The Dread Budget - Be very Afraid !

[Sp!ke]

The poor do spend all of their income and as a percentage of their earnings get hit hard by VAT.

The rich however are able to invest or save income (as opposed to spending all of it) and often spend considerable chunks abroad (often tax free). When you look at not VAT taxable items you have to take into account the fact that an increase in VAT will increase other costs (take transport costs for example) and drive up all prices across the board whether VAT liable or not

When analysed as a percentage of income, the well off are more often than not having less of tax a burden when everything is calculated. Take the tax on petrol for instance or council tax or any of the other stealth taxes - these all add up and have a much bigger bearing on percentages of middle to low income earners than it does on the super rich.

To demonstrate this, imagine you were given a 10% salary cut tomorrow in order to keep your job. Assuming your tax bracket doesnt change, when you add up *all* the taxes you pay, (stealth taxes and fixed taxes as well as NI and income tax) you will find that despite your 10% drop in income, as a percentage of gross you are now paying more tax.

 

[Scott_F]

My degree is engineering rather than mathematics but surely a percentage of a large amount is more than the same percentage of a smaller amount?

Is your arithmetic poor or are you using disingenuous semantics?

RH

The subject of your degree isn't really relevant here but your arithmetic is obviously far worse than mine.

Let's ignore the 10% tax rate on earnings of less than £2500 and the new 50% rate that only came in 2 months ago for very high earners. The vast majority of income tax revenue comes from the 20% basic rate and 40% higher rate.

Any flat rate of tax would have to fall somewhere between the 2 in order to maintain the revenue stream so let's take the mid-point of 30% as a ballpark figure.

A person earning a low wage of £14,000 a year would have had most of their taxable earnings taxed at 20%. That now rises to the flat rate of 30%.

A person earning a high salary of ten times that would have had most of their taxable pay taxed at 40%. That now falls to 30%.

So the question is: Who now pays more tax and who now pays less ?

There is a calculator on your PC if your arithmetic isn't too hot.........

 

[NormanC]

Fuel for your old banger to get you to work.....clothes for adults.....?

Essentials??

Public transport is VAT free and as far as clothes for adults have they not heard of "make do and mend".

I'm just surprised you haven't said that tobacco and alcohol are essentials.

 

[NormanC]

The poor do spend all of their income and as a percentage of their earnings get hit hard by VAT.

The rich however are able to invest or save income (as opposed to spending all of it) and often spend considerable chunks abroad (often tax free). When you look at not VAT taxable items you have to take into account the fact that an increase in VAT will increase other costs (take transport costs for example) and drive up all prices across the board whether VAT liable or not

When analysed as a percentage of income, the well off are more often than not having less of tax a burden when everything is calculated. Take the tax on petrol for instance or council tax or any of the other stealth taxes - these all add up and have a much bigger bearing on percentages of middle to low income earners than it does on the super rich.

To demonstrate this, imagine you were given a 10% salary cut tomorrow in order to keep your job. Assuming your tax bracket doesnt change, when you add up *all* the taxes you pay, (stealth taxes and fixed taxes as well as NI and income tax) you will find that despite your 10% drop in income, as a percentage of gross you are now paying more tax.

I can understand your argument Spike.

However, is it still true when you consider the fact that, on a low income, one doesn't pay Rent (Housing Benefit), Council Tax (Council Tax Benefit), Income Tax (Personal Allowance) or National Insurance (Starting Level)and one may receive benefits such as Child Benefit. Could it be that the only tax they do pay is VAT on a limited proportion of their purchases.

Does this change the arithmetic a bit?

 

[Apial]

Essentials??



I'm just surprised you haven't said that tobacco and alcohol are essentials.

No point in stating the obvious is there now?

This budget realised this and has not raised duty on them for the first time in years. An increase in Duty is just another reward for the smugglers and conterfeiters of the criminal underworld.

 

[Scott_F]

Essentials??

Public transport is VAT free and as far as clothes for adults have they not heard of "make do and mend".

I'm just surprised you haven't said that tobacco and alcohol are essentials.

Would public transport get you to a food processing plant miles from home in the middle of nowhere for the start of your 4am shift ?

In fact many rural communities have no public transport at all since the bus system was de-regulated in the 1980's.

As for tobacco and alcohol your point is lost on me I'm afraid.

 

[jeremytaylor]

Essentials??

Public transport is VAT free and as far as clothes for adults have they not heard of "make do and mend".

I'm just surprised you haven't said that tobacco and alcohol are essentials.

Maybe fags and booze aren't essentials, but the mobile phone, big telly and the Sky dish certainly are!

 

[iscaboy]

In fact many rural communities have no public transport at all since the bus system was de-regulated in the 1980's.

I live in Exeter, capital city of Devon, a 2.5 mile bus ride from here to the town centre, single, buys enough diesel to run my E300D for 20 miles of city driving.

If I want to go somewhere else it means two buses, twice the fare, and four times the journey time what with connections and the like.

If I want to go to other places, the problem is even worse, you're looking at 6 buses per day, or even less in some cases. I know people who live two miles from the nearest bus route, and that route is 1 out and 1 back service per day, the fare is six pounds, and they are barely 8 miles from the city.

We USED to have Devon General and the Exeter City corporation buses, thank Thatcher for selling it off, and Blair for making Stagecoach a monopoly that deliberately runs all competitors off.

100 years ago Exeter had EIGHT postal deliveries a day.

Now it has one, usually around 3 pm.

 

[NormanC]

Would public transport get you to a food processing plant miles from home in the middle of nowhere for the start of your 4am shift ?

Point taken but.....

10 miles each way, 7 days a week, fuel currently £6 per gallon.

Moped/scooter with consumption of 140mpg = 1 gallon /week = £6 per week now.

with VAT change from 17.5% to 20% gallon of fuel becomes £6.12.

12pence a week increase or 1/2 a cigarette or 1/2 a swig of beer.

 

[Scott_F]

In response to Scott_F.....

That's several million people that you've just dismissed in a sweeping and ill-considered generalisation.

Sorry, but just following your lead.

Consider those born to families living in poor housing where a single parent can't work due to childcare demands.

Spending full-time with a parent pre-school is a great benefit - think of the start one could get in reading, writing and arithmetic.

They then attend schools where there is a history of poor attainment and where virtually everyone else in the class couldn't care less.

Why should that make any difference to how much an individual tries? It's a cop out to say I won't bother because those about me won't. Furthermore, education is not just about school. Provided that someone has basic reading skills (that they have been taught at home by the single parent looking after them) they can educate themselves to any level they wish. All it takes is effort.

And that includes the teachers.

Show the teachers in such a school a pupil with a desire to learn and they will do everything possible to help that pupil. They appear not to care because their caring makes not a jot of difference in the face of pupil laziness and disruption.

They are almost certain to leave school with nothing along with all their peers.

Because they can't be bothered to do anything about it.

They find that are few employment opportunities available

Because they have no qualifications.

and those that do exist are temporary schemes that pay dole money, help the Government keep the unemployment figures down but teach you little.

Why should they earn any more than dole money? They have little to offer (having no qualifications) and are being taught something. Whether they are learning something is a different question.

Meanwhile, they are exposed from an early age to all of the corrosive temptations that are endemic in these neighbourhoods.

Being exposed to temptations doesn't mean one has to succumb to them. It doesn't take much education and moral fibre to resist what is so obviously harmful, both to society and to oneself as an individual.

Whilst everyone should be encouraged to work hard and realise their potential, the game of life is far from being an even playing field.

Absolutely true. It just means that some have to make greater efforts than others.

For too many the cards are stacked too heavily against them due to the circumstances into which they are born. They simply never stand a chance and that is why we have so many people living in poverty.

I see the solution you are proposing. No-one is allowed to have children unless they are socially, morally and financially suitable persons in a life-long relationship. I wouldn't like to make the decision as to who was suitable, but it will work.

I gave an example of someone who went from inner-city council estate to having a comfortable existence. This shows that it can be done by anyone willing to make the effort.

Spike has given a much more horrendous story but, again, the adversities were overcome by making an effort.

Obviously, there will always be those who, because of proven medical disabilities, are unable to help themselves and society should always take care of them. However, the rest just need to make the effort.

So many people have been brainwashed by the politicians of all colours who have spent years shouting about rights without a single mention of responsibilities. Rights are only capable of being exercised when responsibilities are acted upon.

Instead of making sweeping and ill-considered generalisations could you not provide specific examples of those who cannot lift themselves from the bottom end of society (excluding those with proven medical disabilities)? Others who argue against you have already given specific examples to back up their arguments.

I have to point out that you have proved far more adept at sweeping and ill-considered generalisations than I will ever be.

"The basic problem is that those at the bottom of the so-called social divide have no desire to raise themselves out of it."

What?? All of them ?? The above displays lack of empathy, lack of understanding and simple ignorance in equal measure. How can the various and complex circumstances of so many millions of people be pigeon-holed by one generic and ridiculous statement ?

For example, how can a parent with little or no reading, writing or numeracy skills offer their children any educational benefit ?

"I see the solution you are proposing. No-one is allowed to have children unless they are socially, morally and financially suitable persons in a life-long relationship. I wouldn't like to make the decision as to who was suitable, but it will work."

I'm really not sure what you are proposing here. Is this some kind of selective breeding program ?? If so we may as well make them all blue-eyed and blonde whilst we're at it !!

Your points about not being negatively influenced by your peers or your environment are valid but cut little ice with 11 -16 year-olds. It should do but teenagers just aren't like that. Add to that the fact that the worst teachers often end up in the worst schools (as that's the only job they can get) and the future for many doesn't look good.

The personal experiences of 2 individuals are informative but in no way apply to all of the millions in poverty. There simply aren't the opportunities out there for everyone to achieve better things no matter how hard they try. I can't offer specific examples of people who can't lift themselves out of poverty as I am fortunate enough not to live somewhere where poverty is rife. I suggest that you read a quality newspaper or watch some decent TV and you will soon find plenty of examples.

Alternatively, I will gladly accompany you on a visit to any one of the 100's of deprived neighbourhoods in this country that offer little in the way of hope or genuine opportunity to anyone other than the few lucky enough to escape. You will then perhaps then begin to understand that idleness is only one of many factors that keep people poor, and those affected don't have any power to influence the majority of the other factors.

In fact, I think that living there for a month or two would prove a sobering and enlightening experience for you. You may just then begin to realise that not everyone on benefits has a 50-inch TV and that many will remain poor no matter what they do despite the experiences of a fortunate few who broke away.

 

[NormanC]

In response to Scott_F post #110.

Without specific examples you are only offering generalisations without any personal knowledge to back them up. You have been given 2 examples of people raising themselves up by personal effort and have made no attempt to offer critques of those examples based on your personal knowledge.

 

[Alfie]

You must therefore be the only person in the entire country who thinks that an increase in VAT to 20% will hit the better-off harder than the poor.

Wrong.

The maths are very simple.

Rich bloke buys new Astom Martin at £150,000. Not so rich family dont buy a car becuase VAt has gone up. who has paid the most VAT......you work it out. Even if not so rich bloke buys ford mondeo. Who has paid the most VAT? Its quite simply really.

As for manufacturing statistics these were quoted on the BCC last night during question time around the time that loony green politicain was spouting off. I am all for being aware of green issues but some of these people really havnt got a clue about the world and how it works.

Your statement ' The vast majority of income tax revenue comes from the 20% basic rate and 40% higher rate.' Is somewhat misleading if not totally wrong. By far the biggest chunk of tax revenue comes from around the top 5% of earners. These will be the 50% earners. If they leave as they are starting to do you can bet that tax for those left will go up.
It is a false economy to think that putting up taxes for the rich means higher taxation income. It just doesnt work.

 

[Scott_F]

In response to Scott_F post #110.

Without specific examples you are only offering generalisations without any personal knowledge to back them up. You have been given 2 examples of people raising themselves up by personal effort and have made no attempt to offer critques of those examples based on your personal knowledge.

I have no personal knowledge of space travel nor do I know anyone who has been there. And as I have already explained, the experiences of 2 people can't be applied broad-brush to millions of others and it is foolish to think that they can.

However, I do have the ability to see what is happening in the real world outside my comfortable bubble. I also read decent papers and will attach more credence to some of what I see and read than to the views of someone who advocates selecting which members of the population will be permitted to reproduce !

The last man to hold such views on selective breeding had to shoot himself before the Red Army got their hands on him.

 

[Sp!ke]

The last man to hold such views on selective breeding had to shoot himself before the Red Army got their hands on him.

I did have my tongue very much in my cheek when I made that comment. The point I was actually making is that the current system encourages the workshy to breed and discourages everyone else. This current selective breeding process seems to have already had a far reaching impact and it needs reversing.

 

[Scott_F]

I did have my tongue very much in my cheek when I made that comment. The point I was actually making is that the current system encourages the workshy to breed and discourages everyone else. This current selective breeding process seems to have already had a far reaching impact and it needs reversing.

It wasn't you that made the comment:

"No-one is allowed to have children unless they are socially, morally and financially suitable persons in a life-long relationship. I wouldn't like to make the decision as to who was suitable, but it will work."

 

[NormanC]

I have no personal knowledge of space travel nor do I know anyone who has been there. And as I have already explained, the experiences of 2 people can't be applied broad-brush to millions of others and it is foolish to think that they can.

However, I do have the ability to see what is happening in the real world outside my comfortable bubble. I also read decent papers and will attach more credence to some of what I see and read than to the views of someone who advocates selecting which members of the population will be permitted to reproduce !

The last man to hold such views on selective breeding had to shoot himself before the Red Army got their hands on him.

I do understand where you get your views from. It is a shame that you admit to no personal experience of matters that you pontificate upon.

As to selective breeding you said:-

For too many the cards are stacked too heavily against them due to the circumstances into which they are born. They simply never stand a chance and that is why we have so many people living in poverty.

Basically, you blame people's circumstances of birth. We can either assume that you don't want to change this (which suggests that you want the identified problems to continue) or that you want these circumstances of birth to change which would indicate your preference for stopping births in the wrong circumstances. I've given you the benefit of the doubt and assumed that you didn't want the identified problems to continue. I apologise if I've assumed wrongly. Perhaps less reliance on what you read and more on real life would help you to clarify your thinking.

A thought! From your reading of "decent newspapers" can you not give a specific case where it was impossible for someone to better themselves by taking responsibility and making an effort. There is always a chance that you could persuade me!

 

[NormanC]

Scott_F

You have said...

....those at the bottom of the so-called social divide have no desire to raise themselves out of it.


Selective quotes are good aren't they!!!

 

[Scott_F]

Wrong.

The maths are very simple.

Rich bloke buys new Astom Martin at £150,000. Not so rich family dont buy a car becuase VAt has gone up. who has paid the most VAT......you work it out. Even if not so rich bloke buys ford mondeo. Who has paid the most VAT? Its quite simply really.

As for manufacturing statistics these were quoted on the BCC last night during question time around the time that loony green politicain was spouting off. I am all for being aware of green issues but some of these people really havnt got a clue about the world and how it works.

Your statement ' The vast majority of income tax revenue comes from the 20% basic rate and 40% higher rate.' Is somewhat misleading if not totally wrong. By far the biggest chunk of tax revenue comes from around the top 5% of earners. These will be the 50% earners. If they leave as they are starting to do you can bet that tax for those left will go up.
It is a false economy to think that putting up taxes for the rich means higher taxation income. It just doesnt work.

Once again you are wrong and have failed to understand even the basics here.

The 50% income tax rate only came in 2 months ago and will therefore have raised relatively little so far. And it is only paid on any part of annual earnings above £150,000 so will impact on relatively few people. These are the same wealthy people who manage their tax affairs very effeciently in order to minimise the 'hit' so most income tax revenue still comes from the masses paying tax at 20% and 40%.

However, the crux of my argument is who pays more tax than before - it is not about who pays the most tax. If you had bothered to read my earlier post on the increase in VAT to 20% this was clearly explained. If you can afford an Aston Martin then the increase won't really affect you. If you earn very little and live hand-to-mouth in a struggle to make ends meet then you are proportionally much harder hit and you will have to scrimp and borrow even more as prices have increased even by a modest amount.

The effect of a flat-rate of income tax was also explained earlier and my post highlighted that the better-off would pay less tax and the less well-off would pay more than under the current system.

I made no mention of manufacturing statistics so I have no idea what you are talking about there. Then again, I have no idea what you're talking about anyway.

 

[NormanC]

Once again you are wrong and have failed to understand even the basics here.

The 50% income tax rate only came in 2 months ago and will therefore have raised relatively little so far. And it is only paid on any part of annual earnings above £150,000 so will impact on relatively few people. These are the same wealthy people who manage their tax affairs very effeciently in order to minimise the 'hit' so most income tax revenue still comes from the masses paying tax at 20% and 40%.

However, the crux of my argument is who pays more tax than before - it is not about who pays the most tax. If you had bothered to read my earlier post on the increase in VAT to 20% this was clearly explained. If you can afford an Aston Martin then the increase won't really affect you. If you earn very little and live hand-to-mouth in a struggle to make ends meet then you are proportionally much harder hit and you will have to scrimp and borrow even more as prices have increased even by a modest amount.

The effect of a flat-rate of income tax was also explained earlier and my post highlighted that the better-off would pay less tax and the less well-off would pay more than under the current system.

I made no mention of manufacturing statistics so I have no idea what you are talking about there. Then again, I have no idea what you're talking about anyway.

Gereralisations with no examples!!!!!

From your reading will you please quote the exact tax take from each income tax band during the 2009-2010 Financial Year. Then this argument will be resolved in one way or another!

 

[Scott_F]

Scott_F

You have said...

....those at the bottom of the so-called social divide have no desire to raise themselves out of it.


Selective quotes are good aren't they!!!

Oh I think not !!!!


"The basic problem is that those at the bottom of the so-called social divide have no desire to raise themselves out of it. They want to be pulled up by others, making no contribution themselves."

As stated by your good self at 6.30pm yesterday !!!!!

All I have done is quote this garbage viewpoint back to you and pulled it to pieces.

I'm happy to have a fair and open debate but NEVER try to attribute your crazy views to me.

Nice try but nowhere near good enough.

Slice of humble pie ??