Omega Owners Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Please check the Forum Guidelines at the top of the Newbie section

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 ... 30   Go Down

Author Topic: Theresa or Jeremy?  (Read 46922 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Viral_Jim

  • Omega Baron
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Telford
  • Posts: 4246
    • Too many, mostly broken
    • View Profile
Re: Theresa or Jeremy?
« Reply #75 on: 22 April 2017, 08:54:30 »

And both positive ones.
Logged

STEMO

  • Guest
Re: Theresa or Jeremy?
« Reply #76 on: 22 April 2017, 12:10:05 »

And both positive ones.
Two positive ones for you, two negative ones for me. A hung parliament will really fick things up, and pensioners are a potent force.
Logged

Migv6 le Frog Fan

  • Omega Queen
  • *****
  • Online Online
  • Gender: Male
  • Webs End.
  • Posts: 11734
  • Nicole's Papa
    • 3.2 Elite. Boxster. C1.
    • View Profile
Re: Theresa or Jeremy?
« Reply #77 on: 22 April 2017, 12:26:39 »

How could tax increases be a positive move ? There is no such thing as a successful, thriving, dynamic, high tax economy.
I don't trust Theresa May and I trust Hammond even less, but accept there is no alternative.
Logged
Women are like an AR35. lovely things, but nobody really understands how they work.

TheBoy

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Brackley, Northants
  • Posts: 105843
  • I Like Lockdown
    • Whatever Starts
    • View Profile
Re: Theresa or Jeremy?
« Reply #78 on: 22 April 2017, 12:50:21 »

How could tax increases be a positive move ? There is no such thing as a successful, thriving, dynamic, high tax economy.
I don't trust Theresa May and I trust Hammond even less, but accept there is no alternative.
But somebody has to pay for silly little whims like the NHS. Accounted to be approx. £130bn but with other related projects, most economists believe to be more than £200bn.

Aprox 23m people in full time work.

£130-200bn/23m = approx. (CBA to work it out) £5.5 - 8.5k per working person, pa.  Just for NHS. That's before we consider the lame and lazy. Or the every increasing adult social care budget. Or state pension. Or Police, army and so on. Then there is the construction costs of that Birmingham to London white elephant, which has already massively crept up from the lies of £18bn at all the hosted events - phase 1 won't come in below £50-75bn, then you need to consider that its going to need about 70% subsidy on every ticket, far higher than the 50% subsidy on other train tickets. Then we try to knacker our own manufacturing industry (hence tax income), by removing their biggest market.


I ain't saying high taxes are good. Quite the contrary. But some people really do need to wake up and smell the roses, because they ain't got a grip on reality  >:(

(not aimed at quotee, was just a convenient thing to quote)
Logged
Grumpy old man

STEMO

  • Guest
Re: Theresa or Jeremy?
« Reply #79 on: 22 April 2017, 13:10:47 »

Income tax makes up about a quarter of the governments revenue, so a very large proportion, but not the be all and end all.
I think people will be a bit suspicious because, despite Mother Theresa saying the snap election was about getting a clear mandate over brexit, some may see it as an excuse to revenue-raise mid parliament. Hammond wanted to raise NI for some in his last budget but was kicked in the gonads. That hurts and this may be his way around it. If it is, then it's just another broken promise, and people will be rightly pissed off.
I said on day one, when everyone was predicting a landslide.......don't count your chickens. People are not interested in what's best for the country, they're interested in what's good for them. Human nature.
Logged

Lizzie Zoom

  • Omega Lord
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Female
  • South
  • Posts: 7370
    • Omega 3.2 V6 ELITE 2003
    • View Profile
Re: Theresa or Jeremy?
« Reply #80 on: 22 April 2017, 13:13:37 »

How could tax increases be a positive move ? There is no such thing as a successful, thriving, dynamic, high tax economy.
I don't trust Theresa May and I trust Hammond even less, but accept there is no alternative.
But somebody has to pay for silly little whims like the NHS. Accounted to be approx. £130bn but with other related projects, most economists believe to be more than £200bn.

Aprox 23m people in full time work.

£130-200bn/23m = approx. (CBA to work it out) £5.5 - 8.5k per working person, pa.  Just for NHS. That's before we consider the lame and lazy. Or the every increasing adult social care budget. Or state pension. Or Police, army and so on. Then there is the construction costs of that Birmingham to London white elephant, which has already massively crept up from the lies of £18bn at all the hosted events - phase 1 won't come in below £50-75bn, then you need to consider that its going to need about 70% subsidy on every ticket, far higher than the 50% subsidy on other train tickets. Then we try to knacker our own manufacturing industry (hence tax income), by removing their biggest market.


I ain't saying high taxes are good. Quite the contrary. But some people really do need to wake up and smell the roses, because they ain't got a grip on reality  >:(

(not aimed at quotee, was just a convenient thing to quote)

Absolutely right! :y :y :y

Cameron was foolish to promise no tax or NI increases.  Our "wants" in life, Socialist needs like the Education, NHS, Welfare State, Social Services etc all have to be paid for, and the bill is going up. We have to pay for that as the Government has no money of it's own - news to some people out there!

Then, from a Conservative point of view we want good Defence (in a time of growing international tensions), Police and general security for our country.  It all has to be paid for.

Our kindly grandfather figure Corbyn cannot come up with any other conclusions than the above, but he will try to as a Red Socialist who thinks there are many millions of very wealthy people who should stump up with billions more pounds!  What a dreamer!

Mind you he could always scrape our nuclear deterrent and leave us totally vulnerable to everyone...................!! ::) ::) ::)
Logged

Migv6 le Frog Fan

  • Omega Queen
  • *****
  • Online Online
  • Gender: Male
  • Webs End.
  • Posts: 11734
  • Nicole's Papa
    • 3.2 Elite. Boxster. C1.
    • View Profile
Re: Theresa or Jeremy?
« Reply #81 on: 22 April 2017, 15:34:38 »

How could tax increases be a positive move ? There is no such thing as a successful, thriving, dynamic, high tax economy.
I don't trust Theresa May and I trust Hammond even less, but accept there is no alternative.
But somebody has to pay for silly little whims like the NHS. Accounted to be approx. £130bn but with other related projects, most economists believe to be more than £200bn.

Aprox 23m people in full time work.

£130-200bn/23m = approx. (CBA to work it out) £5.5 - 8.5k per working person, pa.  Just for NHS. That's before we consider the lame and lazy. Or the every increasing adult social care budget. Or state pension. Or Police, army and so on. Then there is the construction costs of that Birmingham to London white elephant, which has already massively crept up from the lies of £18bn at all the hosted events - phase 1 won't come in below £50-75bn, then you need to consider that its going to need about 70% subsidy on every ticket, far higher than the 50% subsidy on other train tickets. Then we try to knacker our own manufacturing industry (hence tax income), by removing their biggest market.


I ain't saying high taxes are good. Quite the contrary. But some people really do need to wake up and smell the roses, because they ain't got a grip on reality  >:(

(not aimed at quotee, was just a convenient thing to quote)

Low taxation, low regulation, low state interference - high growth, is the only way to pay the bills. Taxing wealth creators "till the pips squeak" has been tried over and over, and failed catastrophically every time.  ;)
Logged
Women are like an AR35. lovely things, but nobody really understands how they work.

Lizzie Zoom

  • Omega Lord
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Female
  • South
  • Posts: 7370
    • Omega 3.2 V6 ELITE 2003
    • View Profile
Re: Theresa or Jeremy?
« Reply #82 on: 22 April 2017, 15:56:00 »

How could tax increases be a positive move ? There is no such thing as a successful, thriving, dynamic, high tax economy.
I don't trust Theresa May and I trust Hammond even less, but accept there is no alternative.
But somebody has to pay for silly little whims like the NHS. Accounted to be approx. £130bn but with other related projects, most economists believe to be more than £200bn.

Aprox 23m people in full time work.

£130-200bn/23m = approx. (CBA to work it out) £5.5 - 8.5k per working person, pa.  Just for NHS. That's before we consider the lame and lazy. Or the every increasing adult social care budget. Or state pension. Or Police, army and so on. Then there is the construction costs of that Birmingham to London white elephant, which has already massively crept up from the lies of £18bn at all the hosted events - phase 1 won't come in below £50-75bn, then you need to consider that its going to need about 70% subsidy on every ticket, far higher than the 50% subsidy on other train tickets. Then we try to knacker our own manufacturing industry (hence tax income), by removing their biggest market.


I ain't saying high taxes are good. Quite the contrary. But some people really do need to wake up and smell the roses, because they ain't got a grip on reality  >:(

(not aimed at quotee, was just a convenient thing to quote)

Low taxation, low regulation, low state interference - high growth, is the only way to pay the bills. Taxing wealth creators "till the pips squeak" has been tried over and over, and failed catastrophically every time.  ;)


I agree that high growth would greatly help, but the country needs the money now.  Even the Chinese have only just achieved +6.9% growth.  We need that and more to produce the income the Government needs, but where is that going to come from over the next 5 years?  Brexit will be the big uncertainty anyway until we get there, and in the meantime the NHS, Education, etc, etc, will be screaming for more money in the billions with all the bad publicity continuing for the Government. ;)
Logged

Field Marshal Dr. Opti

  • Get A Life!!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Utopia
  • Posts: 31563
  • Speaking sense, not Woke PC crap
    • View Profile
Re: Theresa or Jeremy?
« Reply #83 on: 22 April 2017, 20:57:42 »

How could tax increases be a positive move ? There is no such thing as a successful, thriving, dynamic, high tax economy.
I don't trust Theresa May and I trust Hammond even less, but accept there is no alternative.
But somebody has to pay for silly little whims like the NHS. Accounted to be approx. £130bn but with other related projects, most economists believe to be more than £200bn.

Aprox 23m people in full time work.

£130-200bn/23m = approx. (CBA to work it out) £5.5 - 8.5k per working person, pa.  Just for NHS. That's before we consider the lame and lazy. Or the every increasing adult social care budget. Or state pension. Or Police, army and so on. Then there is the construction costs of that Birmingham to London white elephant, which has already massively crept up from the lies of £18bn at all the hosted events - phase 1 won't come in below £50-75bn, then you need to consider that its going to need about 70% subsidy on every ticket, far higher than the 50% subsidy on other train tickets. Then we try to knacker our own manufacturing industry (hence tax income), by removing their biggest market.


I ain't saying high taxes are good. Quite the contrary. But some people really do need to wake up and smell the roses, because they ain't got a grip on reality  >:(

(not aimed at quotee, was just a convenient thing to quote)

Low taxation, low regulation, low state interference - high growth, is the only way to pay the bills. Taxing wealth creators "till the pips squeak" has been tried over and over, and failed catastrophically every time.  ;)

Denis Healey at the 1978 Labour party conference if memory serves.
Logged

LC0112G

  • Omega Baron
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • 0
  • Posts: 2439
    • View Profile
Re: Theresa or Jeremy?
« Reply #84 on: 22 April 2017, 21:23:50 »

Low taxation, low regulation, low state interference - high growth, is the only way to pay the bills. Taxing wealth creators "till the pips squeak" has been tried over and over, and failed catastrophically every time.  ;)

Problem is, we are where we are. Once people get used to a given levels of Education, Health, Pensions, Social services, Defence, etc. it is virtually impossible to reduce the cost. At best you can freeze the spending at current levels and wait for inflation to erode the real cost away. However, the workers in these sectors are unlikley to be happy with pay freezes.

However, in the short term the current spending commitments have to be met. In 2016-17 spending is expected to have been £797bn. Tax revenues are expected to be £721bn. So there is a £74bn overspend (over 10%). Interest rates are at historic low levels so the Govt has been able to borrow the money to cover the shortfall. However, if you can't cut spending then sooner or later you are going to have to increase taxation and if interest rates start to rise, then that'll be sooner rather than later.

The three biggest sources of taxation are Income tax (£229bn),  VAT (£168bn), and National Insurance (£130Bn). Some (or all) of these are going to have to go up IMV at least in the short term until the deficit is balanced. Hence what Hammond/May are correct in not wanting to tie their hands over the triple lock or taxation rises.
Logged

Lizzie Zoom

  • Omega Lord
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Female
  • South
  • Posts: 7370
    • Omega 3.2 V6 ELITE 2003
    • View Profile
Re: Theresa or Jeremy?
« Reply #85 on: 22 April 2017, 21:25:00 »

Well Corbyn has surprised me today.

He is not ruling out tax rises for others apart from the very wealthy.  He has said that low income individuals should not be taxed more, but those who can afford it should be.

Looks like both the Conservatives and Labour will bring in tax increases if re-elected/elected.

For me, as I stated before, tax rises are now essential ;)
Logged

Migv6 le Frog Fan

  • Omega Queen
  • *****
  • Online Online
  • Gender: Male
  • Webs End.
  • Posts: 11734
  • Nicole's Papa
    • 3.2 Elite. Boxster. C1.
    • View Profile
Re: Theresa or Jeremy?
« Reply #86 on: 22 April 2017, 21:32:50 »

Let those who scream for more money, answer the question where it will come from. That is the only answer to just about every question or statement a socialist asks or makes -  "where will the money come from ? "  :)
When the last Labour Govt. laid a bear trap in its last weeks In Govt. by increasing the top rate of tax, tax revenues actually decreased.
When it was cut back to its previous level (giving the left a false argument to preach for the next X number of years) revenues increased again.
There is a tipping point with taxation, and I'm pretty sure we are currently sat right on it.
Long term, we need to shrink Government, its client state, the welfare state in all its forms, and the sense of entitlement that decades of Socialism has imprinted into the British mindset.
No easy job though. Thatcher started it,and made some progress, but everyone who came after has put the process into high speed reverse.
At least future Govts. wont be able to blame the EU for the problem, if they don't have the guts to get the job done.

TB - the European market hasn't been taken away from British business, although, as a single entity it will probably disappear in the medium term anyway.
Our trade with markets outside the EU is mostly conducted under WTO rules, and to do the same with the EU isn't the worst case scenario people claim it to be.
However, we will probably strike a deal with them at the last minute just before we leave. They cant afford not to do a deal with the UK.
Logged
Women are like an AR35. lovely things, but nobody really understands how they work.

LC0112G

  • Omega Baron
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • 0
  • Posts: 2439
    • View Profile
Re: Theresa or Jeremy?
« Reply #87 on: 22 April 2017, 21:42:42 »

He is not ruling out tax rises for others apart from the very wealthy.  He has said that low income individuals should not be taxed more, but those who can afford it should be.

The low income individuals pay virtually no tax anyway - the 2017 personal allowance is £11500, and there is no NI below £8000 either.

82% of people pay the basic 20% rate of tax (so earn £11K-45K p/a) which makes up 33% of HMRC income.
15% of people pay the higher 40% rate of tax (so earn £45K-150K p/a) which makes up 37% of HMRC income.
1% of people pay the upper 45% rate tax (so earn £150K+) which makes up 30% of HMRC income.

So who you gonna hit? The 1%, the 15% or the 82% ? I would say that the 1% and 15% already pay their "fair share"

Logged

Migv6 le Frog Fan

  • Omega Queen
  • *****
  • Online Online
  • Gender: Male
  • Webs End.
  • Posts: 11734
  • Nicole's Papa
    • 3.2 Elite. Boxster. C1.
    • View Profile
Re: Theresa or Jeremy?
« Reply #88 on: 22 April 2017, 21:48:46 »

I couldn't agree more. :y
And are they really going to put VAT up to over 20 % ? :o
Growth and realistic public spending is the only answer.
Logged
Women are like an AR35. lovely things, but nobody really understands how they work.

tunnie

  • Get A Life!!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Surrey
  • Posts: 37511
    • Zafira Tourer & BMW 435i
    • View Profile
Re: Theresa or Jeremy?
« Reply #89 on: 22 April 2017, 21:54:12 »

He is not ruling out tax rises for others apart from the very wealthy.  He has said that low income individuals should not be taxed more, but those who can afford it should be.

The low income individuals pay virtually no tax anyway - the 2017 personal allowance is £11500, and there is no NI below £8000 either.

82% of people pay the basic 20% rate of tax (so earn £11K-45K p/a) which makes up 33% of HMRC income.
15% of people pay the higher 40% rate of tax (so earn £45K-150K p/a) which makes up 37% of HMRC income.
1% of people pay the upper 45% rate tax (so earn £150K+) which makes up 30% of HMRC income.

So who you gonna hit? The 1%, the 15% or the 82% ? I would say that the 1% and 15% already pay their "fair share"

I'm surprised at this, just 15% of the working population pays the 40% band?  :-\
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 ... 30   Go Up
 

Page created in 0.025 seconds with 21 queries.