and NO ONE HAS ACTUALLY POINTED THIS OUT? ITS INSANE

No because they can go abroad.. Andrew Neil was making the point to the Green leader who was incapable of understanding it. The wealthiest are typically some of the most astute and the most mobile people in society, a lot of them are not going to hang around and be constantly milked for cash at ever higher tax rates especially in today's world where populations are typically a lot more mobile. France had to drop their 75% rate for this reason:

François Hollande’s unpopular tax changes that imposed a 75% rate on earnings above €1m (£780,000) will quietly disappear into the history books from Thursday.

The French socialist president announced plans for the controversial measure during his 2012 election campaign as a means of forcing the wealthiest to help dig the country out of economic crisis.

Although supported by the left, the reform sparked accusations of an anti-business agenda. After the “supertax” was announced in September 2012 the government was accused of shooting itself in the foot by risking an exodus of high-profile personalities. Business leaders expressed fears that investors would pull out of France.

France’s richest man, Bernard Arnault, the chief executive of luxury group LVMH, took out Belgian nationality, and the actor Gérard Depardieu also moved across the border to Belgium before obtaining Russian citizenship.

High-earning French footballers threatened strike action, while league bosses warned they would no longer be able to attract world class players.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...rcent-supertax

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by JoshBB

I believe taxation should be more progressive and focus on equality and distribution of wealth. The lowest paid should pay significantly less - the 10p rate seems reasonable. And those at earnings over £150,000 should pay 60% as the greens are suggesting. My personal view is that anything over 2mil should be 75% as well.

I would be happy to see this in place.

[Vicky.]

I don't think anyone should give away over 50% of their income as taxes. Could never get behind that even if it was only people on 1m+ or whatever

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

I don't think anyone should give away over 50% of their income as taxes. Could never get behind that even if it was only people on 1m+ or whatever

It would be the totally wrong strategy altogether Vicky. As MTVN says, the really wealthy will simply relocate. Just because the poor are trapped by economic circumstance and so are 'defenceless' static targets for abuse, does not mean that the rich will put up with the same - they won't. But I think all governments know this.

[Vicky.]

If someone would just have the balls to tackle tax avoidance properly, people could actually have lower taxes to pay.

Not that it would end up that way mind, the government would find something to waste the extra on instead of passing on the fortune

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

If someone would just have the balls to tackle tax avoidance properly, people could actually have lower taxes to pay.

Not that it would end up that way mind, the government would find something to waste the extra on instead of passing on the fortune

The trouble is that half the politicians are using tax avoidance schemes.