Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
punter

Cameron To Tax Us Just As Much

Recommended Posts

channel4 news headline proclaims Cameron is going to tax us just as much as Brown

talk about political suicide, what is he playing at ?

why is he accepting a high tax burden that will destroy our economy and make less competitive?

it makes my blood boil

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest happy?
channel4 news headline proclaims Cameron is going to tax us just as much as Brown

talk about political suicide, what is he playing at ?

why is he accepting a high tax burden that will destroy our economy and make less competitive?

it makes my blood boil

Perhaps he knows the public realise that Conservative governments have a history of talking low taxation....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it drives me crazy that Cameron is going to accept the current increasing tax burden of near 40% of GDP

it means while he promises to cut tax's like Inheritance Tax he will simply have to do what Brown has been doing for the last 10 years, find a stealth tax to cover his bases. it could mean higher National Insurance for example i.e higher income tax, higher levels of Petrol Duty, it could mean higher tax's on airfare tickets thus destroying yet more jobs, more theft and tax on Pension funds, whatever area's he's going to attack he's going to risk serious harm to the economy

we will still have the same situation as we have with Brown i.e he will lie and spin in a budget about the tax's he "cuts" but then he will slip out the damaging increases at the back of a 400 page booklet afterwards. this is pernicious nonsense

Edited by punter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thatcher era conservatives talked about lowering taxation but actually increased to overall tax take as a percentage of GDP to the highest level ever. I don't think they were a tax cutting party in rhetoric before Thatcher, she did cut taxes, but she put them up first and the tax take never went below that of 1979 under the Thatcher and Major governments. The conservatives have since abandoned the tax cutting rhetoric.

The only electable people in in the UK talking about reducing taxes are the Northern Irish and Scottish governments who want to reduce corporation taxes to 12.5% and 20% respectively to allow them to compete with the Irish Republic which has become much richer recently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no problem with tax, so long as it's fair, which it quite evidently is NOT. Why are low earners taxed so much? It's crazy. Why does so much of the tax churn into the insane public sector and anarchic wars, where it doesn't do anything to improve society - Retrain the public sector turds, etc., and spend the wasted billions on more important things like infrastructure, housing, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thatcher era conservatives talked about lowering taxation but actually increased to overall tax take as a percentage of GDP to the highest level ever. I don't think they were a tax cutting party in rhetoric before Thatcher, she did cut taxes, but she put them up first and the tax take never went below that of 1979 under the Thatcher and Major governments. The conservatives have since abandoned the tax cutting rhetoric.

The only electable people in in the UK talking about reducing taxes are the Northern Irish and Scottish governments who want to reduce corporation taxes to 12.5% and 20% respectively to allow them to compete with the Irish Republic which has become much richer recently.

Major delivered the lowest tax burden in nearly a century in the early 90's (33% ish), mostly in response to the recession to kick start the economy, since then they have been ramping it up every year, Ken Clarke for the last few years of that administration with things like the Fuel Duty Esclator, carried on by Brown when he assumed office in 97 until angry protests forced him to stop, along with pensions robbery, NI hikes and many other super duper new taxes to fund his spending splurge which is still unfunded even after all the tax raising as he is having to borrow tens of billions a year to sustain the madness, which future generations will pay for :angry: it shows no signs of abating and along with boom/bust policies of HPI and personal debt they're threatening our economy once more

Cameron is just mad to sign up to this agenda, he will have to cut taxes anyway when it all goes pop just like Major had to but this time keep us at 30% of GDP, that is perfectly adequate IMO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have no problem with tax, so long as it's fair, which it quite evidently is NOT. Why are low earners taxed so much? It's crazy. Why does so much of the tax churn into the insane public sector and anarchic wars, where it doesn't do anything to improve society - Retrain the public sector turds, etc., and spend the wasted billions on more important things like infrastructure, housing, etc.

I'm sorry. Are you seriously trying to tell me that someone who earns 20k a year pays a lot of tax? A whole 5k a year. Compare that to someone on 100k, about 40k paid in tax. Earns 5 times the amount, pays 8 times the amount in tax. HOW IS THAT RIGHT. If someone earns 100k, they should pay 5 times the amount of tax that someone on 20k does.

Lets just cut taxes for everyone. 50% of tax goes on paying for the welfare state. We can severely reduce this by not paying those lazy b*stards who have never worked in their lives (excluding genuinely disabled obviously). The only reason why someone hasn't had a job in 20 years is because they are a bone idle sh1te. Don't pay them a singe penny - they can either work or starve, it is their choice. Every hard working person would pay less tax and output would increase.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The only reason why someone hasn't had a job in 20 years is because they are a bone idle sh1te. Don't pay them a singe penny - they can either work or starve, it is their choice. Every hard working person would pay less tax and output would increase.

Very true. I have been saying this for years too. This welfare state is a pisstake.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Major delivered the lowest tax burden in nearly a century in the early 90's (33% ish), mostly in response to the recession to kick start the economy, since then they have been ramping it up every year, Ken Clarke for the last few years of that administration with things like the Fuel Duty Esclator, carried on by Brown when he assumed office in 97 until angry protests forced him to stop, along with pensions robbery, NI hikes and many other super duper new taxes to fund his spending splurge which is still unfunded even after all the tax raising as he is having to borrow tens of billions a year to sustain the madness, which future generations will pay for :angry: it shows no signs of abating and along with boom/bust policies of HPI and personal debt they're threatening our economy once more

Cameron is just mad to sign up to this agenda, he will have to cut taxes anyway when it all goes pop just like Major had to but this time keep us at 30% of GDP, that is perfectly adequate IMO

In 1978/1979 the tax take as a percentage of GDP was 33.3%, it seems that the tax burden was 33% in 1993/1994, but it was higher than 1978/1979 every other year. The highest ever take as a percentage of GDP was under Thatcher. 100 years ago before 1994, the tax level was probably lower than 1900 when the tax burden was 8% of GDP.

http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/resea...03/rp03-074.pdf

Our high tax rate since 1914, and even more after 1940 is basically responsible for the downfall of Britain, people don't seem to realise just how far we have fallen, we have gone from being the largest superpower in the world, 5 times as rich as the rest of the world put together (most of the wealth was on the British mainland), to being a nothing country, a pathetic little puppet of America. Sure the wars we should have avoided, but got involved in cost a lot, but our position was recoverable I think.

The main political parties in Britain have no philosophy and no goals other than the acquisition of power, no economic plan other than more of the same, and no foreign policy other than being the best American puppet ever. They are losers, and with them at the helm our relative decline shall continue, probably until the country breaks apart, it looks like that is going to happen within 10-20 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bart of Darkness
In David Cameron, the conservatives have found their Neil Kinnock.

Ouch!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In 1978/1979 the tax take as a percentage of GDP was 33.3%, it seems that the tax burden was 33% in 1993/1994, but it was higher than 1978/1979 every other year. The highest ever take as a percentage of GDP was under Thatcher. 100 years ago before 1994, the tax level was probably lower than 1900 when the tax burden was 8% of GDP.

http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/resea...03/rp03-074.pdf

Our high tax rate since 1914, and even more after 1940 is basically responsible for the downfall of Britain, people don't seem to realise just how far we have fallen, we have gone from being the largest superpower in the world, 5 times as rich as the rest of the world put together (most of the wealth was on the British mainland), to being a nothing country, a pathetic little puppet of America. Sure the wars we should have avoided, but got involved in cost a lot, but our position was recoverable I think.

The main political parties in Britain have no philosophy and no goals other than the acquisition of power, no economic plan other than more of the same, and no foreign policy other than being the best American puppet ever. They are losers, and with them at the helm our relative decline shall continue, probably until the country breaks apart, it looks like that is going to happen within 10-20 years.

If breaking apart means getting shot of the celtic fringe i am all for it. They add little to national life, drain the country of scarce tax receipts and carp endlessly about how they are some sort of ethnic minority that needs endless cash sprayed all over them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Charlie The Tramp

From his first entry into politics I always believed he would have been better off going into the church, I have always pictured him as trying to come across as a trendy vicar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm sorry. Are you seriously trying to tell me that someone who earns 20k a year pays a lot of tax? A whole 5k a year. Compare that to someone on 100k, about 40k paid in tax. Earns 5 times the amount, pays 8 times the amount in tax. HOW IS THAT RIGHT. If someone earns 100k, they should pay 5 times the amount of tax that someone on 20k does.

Oh dear, we're back to the primary school maths school of economics again. Don't you understand the higher paid have just stolen their money straight out of the pockets of the lesser paid? The inequality in pay in this country is an absolute disgrace; the taxation system simply ameliorates the unfairness. Pay your supposedly higher taxes and shut up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh dear, we're back to the primary school maths school of economics again. Don't you understand the higher paid have just stolen their money straight out of the pockets of the lesser paid? The inequality in pay in this country is an absolute disgrace; the taxation system simply ameliorates the unfairness. Pay your supposedly higher taxes and shut up.

You don't get to hear much communist commentary these days - keep it coming. The idea of theft in the context of salary is interesting. Would you consider that someone earning £7 an hour was stealing from someone earning the minimum wage? The hypothesis breaks down at the point where it is recognized that those that actually produce wealth would not bother to do it for low levels of remuneration. For example i work around sixty hours a week and get very well paid for it. If i was told i would be earning £7 an hour i would stay at home. Where i work, if people like me stayed at home, the place would cease to function and the staff earning considerably less would have no job. If the cleaners got paid the same as me for pushing a mop around the floor, again i would stay at home. However in real life of course there is not enough profit to pay me and the cleaner the same level of remuneration.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You don't get to hear much communist commentary these days - keep it coming. The idea of theft in the context of salary is interesting. Would you consider that someone earning £7 an hour was stealing from someone earning the minimum wage? The hypothesis breaks down at the point where it is recognized that those that actually produce wealth would not bother to do it for low levels of remuneration. For example i work around sixty hours a week and get very well paid for it. If i was told i would be earning £7 an hour i would stay at home. Where i work, if people like me stayed at home, the place would cease to function and the staff earning considerably less would have no job. If the cleaners got paid the same as me for pushing a mop around the floor, again i would stay at home. However in real life of course there is not enough profit to pay me and the cleaner the same level of remuneration.

Yeah, what he says!

By the bye, the Tory party is surely dead; a great pity, but if it boils down to merely being able to do things for 99 pence that Labour would do for £1 then frankly what is the point of the Conservative party?

Why vote for them if they are simply New Labour in a Bullingdon waistcoat? If New Labour is Socialist (almost said Sovietist!), and the Tories are statist, then there's hardly room to insert a bus ticket between them.

As a free market liberal believing in ...

Small government

Low taxes

Minimal regulation and intrusiveness/maximum free choice

Free markets (obnobviously) - including meaning in favour of the European Union ideal but not the corrupt autocratic bureaucracy (for Gawd's sake)

... then there is no party for which to vote. In a sense the Tories are more of an insult to my way of thinking than the socialists, because they are the ones who have betrayed the open-minded, radical Friedman-Hayekian ideas that have done so much to transform this country from its post-war hopelessness.

And Gordon Brown is pace the dental work, the Prince of f*cking Darkness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You don't get to hear much communist commentary these days - keep it coming. The idea of theft in the context of salary is interesting. Would you consider that someone earning £7 an hour was stealing from someone earning the minimum wage? The hypothesis breaks down at the point where it is recognized that those that actually produce wealth would not bother to do it for low levels of remuneration. For example i work around sixty hours a week and get very well paid for it. If i was told i would be earning £7 an hour i would stay at home. Where i work, if people like me stayed at home, the place would cease to function and the staff earning considerably less would have no job. If the cleaners got paid the same as me for pushing a mop around the floor, again i would stay at home. However in real life of course there is not enough profit to pay me and the cleaner the same level of remuneration.

I'll keep it coming, though communist commentary of course it's not - I work, reasonably well-paid, in a multinational myself and am ashamed at the low pay the cleaners get. Nobody is asking to remove differentials, just make them less obscene.

My beef is this. We have a level of inequality of pay in this country that is unprecedented in recent years. Th reduction in Union power and belief amongst those in power that they truly deserve their mega-salaries (yeah right) have led us to a position where the lower paid are effectively an underclass that cannot compete on many fronts. Social mobility is declining as educational opportunities, often linked in the state sector to high-cost housing areas, are increasingly denied to the low paid. I don't like living in such a blatantly two-tier society, which I guess is why I peddle my outlandish concepts of social equality on this site.

I think taking away peoples opportunities by paying them a pittance and denying them opportunity is theft. Mad communist idealism I know...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You don't get to hear much communist commentary these days - keep it coming. The idea of theft in the context of salary is interesting. Would you consider that someone earning £7 an hour was stealing from someone earning the minimum wage? The hypothesis breaks down at the point where it is recognized that those that actually produce wealth would not bother to do it for low levels of remuneration. For example i work around sixty hours a week and get very well paid for it. If i was told i would be earning £7 an hour i would stay at home. Where i work, if people like me stayed at home, the place would cease to function and the staff earning considerably less would have no job. If the cleaners got paid the same as me for pushing a mop around the floor, again i would stay at home. However in real life of course there is not enough profit to pay me and the cleaner the same level of remuneration.

Couldn't agree with you more. I have been working 6 or 7 days a week (10-12hr days) for the last year. Would I do it for minimum wage - of course not. Do I think I should pay a higher proportion of tax because I work more hours than those who earn less and only work a 35 hr week. Obviously not.

I'm just going to shut up now - just realised I am jst totally reitterating what you've said!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The poor pay council tax, fuel duty, VAT, etc etc on top on their basic rate, which is much more of a stinger than when you're on a 100K. Yes, everyone who can should work, but we'd get more people working if thw tax/benefits regime wasn't making work worthless.

Thatcher used tax hikes to control inflation, I believe. Plus she was more concerned with deregulation and privatisation than with low taxes - I don't think she could be expected to do everything on the right-wing wish list. Money was needed for the cold war, and paying for all those dole cheques.

Don't get me wrong, we need to cut taxes hard. I'd love to have a go with the red pen, but you only get labelled pro-rich or anti-"poor".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i do think it's a disgrace that anyone on 20k is paying thousands in tax

and then there's these tax credits and what not that cost more to adminstrate than they give back. why not just raise the income tax threshold?

we can start by trebling it to at least 15k, maybe take it up to 20k

Cameron could go round the country and tell millions he will eliminate their income tax by scrapping tax credits

sure to be a popular vote winner and it wouldnt cost the earth either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my opinion Brown is doing a great job in very difficult circumstances. He's a grand PM and why would you want to replace him with a toff from the right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'll keep it coming, though communist commentary of course it's not - I work, reasonably well-paid, in a multinational myself and am ashamed at the low pay the cleaners get. Nobody is asking to remove differentials, just make them less obscene.

My beef is this. We have a level of inequality of pay in this country that is unprecedented in recent years. Th reduction in Union power and belief amongst those in power that they truly deserve their mega-salaries (yeah right) have led us to a position where the lower paid are effectively an underclass that cannot compete on many fronts. Social mobility is declining as educational opportunities, often linked in the state sector to high-cost housing areas, are increasingly denied to the low paid. I don't like living in such a blatantly two-tier society, which I guess is why I peddle my outlandish concepts of social equality on this site.

I think taking away peoples opportunities by paying them a pittance and denying them opportunity is theft. Mad communist idealism I know...

I take your point on wanting to remove differentials - especially if they appear "obscene". This is though a rather subjective test and who is to say what the "right" level of differential is?

I know you are not criticizing high salaries as such and your point is around differentials. However i was having a conversation recently with one of my wife's relations. The conversation was around city salaries being too high. I wasn't able to shift my critic from his views (you never can in these circumstances) but i did make the point that many high paying city jobs are very stressful, damaging to health and emotional well being, very insecure, lacking in meaningful pension entitlements and frequently short lived. Compare this for example to the lot of a civil servant. I guess my point is that sometimes those earning high salaries do so because the experience is often pretty horrid and short lived. There are always the million pound boys and the fat cats that are in a separate league, but those earning up to (say) £250k are usually not doing it for years and years and do not retire at age 55 in good health and on a good pension.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 354 The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal



×
×
  • Create New...

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.