Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
fru-gal

Tax The Wealthy To Atone For George Osborne’S Raid On The Poor

Recommended Posts

Funny how taxes on the wealthy are so often presented in terms of moral choices while cuts to benefits are most often presented as inescapable necessity in the face of budget constraints.

Why is it so impossible for our Politicians to make the counter argument that those same budget constraints require taxes to be raised in order to protect those benefits?

Somehow whenever the Occam's razor of the budgetary limitation argument gets wielded it's always the poor who end up getting slashed. Yet it's just as true to say that more income solves a budget problem as it is to say less spending does- but somehow the former is seen as a sleazy immoral option- while imposing destitution on some of the poorest people in society is seen as somehow moral.

So it's immoral to tax people who could afford to pay more tax- but moral to reduce the incomes of those who can't afford to take the hit.

In a national emergency it's all hands on deck unless your cabin is in first class- in which case the waiter will be along shortly to top up your tax allowance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...taxpayers are paying for underpaid workers as employers (not all) tell their workers if we pay you too much or we pay you overtime you will lose your tax credits....time to put a stop to this type of employer in the bad core of the apple, who is subsidised again by the tax payer .....better to lose some of these jobs as many are not viable without this illicit bias..... :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Why is reducing a benefit a raid? Surely the benefit was never yours to begin with?

Bedroom 'tax' = removal of mortgage interest relief = Lowering the upper bracket of tax credits

Removing tax credits is not an increase in tax. It is the reduction of a benefit.

I wish people would stop spreading misinformation, fear and doubt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is reducing a benefit a raid? Surely the benefit was never yours to begin with?

Bedroom 'tax' = removal of mortgage interest relief = Lowering the upper bracket of tax credits

Removing tax credits is not an increase in tax. It is the reduction of a benefit.

I wish people would stop spreading misinformation, fear and doubt.

Excellent. So you agree the benefits enjoyed by corporations should dissist, and making them pay their fair share doesn't equate to a raid on their profits?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/the-corbyn-quote-at-pmqs-that-silenced-his-critics-once-and-for-all-a6712001.html

The truth is, the Prime Minister doesn’t have a response for those hard-working people who look set to lose out – many of whom may have voted Conservative at the last election. This government has demonstrated what it is all about now, and it can’t hide behind the “we’re for working people” line any longer: it is about cutting corporation tax for the wealthiest businesses, cutting inheritance tax for the 500 wealthiest families, celebrating the obscenely rich 1 per cent and cementing the position of the wealthy.

The Tories won the last election on a tide of support for work, rather than welfare. But it is this government that could hit working people harder than any government since Thatcher’s. The government today abandoned their line that eight in ten families will be better off and has instead moved to make this a debate about the wider economy. But this fell foul in the face of Corbyn’s sensibly pitched grassroots mentality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

worth a note in this thread that Mr Osborne's family company has paid no corporation tax for a few years.

as reported in Private Eye

Osborne.jpg

I presume these types of tax credits are OK and help the rich so won't be cut. Can't have the serfs claiming tax credits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Excellent. So you agree the benefits enjoyed by corporations should dissist, and making them pay their fair share doesn't equate to a raid on their profits?

Yup.

We need to be logically consistent. Relocating socially housed people with unused rooms to government provided houses with fewer rooms, tax credit upper bracket lowering and mortgage interest relief lowering are the same change applied to different groups of people.

If you agree with one, you ought to agree with them all. They all reduce government subsidy. If you agree with some but not all, you are making a political judgement based on the people involved rather than arguing for reducing government subsidy.

Edited by phantominvestor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Excellent. So you agree the benefits enjoyed by corporations should dissist, and making them pay their fair share doesn't equate to a raid on their profits?

...do you mean the benefits enjoyed by those companies who pay their staff such low wages to encourage their employees to claim tax credits....these companies should be closed down as they are not viable ...but meanwhile their shareholders and the companies themselves are skimming off the UK taxpayers who actually pay tax ...and who are likely to be asked to pay more tax ....one day the pot will be empty ...and there will be no money left to pay anything including benefits...unless we get a grip..... :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Taxes and wages are inextricably linked with international trade and capital flows.

By opening our markets freely up to the world, they could use that as a logical stick to beat them down with. Divide and rule.

+1

A free market, anarcho-capitalist utopia. The very thing that the European aristocrats and elite financiers of the Mont Pelerin Society set out to realise in 1947. They succeeded beyond their wildest imagination.

In essence, the MPS became the prototype for all the neoliberal think-tanks that proliferated in the decades following WWII. The first of the neoliberal think-tank breeders was Antony Fisher, a successful chicken farmer who was elected to the MPS in 1954. The following year, he founded the Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA) in London and was soon joined by Ralph Harris, who eventually became president of the MPS from 1982 to 1984. Over the ensuing decades, the IEA spawned a dozen of think-tanks (including the Atlas network), that mostly function as fronts for the MPS.

Harris candidly admitted in a 1996 interview that “the Mont Pèlerin Society created the IEA, which comes to be called ‘Thatcher’s think-tank,’ but we were running long before Thatcher. We weren’t Thatcherites, but she was an ‘IEA-ite.’ ” Harris added that MPS founder Hayek was dubbed a “Companion of Honor” of the British Empire by the Queen, one of only 60 to ever receive that title. Following Thatcher’s election, Harris himself became Lord Harris of High Cross, while Fisher was knighted.

https://thedailyknell.wordpress.com/2012/10/29/the-mont-pelerin-society-the-ultimate-neoliberal-trojan-horse/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Business uses accountants to reduce tax liability shocker.

The bigger question is whether any of the wage bill had income tax paid on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...do you mean the benefits enjoyed by those companies who pay their staff such low wages to encourage their employees to claim tax credits....these companies should be closed down as they are not viable ...but meanwhile their shareholders and the companies themselves are skimming off the UK taxpayers who actually pay tax ...and who are likely to be asked to pay more tax ....one day the pot will be empty ...and there will be no money left to pay anything including benefits...unless we get a grip..... :rolleyes:

Yep it's all well and good pointing at the small leech on your arm whilst ignoring the big fook off one on everyone's leg...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yup.

We need to be logically consistent. Relocating socially housed people with unused rooms to government provided houses with fewer rooms, tax credit upper bracket lowering and mortgage interest relief lowering are the same change applied to different groups of people.

If you agree with one, you ought to agree with them all. They all reduce government subsidy. If you agree with some but not all, you are making a political judgement based on the people involved rather than arguing for reducing government subsidy.

Fair enough, if the same rule is applied across the board.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was tried by the Labour government in the 60s when Dennis Healey was Chancellor. I think the top rate of tax was 90% and it was deemed a failure as so many people left the UK and settled elsewhere. A lot returned when taxes were lowered (Rolling Stones?).

I think it's time for some wealth taxes rather than always relying on income tax. Land value tax anyone??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't you think they are buying our rule of law and property rights, as well as our infrastructure built up over many generations of peoples investment and hard work....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.grant-thornton.co.uk/Global/Publication_pdf/Overseas-Investors.pdf

offers a reasonable summary

including 15% SDLT, CGT liability, 20% rent withholding tax, ATED

the taxman has his paws quite deep in that particular honey pot imo

not that there couldn't be more taxation, but that there is plenty already really

The problem is that CGT liability for foreign buyers is not retrospective but from gains since April 2015, so anyone buying over the last 5-10 years will be able to keep most of those gains. ATED does not apply to foreign buyers who rent out their properties (although I suppose that captures them for CGT). There seem to be quite a few get out clauses. Presumably so Osborne can look like he is clamping down on foreign buyers when actually he isn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So it's immoral to tax people who could afford to pay more tax- but moral to reduce the incomes of those who can't afford to take the hit.

Yes, man, practical realities always dictate the market outcomes. Calculate how much your friendly state apparatchiks will rake in by hiking taxes to high earners. Calculate how much they will rake in by cutting the benefits. Therein lies your answer. Also abandon the illusion they really care about anyone but themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Next General Election   93 members have voted

    1. 1. When do you predict the next general election will be held?


      • 2019
      • 2020
      • 2021
      • 2022

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.