Cost of living crisis.

[westernpark]

1 minute ago, January48 said:

That's what happens now though (mostly). You pay a percentage of your income not a fixed sum.

So if you earn £30 k you contribute around £5K in direct tax. If you earn £200k you contribute around £80K. If you are not working or below £12K ish you contribute nothing. For me the current system is reasonably fair.

Yes I know, I was just responding to another individual who was disputing this. However, I believe higher earners can contribute more, even if it’s marginal percentage increase.

[HighPeakFox]

18 minutes ago, westernpark said:

We can all contribute, quite clearly nothing I have said diminishes such a thought. Of course contribution should be proportionate to what an individual or collective earns. 

It was a general remark, aiming to not single you or anyone out 

[grobyfox1990]

7 minutes ago, January48 said:

That's what happens now though (mostly). You pay a percentage of your income not a fixed sum.

So if you earn £30 k you contribute around £5K in direct tax. If you earn £200k you contribute around £80K. If you are not working or below £12K ish you contribute nothing. For me the current system is reasonably fair.

'Mostly' being the key word. Because there are huge numbers of easily accessible loopholes to earn millions and pay nothing. The richer you get, the less you pay

[Tommy G]

8 minutes ago, January48 said:

That's what happens now though (mostly). You pay a percentage of your income not a fixed sum.

So if you earn £30 k you contribute around £5K in direct tax. If you earn £200k you contribute around £80K. If you are not working or below £12K ish you contribute nothing. For me the current system is reasonably fair.

There is also the 60% tax trap between £100-125K which is absurd, and hasn't been lifted whatsoever in the last 13 years. The income tax system is already very fair in my view. 

[Lionator]

3 hours ago, Greg2607 said:

do these two things mutually exist? 

 

We currently have high taxes and it's eroding everyone's standard of living.... 

 

The problem with the current tax system is that it penalises those at the bottom and not those at the top. The party who wants to win the next election should surely look at reversing that. Go harder on tax evading organisations, raise corporation tax for the companies that make the most profit and raise the 20% tax threshold.

[Guest BlueBrett]

2 hours ago, Daggers said:

For the benefit of those who like to invent numbers, a simple picture:

 

 

Source: the government, https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-7438/

Didn't invent any numbers. I also took my stats from the government and this source lists each individual Act so you can really see the full extent and nature of the State's intrusions.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/

 

Edited 23 November 2023 by BlueBrett

[ozleicester]

those were the days...

[foxes1988]

4 hours ago, BlueBrett said:

Which bit is a subjective opinion? The government is demonstrably larger than at any point in history. That's not a controversial statement, it's a widely accepted and frankly obvious fact that is regularly discussed within the commentariat. 

 

From 2010 - the end of 2022 the State issued 39,145 new Acts (the vast majority of which relate to absolute trivialities). That's an average of 3263 new laws every year - Almost 10 every single day! Does that sound like 'laissez faire' to you?  

 

We literally have the exact opposite problem.

 

1 minute ago, BlueBrett said:

Didn't invent any numbers. I also took my stats from the government and this source lists each individual Act.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/

Are these just all the regs we adopted after leaving the Eu though? ( you know all those 'crazy' rules that we wanted to abolish and then just adopted them all because most of them were not very intrusive, expensive or 'crazy' after all)

[Guest BlueBrett]

Just now, foxes1988 said:

 

Are these just all the regs we adopted after leaving the Eu though? ( you know all those 'crazy' rules that we wanted to abolish and then just adopted them all because most of them were not very intrusive, expensive or 'crazy' after all)

The majority are statutory instruments - when the government changes the law without going to the trouble of asking what Parliament thinks.

[Robo61]

3 hours ago, Zear0 said:

I did look but that tariff wasn't available for my Podpoint charger. I also had to join a "normal" tariff of theirs before switching to a smart one which was something of an unknown. I have heard good things about them and maybe when I looked I was still hacked off with BG. With price cap rising today (at least announced) not sure I'll get cheaper than my current deal. 

Is the EV also not on their list  it is either and not both to be accepted. 

 

Because this is an intelligent tarriff you always have to go onto a standard tariff first in order to allow Octopus to confirm they are able to control either the car or the charger via the Smart Meter.  However if that is not successful they will put you on their go tariff until such time as they can get you onto intelligent. This took under a week for me and would ussually be quicker for someone a little more tech savvy.

 

Never the less if you currently are on a fixed tariff you may be best advised to stay where you are given the continuing volatility.

[January48]

5 hours ago, grobyfox1990 said:

'Mostly' being the key word. Because there are huge numbers of easily accessible loopholes to earn millions and pay nothing. The richer you get, the less you pay

I agree. That's why I did the 'mostly' 

[January48]

3 hours ago, ozleicester said:

those were the days...

Imagine paying over 50% corporation tax. I have my own business and pay corporation tax but if it was at that level why would you bother

[jgtuk]

https://www.theguardian.com/inequality/2023/nov/27/uk-spends-more-financing-inequality-in-favour-of-rich-than-rest-of-europe-report-finds 
 

What a surprise. 

[Tommy G]

46 minutes ago, jgtuk said:

https://www.theguardian.com/inequality/2023/nov/27/uk-spends-more-financing-inequality-in-favour-of-rich-than-rest-of-europe-report-finds 
 

What a surprise. 

Yes what a surprise a left wing paper runs a story like that

[jgtuk]

19 minutes ago, Tommy G said:

Yes what a surprise a left wing paper runs a story like that

Strange reply…
The report wasn’t undertaken by the Guardian. Maybe the Equality Trust are left wing too 🤷‍♂️

Edited 27 November 2023 by jgtuk
Autocorrect 🤬

[dsr-burnley]

1 hour ago, jgtuk said:

https://www.theguardian.com/inequality/2023/nov/27/uk-spends-more-financing-inequality-in-favour-of-rich-than-rest-of-europe-report-finds 
 

What a surprise. 

I think it's a surprise to look back on the seventies as the glory days of equality and wealth.  Just because we all had power cuts equally does not mean we were richer.

 

As for child poverty doubling, that's only true if you have a weird definition of poverty (which the government does).  Child relative poverty may have doubled, but children nowadays have far more than children then. 

[dsr-burnley]

1 hour ago, jgtuk said:

https://www.theguardian.com/inequality/2023/nov/27/uk-spends-more-financing-inequality-in-favour-of-rich-than-rest-of-europe-report-finds 
 

What a surprise. 

I'm encourage to know that the NHS can be fixed - fully fixed, presumably - at an increase of only £67 billion over 15 years.  That's a 2% increase in budget.  I wonder if those plans are fully costed?

[jgtuk]

1 minute ago, dsr-burnley said:

I think it's a surprise to look back on the seventies as the glory days of equality and wealth.  Just because we all had power cuts equally does not mean we were richer.

 

As for child poverty doubling, that's only true if you have a weird definition of poverty (which the government does).  Child relative poverty may have doubled, but children nowadays have far more than children then. 

Sorry, I didn't realise it was a race to the bottom...

The report is focusing on equality and of course it's relative otherwise we start comparing the seventies to the twenties...

[dsr-burnley]

Just now, jgtuk said:

Sorry, I didn't realise it was a race to the bottom...

The report is focusing on equality and of course it's relative otherwise we start comparing the seventies to the twenties...

The report doesn't ask the fundamental question about whether equality is a good thing per se.  On average we are far richer now than we were in the seventies, and this includes the poorest as well as the richest.  Part of this, of course, was that tax rates were so high that those rich people who could afford it, left the country.  Few people (James Herriot) being an exception) were willing to pay 90%+ tax if they had a choice.

[jgtuk]

8 minutes ago, dsr-burnley said:

The report doesn't ask the fundamental question about whether equality is a good thing per se.  On average we are far richer now than we were in the seventies, and this includes the poorest as well as the richest.  Part of this, of course, was that tax rates were so high that those rich people who could afford it, left the country.  Few people (James Herriot) being an exception) were willing to pay 90%+ tax if they had a choice.

I agree, tax avoidance is aso a big problem.

 

10 minutes ago, dsr-burnley said:

The report doesn't ask the fundamental question about whether equality is a good thing per se.  On average we are far richer now than we were in the seventies, and this includes the poorest as well as the richest.  Part of this, of course, was that tax rates were so high that those rich people who could afford it, left the country.  Few people (James Herriot) being an exception) were willing to pay 90%+ tax if they had a choice.

Not even worth a debate, sorry.

 

[Foxdiamond]

13 minutes ago, dsr-burnley said:

The report doesn't ask the fundamental question about whether equality is a good thing per se.  On average we are far richer now than we were in the seventies, and this includes the poorest as well as the richest.  Part of this, of course, was that tax rates were so high that those rich people who could afford it, left the country.  Few people (James Herriot) being an exception) were willing to pay 90%+ tax if they had a choice.

The housing crisis was not a factor in the 70s. This is  a major factor in why so many people in our country feel left behind

[CosbehFox]

1 hour ago, jgtuk said:

Strange reply…
The report wasn’t undertaken by the Guardian. Maybe the Equality Trust are left wing too 🤷‍♂️

They are. But so what. It's a well researched, statistically proven report. But who gives a **** about that any more. 

 

Edited 27 November 2023 by CosbehFox

[leicsmac]

19 minutes ago, dsr-burnley said:

The report doesn't ask the fundamental question about whether equality is a good thing per se.  On average we are far richer now than we were in the seventies, and this includes the poorest as well as the richest.  Part of this, of course, was that tax rates were so high that those rich people who could afford it, left the country.  Few people (James Herriot) being an exception) were willing to pay 90%+ tax if they had a choice.

 

8 minutes ago, jgtuk said:

I agree, tax avoidance is aso a big problem.

 

Not even worth a debate, sorry.

 

Oh, but it is worth a debate, because it's being played out every day.

 

Of course, the very idea of social Darwinism whereby inequality is simply accepted as a "fact of life" is...well, horrible, but that doesn't mean that people aren't believing in and applying that idea every day and so the debate needs to be had.

[CosbehFox]

21 minutes ago, dsr-burnley said:

The report doesn't ask the fundamental question about whether equality is a good thing per se.  

Well 

[leicsmac]

Just now, CosbehFox said:

They are. But so what. It's a well searched, statistically proven report. But who gives a **** about that any more. 

 

The "death of faith in expertise" will have very long, very far-reaching consequences.