Jump to content

General Election 2019


Shanks said no

Recommended Posts

Ok let's just say you're on around £85k.


That's £7083 a month. If Labour win you'd pay an extra £20 a month in tax since you're in the top 5% of earners in the country.

 

£20/7083*100 = 0.28% tax increase

 

Massive?

 

 

Edited by Ray Gin
actually only £20 not £30 as I originally thought
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • ri Alban

    257

  • Justin Z

    174

  • dobmisterdobster

    164

  • Mikey1874

    157

1 hour ago, Victorian said:

 

The whole spectrum is low.

 

It's a valid point re take home pay and disposable income though.    The economy would benefit from markedly higher take home pay and disposable income levels.    But it is best effective at the mass population level of income.    More money available to circulate around the real economy.    That's what sustainably produces growth.

The idea that the government spending my cash is better for the economy seems bizarre. Surely it’s better if I spend it?

tax goes up, my spending drops.

Cars, clothes, dining , all the stuff that fuels the economy and growth.

Government takes it and the money goes into the ether- IT projects, pointless projects, governments squander countless billions entirely because it is not theirs.

£58 billion to the women to compensate them for having to work to the same age as men- not means tested.

HS2.

garden bridge.

gender neutral police hats.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, doctor jambo said:

The idea that the government spending my cash is better for the economy seems bizarre. Surely it’s better if I spend it?

tax goes up, my spending drops.

Cars, clothes, dining , all the stuff that fuels the economy and growth.

Government takes it and the money goes into the ether- IT projects, pointless projects, governments squander countless billions entirely because it is not theirs.

£58 billion to the women to compensate them for having to work to the same age as men- not means tested.

HS2.

garden bridge.

gender neutral police hats.

 

Is having 0.28% less income going to drastically alter your spending habits? :lol: 

 

This is what Labour actually intend to do with the tiny amount extra tax they'd take off you:

 

- Deliver a £26 billion NHS rescue package, recruiting thousands of nurses and GPs.
 

- Reduce class sizes to 30 and provide free school meals for all primary school children.
 

- Bring in an immediate Real Living Wage of £10 an hour.
 

- Introduce free childcare for 2-4 year olds saving families between £2,500 and £5,000.
 

- Introduce free personal care, investing £10.8 billion in social care provision.
 

- Take £417 off the average household energy bill a year.
 

- Keep the free bus pass for older people.
 

- Stop the Tories taking free TV licences from over-75s.
 

- Compensate the nearly four million women that lost out unfairly when the change in the state pension age was changed without fair notice.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, doctor jambo said:

The idea that the government spending my cash is better for the economy seems bizarre. Surely it’s better if I spend it?

tax goes up, my spending drops.

Cars, clothes, dining , all the stuff that fuels the economy and growth.

Government takes it and the money goes into the ether- IT projects, pointless projects, governments squander countless billions entirely because it is not theirs.

£58 billion to the women to compensate them for having to work to the same age as men- not means tested.

HS2.

garden bridge.

gender neutral police hats.

 

A modest tax increase isn't going to make much material difference to anyone who earns the kind of money we're talking about.    Reducing the burden on those with much tighter incomes can make a tangible difference to the amount they can spend.    For hundreds of thousands,  maybe millions,   it could make the difference between living in poverty (not even spending enough to support a dignified existence) to suddenly being able to afford to spend money in the supermarket,  on a whole range of basic essentials,  on basic household items,  on debt reduction,  on childrens' clothing,  their own clothing,  etc.

 

Enfranchising people into the world of earn & spend.    Natural,  sustainable economic dynamics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Ray Gin said:

 

Is having 0.28% less income going to drastically alter your spending habits? :lol: 

 

This is what Labour actually intend to do with the tiny amount extra tax they'd take off you:

 

- Deliver a £26 billion NHS rescue package, recruiting thousands of nurses and GPs.
 

- Reduce class sizes to 30 and provide free school meals for all primary school children.
 

- Bring in an immediate Real Living Wage of £10 an hour.
 

- Introduce free childcare for 2-4 year olds saving families between £2,500 and £5,000.
 

- Introduce free personal care, investing £10.8 billion in social care provision.
 

- Take £417 off the average household energy bill a year.
 

- Keep the free bus pass for older people.
 

- Stop the Tories taking free TV licences from over-75s.
 

- Compensate the nearly four million women that lost out unfairly when the change in the state pension age was changed without fair notice.

 

 

Most of that is unnecessary perks for the retired wealthy.

At the cost of the current workers, to give electoral bribes to the richest generation that has ever existed .

Lots of wealthy people getting free child meals and free child care and free TV and free travel.

not means tested= utterly insane

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, doctor jambo said:

Most of that is unnecessary perks for the retired wealthy.

At the cost of the current workers, to give electoral bribes to the richest generation that has ever existed .

Lots of wealthy people getting free child meals and free child care and free TV and free travel.

not means tested= utterly insane

 

Most of it is not for the retired wealthy, don't talk nonsense. Are you a real doctor or a spin doctor?

 

And it's at a tiny cost to only the top 5% earners. 

 

Are you seriously pissed at the prospect of paying an extra 0.28% tax towards the above things? Incredible.

Edited by Ray Gin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Ray Gin said:

 

Most of it is not for the retired wealthy, don't talk nonsense. Are you a real doctor or a spin doctor?

 

And it's at a tiny cost to only the top 5% earners. 

 

Are you seriously pissed at the prospect of paying an extra 0.28% tax towards the above things? Incredible.

Free school meals for all-  most don't need it, its an unnecessary perk

Free child care - most can afford it, its an unnecessary perk

Free TV for over 75's- most can afford it, its a perk

Free winter fuel allowance- most don't need it, its a perk

Free pensioner bus travel- most don't need it, its a perk

Free personal care- a lot can afford it, is a perk

 

raise the living wage- absolutely , no argument from me there, I'd go higher.

All of the above for the poor? totally fine with that.

The pensions issue is a sexist throwback- they had plenty warning, at least more warning than when child benefit was stopped, or NI was raised, or tax rates were raised.

If you want equality, you get equality. Well you got it, the law of unintended consequences!

Someone going to compensate me for my retirement age being much higher than when I started work?

No.

They expected to retire at 60, aye, me too

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, doctor jambo said:

Free school meals for all-  most don't need it, its an unnecessary perk

 Free child care - most can afford it, its an unnecessary perk

Free TV for over 75's- most can afford it, its a perk

 Free winter fuel allowance- most don't need it, its a perk

Free pensioner bus travel- most don't need it, its a perk

Free personal care- a lot can afford it, is a perk

 

raise the living wage- absolutely , no argument from me there, I'd go higher.

All of the above for the poor? totally fine with that.

The pensions issue is a sexist throwback- they had plenty warning, at least more warning than when child benefit was stopped, or NI was raised, or tax rates were raised.

If you want equality, you get equality. Well you got it, the law of unintended consequences!

Someone going to compensate me for my retirement age being much higher than when I started work?

No.

They expected to retire at 60, aye, me too

 

When you say "most don't need it", I suspect most of them need it considerably more than you need that 0.28%.

Edited by Ray Gin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Ray Gin said:

 

When you say "most don't need it", I suspect most of them need it considerably more than you need that 0.28%.

NOt sure that is the point.

THe point is - whilst there are so many people clearly in need, why splurge hundreds of billions on those who are not?

Sure, raise my taxes, but not for the things Corbyn is proposing

Link to comment
Share on other sites

dobmisterdobster
28 minutes ago, doctor jambo said:

NOt sure that is the point.

THe point is - whilst there are so many people clearly in need, why splurge hundreds of billions on those who are not?

Sure, raise my taxes, but not for the things Corbyn is proposing

Most of Corbyn's policies are designed to help the upper middle classes.

1/3 off rail fares = Poor people subsidising rich people's 1st class season tickets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, dobmisterdobster said:

Most of Corbyn's policies are designed to help the upper middle classes.

1/3 off rail fares = Poor people subsidising rich people's 1st class season tickets.

 

How do you work that one out?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

dobmisterdobster
5 minutes ago, Ray Gin said:

 

How do you work that one out?

The vast majority of train journeys are made by affluent commuters going to London. They earn five, six or seven figures and they will have subsidised transport thanks to Jeremy Corby.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, dobmisterdobster said:

The vast majority of train journeys are made by affluent commuters going to London. They earn five, six or seven figures and they will have subsidised transport thanks to Jeremy Corby.

For christs sake don't point out that most of his policies will merely sink cash into a pointless black hole instead of going where its needed.

Surely what they country needs is the children of morningside getting free school meals, and the pensioners of alloway taking free buses to Glasgow?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, dobmisterdobster said:

The vast majority of train journeys are made by affluent commuters going to London. They earn five, six or seven figures and they will have subsidised transport thanks to Jeremy Corby.

 

Really?  https://www.theguardian.com/money/2017/jan/03/rail-fares-cost-commuters-up-to-14-of-their-income-says-study

 

The average train commuter spends 14% of their income on their rail travel.

 

Those earning 6 or 7 figures will be paying more tax.

Edited by Ray Gin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, doctor jambo said:

Didn't say I did.

THough  I would state that my labour is worth just the same for my 80th hour of the week as the 1st, though I receive a lot less in my pocket for it than the first.

Do you think 46% is low tax?

 

Yes, it should be 50% at least for high earners. Hopefully after independence the tax rates and allowances will be totally redone to ensure the low paid get to keep more/all of their pay

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, doctor jambo said:

For christs sake don't point out that most of his policies will merely sink cash into a pointless black hole instead of going where its needed.

Surely what they country needs is the children of morningside getting free school meals, and the pensioners of alloway taking free buses to Glasgow?

 

 

No what we need is more the top 5% earners keeping their money for quinoa sourdough and pheasant eggs, rather than putting a small amount towards public services.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Ray Gin said:

 

No what we need is more the top 5% earners keeping their money for quinoa sourdough and pheasant eggs, rather than putting a small amount towards public services.

 

Its not going towards public services.

Its going to all kinds of unnecessary "free" crap that people don't need

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, doctor jambo said:

Do you regard the top rate of 46% as too low? That is what it currently is.

Means you keep more of what you earn than the government take.

Seems quite high, does it not?

You earn £100, you get to spend £54

So you pay 46% tax on your whole earnings? Not!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, doctor jambo said:

For christs sake don't point out that most of his policies will merely sink cash into a pointless black hole instead of going where its needed.

Surely what they country needs is the children of morningside getting free school meals, and the pensioners of alloway taking free buses to Glasgow?

 

What we need is a trained workforce. Who don't need to live to work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, doctor jambo said:

Its not going towards public services.

Its going to all kinds of unnecessary "free" crap that people don't need

 

That "free crap"  (the NHS, education, social care, childcare, public transport) = public services.

 

It's easy to say you don't need stuff when you're on £85k+ a year.

 

Edited by Ray Gin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Ray Gin said:

 

That "free crap"  (the NHS, education, social care, childcare, public transport) = public services.

 

It's easy to say you don't need stuff when you're on £85k+ a year.

 

Probably thinks poor people are at it, cause they have a big telly.

Edited by ri Alban
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Decent and affordable transport infrastructure is vital for the economy.    Very damaging if not there.    Glibly dismissing cheaper rail fares as only beneficial to better off people is utterly howling.    

Edited by Victorian
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's make it as expensive and as difficult as possible for people to move around the country to their places of work.    Let's introduce some kind of mad-ass restriction on freedom of movement on our own working population in their own counties.

 

Bizarre Tory dogma.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Victorian said:

Let's make it as expensive and as difficult as possible for people to move around the country to their places of work.    Let's introduce some kind of mad-ass restriction on freedom of movement on our own working population in their own counties.

 

Bizarre Tory dogma.

Can't have the people mobilising.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Ray Gin said:

 

That "free crap"  (the NHS, education, social care, childcare, public transport) = public services.

 

It's easy to say you don't need stuff when you're on £85k+ a year.

 

No, it isn't.

And I say that as one of the people who are actually already paying for all the "free " stuff.

Perhaps if everyone paid for all the "free stuff" then they would respect it more, and think about whether it was really needed?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmmm... I do not stand to gain anything from 'proposal A'... it only benefits the better off anyway... let's not have that.     I DO stand to be slightly worse off via fairer taxes... it only punishes the better off anyway... let's not have that... I oppose anything which does not provide a personal benefit to me... there is no such thing as society.

Edited by Victorian
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, doctor jambo said:

No, it isn't.

And I say that as one of the people who are actually already paying for all the "free " stuff.

Perhaps if everyone paid for all the "free stuff" then they would respect it more, and think about whether it was really needed?

What exactly?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, doctor jambo said:

No, it isn't.

And I say that as one of the people who are actually already paying for all the "free " stuff.

Perhaps if everyone paid for all the "free stuff" then they would respect it more, and think about whether it was really needed?

 

Perhaps if everyone paid for all the "free stuff" they wouldn't be able to afford to feed themselves and their family.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Victorian said:

Hmmm... I do not stand to gain anything from 'proposal A'... it only benefits the better off anyway... let's not have that.     I DO stand to be slightly worse off via fairer taxes... it only punishes the better off anyway... let's not have that... I oppose anything which does not provide a personal benefit to me... there is no such thing as society.

The same applies at the bottom.

They will only vote for something that benefits themselves at the expense of others, otherwise why unroll the big bribes at the moment?

"we will give you something, you don't have to pay for it- THEY will pay for it HOORAH!"

 

Or is self centered voting only applicable above a certain level?

I don't see the massive bribes Corbyn is offering as altruistic at all, otherwise everyone would contribute something, no matter how small.

Its the eternal lie of government- "vote for me and I will give you honey but you wont get stung"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, ri Alban said:

What exactly?

Free school meals for the affluent

Free personal care for the affluent

Free bus travel for the affluent

£58billion pension top up regardless of whether you need it

Free TV license for those who can afford one

Free childcare regardless of whether you can afford it

Winter fuel allowance for Brits living in Spain

 

apart from all that, not much

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, doctor jambo said:

Free school meals for the affluent

Free personal care for the affluent

Free bus travel for the affluent

£58billion pension top up regardless of whether you need it

Free TV license for those who can afford one

Free childcare regardless of whether you can afford it

Winter fuel allowance for Brits living in Spain

 

apart from all that, not much

Far cheaper than means testing. And there's nothing stopping these people paying for said items. A bunch of thieves.

Edited by ri Alban
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, ri Alban said:

Far cheaper than means testing. And there's nothing stopping these people paying for said items. A bunch of thieves.

Splurging  tens/ hundreds of billions of pounds on unneeded stuff paid for by the taxpayer is fine because otherwise we'd have to means test, which could be expensive?

Your off your head mate

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

dobmisterdobster
4 hours ago, DETTY29 said:

Trump says NHS not part of any deal even if handed on a plate to US - despite previously saying it would be.

 

It's as if with the closing polls one compulsive liar has contacted another compulsive liar to say something the help the other one out, only to renage on at a later date.

 

Banks will be on the phone to Farage already 'wtf Nige......thought you had brown nosed Trump and we had this all sewn up'

True, party polls are getting closer but personal approval ratings for Corbyn are still bad and getting worse in some cases.

 

Those polls are just as important.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, doctor jambo said:

Splurging  tens/ hundreds of billions of pounds on unneeded stuff paid for by the taxpayer is fine because otherwise we'd have to means test, which could be expensive?

Your off your head mate

 

As I said, there's nothing stopping them paying. Is there?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, ri Alban said:

As I said, there's nothing stopping them paying. Is there?

In the same way you can make voluntary overpayments to HMRC, but don't see or hear of anyone of Corbyns ilk or beliefs doing it.

Or anyone on here who profess to be willing to pay more- they could already if they wish.

but dont

which is telling

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, dobmisterdobster said:

True, party polls are getting closer but personal approval ratings for Corbyn are still bad and getting worse in some cases.

 

Those polls are just as important.

No they're not. Just because the tories are losing their lead you are getting worried. Me, I can't lose in this election, unless the SNP lose seats, which appears unlikely. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, doctor jambo said:

In the same way you can make voluntary overpayments to HMRC, but don't see or hear of anyone of Corbyns ilk or beliefs doing it.

Or anyone on here who profess to be willing to pay more- they could already if they wish.

but dont

which is telling

6 minutes ago, doctor jambo said:

In the same way you can make voluntary overpayments to HMRC, but don't see or hear of anyone of Corbyns ilk or beliefs doing it.

Or anyone on here who profess to be willing to pay more- they could already if they wish.

but dont

which is telling

You sound hard done by cause you have to pay higher tax. Poor wee Doc only gets £11800 tax free. Boohoo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dusk_Till_Dawn

Labour’s problem under Corbyn is that they’re constantly painting everyone as either poor as feck or a billionaire. There’s a massive swathe in the middle who he’ll do nothing for because he’s obsessed with pitting people against each other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, XB52 said:

No they're not. Just because the tories are losing their lead you are getting worried. Me, I can't lose in this election, unless the SNP lose seats, which appears unlikely. 

A Tory majority and Boris as PM point blank refusing to grant IndyRef2.

 

Can't lose you say 🤔😉

Link to comment
Share on other sites

dobmisterdobster
14 minutes ago, XB52 said:

No they're not. Just because the tories are losing their lead you are getting worried. Me, I can't lose in this election, unless the SNP lose seats, which appears unlikely. 

Approval ratings cost Ed Miliband despite a dead heat between the parties.

The opposition leader has to be somewhat liked to stand a realistic chance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, doctor jambo said:

Free school meals for all-  most don't need it, its an unnecessary perk

Free child care - most can afford it, its an unnecessary perk

Free TV for over 75's- most can afford it, its a perk

Free winter fuel allowance- most don't need it, its a perk

Free pensioner bus travel- most don't need it, its a perk

Free personal care- a lot can afford it, is a perk

 

raise the living wage- absolutely , no argument from me there, I'd go higher.

All of the above for the poor? totally fine with that.

The pensions issue is a sexist throwback- they had plenty warning, at least more warning than when child benefit was stopped, or NI was raised, or tax rates were raised.

If you want equality, you get equality. Well you got it, the law of unintended consequences!

Someone going to compensate me for my retirement age being much higher than when I started work?

No.

They expected to retire at 60, aye, me too


I read this post an hour or so after a friend of mine told me about her Mum struggling to get her Universal Credit paid for 18 months, because they don’t deem her disabled, despite letters from her GP and failing a medical. She has to decide between eating toast or heating her flat because she can’t do both. 
 

It makes me angry that people are being treated that way. Your views just come across as ‘I’m alright Jack’ after reading what she told me and then your out of touch posts about what YOU consider to be perks that most people can afford.

 

It saddens me that someone from a non-privileged background as you state, can be so uncaring towards the difficulties other people face.

 

The conservatives have doubled our national debt through austerity, because they have refused to go after the tax avoidance and evasion of the richest people in the country, whilst screwing pennies out of the most vulnerable people: the disabled, unemployed, OAPs and low income families who can afford it least.
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pasquale for King
1 hour ago, XB52 said:

 

Yes, it should be 50% at least for high earners. Hopefully after independence the tax rates and allowances will be totally redone to ensure the low paid get to keep more/all of their pay

 

Absolutely, it was 83% in the 1970s, MT took it down to 60% in 1980 and 40% in 1989. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pasquale for King
30 minutes ago, Icon of Symmetry said:


I read this post an hour or so after a friend of mine told me about her Mum struggling to get her Universal Credit paid for 18 months, because they don’t deem her disabled, despite letters from her GP and failing a medical. She has to decide between eating toast or heating her flat because she can’t do both. 
 

It makes me angry that people are being treated that way. Your views just come across as ‘I’m alright Jack’ after reading what she told me and then your out of touch posts about what YOU consider to be perks that most people can afford.

 

It saddens me that someone from a non-privileged background as you state, can be so uncaring towards the difficulties other people face.

 

The conservatives have doubled our national debt through austerity, because they have refused to go after the tax avoidance and evasion of the richest people in the country, whilst screwing pennies out of the most vulnerable people: the disabled, unemployed, OAPs and low income families who can afford it least.
 

 

Absolutely, sad to read  all that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Pasquale for King said:

Absolutely, sad to read  all that.


I literally read her account of what is happening to her Mum about an hour before I revisited this thread. Just depresses the life out of me sometimes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Old Hearts said:

A Tory majority and Boris as PM point blank refusing to grant IndyRef2.

 

Can't lose you say 🤔😉

UDI. We are sovereign not the WM parliament. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, doctor jambo said:

In the same way you can make voluntary overpayments to HMRC, but don't see or hear of anyone of Corbyns ilk or beliefs doing it.

Or anyone on here who profess to be willing to pay more- they could already if they wish.

but dont

which is telling

 

You can't volunteer to overpay tax.    It's a principle of the taxpayers charter that HMRC ensures that people pay the correct amount of tax.    You can temporarily overpay but in theory you should always be refunded any overpayment.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Roxy Hearts said:

UDI. We are sovereign not the WM parliament. 

Cosignatories of the act of union itself.

 

Edited by Icon of Symmetry
Link to comment
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.




×
×
  • Create New...