Raising taxes, or cutting public services - you decide?

[tbaldwin]

Raise taxes on the rich. A lot. Full stop.

flimsier mk etc
Raising taxes for the rich might not work so well if they just transfer their assets and businesses abroad.
Old Labour tried it and actually got a lot less money even in todays terms than now.
I do think higher rate tax could go up a bit but also think that public spending could be cut in most areas.
Social care is full of parasites, the privatised transport companies should have all their subsidies cut.
The problem is New Labour is still wedded to the forces of Liberalism and will just tinker away in their usual liberal way.

 

[flimsier]

flimsier mk etc
Raising taxes for the rich might not work so well if they just transfer their assets and businesses abroad.
Old Labour tried it and actually got a lot less money even in todays terms than now.
I do think higher rate tax could go up a bit but also think that public spending could be cut in most areas.
Social care is full of parasites, the privatised transport companies should have all their subsidies cut.
The problem is New Labour is still wedded to the forces of Liberalism and will just tinker away in their usual liberal way.

1) Good riddance
2) Myth
3) Bollocks.
4) Yep. Renationalise everything. Forced and with no compensation.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

4) Yep. Renationalise everything. Forced and with no compensation.

No. Compensation on the basis of proven need!

 

[Bernie Gunther]

One thing that alway seems to happen in the tax vs spend debate is that it gets framed in such a way as to make it sound like the only kind of tax is that paid by individuals, whether direct or indirectly. Nobody ever seems to talk about the third choice which is to tax corporate profits. The UK, last time I looked had even lower levels of corporation tax than the US did.

This is justified as "making the UK an attractive climate for investment" ...

 

[redsquirrel]

flimsier mk etc
Raising taxes for the rich might not work so well if they just transfer their assets and businesses abroad.
Old Labour tried it and actually got a lot less money even in todays terms than now.
I do think higher rate tax could go up a bit but also think that public spending could be cut in most areas.
Social care is full of parasites, the privatised transport companies should have all their subsidies cut.
The problem is New Labour is still wedded to the forces of Liberalism and will just tinker away in their usual liberal way.

The voice of socialism speaks.

EDIT: And so consistent with your belief that students should have to fully pay (or at least pay a lot more) for their universtity education.

 

[Blagsta]

flimsier mk etc
Raising taxes for the rich might not work so well if they just transfer their assets and businesses abroad.
Old Labour tried it and actually got a lot less money even in todays terms than now.
I do think higher rate tax could go up a bit but also think that public spending could be cut in most areas.
Social care is full of parasites, the privatised transport companies should have all their subsidies cut.
The problem is New Labour is still wedded to the forces of Liberalism and will just tinker away in their usual liberal way.

Yes, how socialist of you.

 

[Andy the Don]

Firstly a flat tax would just be an excuse to cut public services. The tax code would be simplified but there would be less revenue, therefore public spending would have to be cut. If there was a flat tax rate the higher earners would see their taxation fall, as would the tlower earners, but the middle earners would actually see their taxation burden increase. Taxation should be progressive, the more you earn the more you pay. Progessive taxation is what you pay to live in a "civilised" society, it is the glue that holds us together. The right thinks that if you are rich enough you do not have to be part of society, but that has been proved to be a fallacy, we are all part of society. I must congratulate the government for its attempt at redistribution via the tax system, tax credits are the way forward, they allow lower wage earners to reduce their tax burden. My wife & I get tax benefits from the governments sure start scheme & childcare vouchers. This may not be wealth redistribution on a "revolutionary" scale, but it is redistribution all the same. Its just a pity that the government do not shout about it for fear of scaring the tabloids.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Does anyone know why corporation tax never seems to surface in these debates, but only taxes on individuals, whether direct or indirect?

 

[Andy the Don]

Does anyone know why corporation tax never seems to surface in these debates, but only taxes on individuals, whether direct or indirect?

Corporation tax is currently at 30% for business with a pre-tax profit of >£1,500,001 & 19% for business with a pre-tax profit of <£1,500,001. Because a business is an incorporated legal entity it can be transferred off-shore, to a territory where the corporate tax rate is lower or non-exsistant. Therefore CT has to be set at a rate with allowances which are attractive to business & give business the incentive to stay & invest in the UK.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Corporation tax is currently at 30% for business with a pre-tax profit of >£1,500,001 & 19% for business with a pre-tax profit of <£1,500,001. Because a business is an incorporated legal entity it can be transferred off-shore, to a territory where the corporate tax rate is lower or non-exsistant. Therefore CT has to be set at a rate with allowances which are attractive to business & give business the incentive to stay & invest in the UK.

Which does rather beg the question, why is it supposed to be in our interest to have a global economic system which permits this situation?

 

[parallelepipete]

Does anyone know why corporation tax never seems to surface in these debates, but only taxes on individuals, whether direct or indirect?

Because as individuals, personal taxation is what we have experience of? And I imagine that, more than taxation of individuals, governments' hands are tied these days because of large companies' threats to move abroad to a lower-tax country. One company can move its assets and operations abroad much more easily than you could co-ordinate a group of individuals with an equivalent economic influence to move abroad.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

So perhaps, rather than trying to make the books balance with the little bit of surplus value we're left with, maybe we ought to try to change our society from the grassroots up, so we're not dependent on multinational corporations and don't have to pay them Danegeld?

I would argue that serves our long-term interests a whole lot better and that no imaginable central government would see it that way, so we have to find ways to do it ourselves.

 

[MikeMcc]

Firstly a flat tax would just be an excuse to cut public services. The tax code would be simplified but there would be less revenue, therefore public spending would have to be cut. If there was a flat tax rate the higher earners would see their taxation fall, as would the tlower earners, but the middle earners would actually see their taxation burden increase. Taxation should be progressive, the more you earn the more you pay. Progessive taxation is what you pay to live in a "civilised" society, it is the glue that holds us together. The right thinks that if you are rich enough you do not have to be part of society, but that has been proved to be a fallacy, we are all part of society. I must congratulate the government for its attempt at redistribution via the tax system, tax credits are the way forward, they allow lower wage earners to reduce their tax burden. My wife & I get tax benefits from the governments sure start scheme & childcare vouchers. This may not be wealth redistribution on a "revolutionary" scale, but it is redistribution all the same. Its just a pity that the government do not shout about it for fear of scaring the tabloids.

That would be OK if the 'rich' did pay their fair rate, but there are so many loopholes and schemes it usually means that those who have thre money to pay higher rates can find ways to avoid paying it. It ususally falls to the poor buggers in the middle to pay the most (especially if they're stuck with paying tax through PAYE. A properly set up flat tax with a wide zero-rated band would probably work out better for lower and the lower end of middle income earners than the present system. Nor does it necessarily mean that services would have to be cut, but it would allow alot of un-necessary posts to be cut.

Government is not meant to be an employer of last resort, introducing increasing more byzantine regulations that aren't even understood by the people implementing them (like the Child Tax Credit system).

 

[A Dashing Blade]

Firstly a flat tax would just be an excuse to cut public services. The tax code would be simplified but there would be less revenue, therefore public spending would have to be cut.

Totally depends on where the threashold(s) is(are) set. This is a political decision.

If there was a flat tax rate the higher earners would see their taxation fall, as would the tlower earners, but the middle earners would actually see their taxation burden increase.

I would guess that "high earners" would probably end up paying about the same (no scope for tax avoidence, cf MikeMcc's post above) if not slightly more, middle earners more tax, lower earners less tax (again depending on threasholds)

Taxation should be progressive, the more you earn the more you pay.

Disagree but that's just my personal view. Essentially this is a moral/political issue that, as far as I know, cannot be "proven" in a scientific sense.

Progessive taxation is what you pay to live in a "civilised" society, it is the glue that holds us together.

I have no idea what this means.

 

[newbie]

Disagree but that's just my personal view. Essentially this is a moral/political issue that, as far as I know, cannot be "proven" in a scientific sense.

a flat tax takes more from high earners than from low. Are there any arguments to support capping tax, so that the highest earners pay zero tax on some part of their income?

 

[BettyBoop]

Brown is reckoned to be the best post war Chancellor the country has had.

Ha Ha Ha Bloody Hilarious!

Instead of raising taxes or cutting services like police budgets/NHS or anything else STOP giving the scum class any money. Let them get up off their arses, get out and earn some bloody money for themselves AND pay their fair share of taxes into the bargain.

We need accountability by government. We need them to show us what they do with our money. We need them to show us exactly how much they are borrowing every bloody year. We need them to give us value for the money we pay.

 

[Wayland001]

More Taxes, preferably on the rich.

We shouldn't cut back on things like education that our children's futures depend on.

 

[BettyBoop]

We shouldn't cut back on things like education

Of course we should at this present time until education once again becomes EDUCATION. At the moment it is simply yet another area manipulated to provide statistics and the children don't really come into it.

 

[audiotech]

Let them get up off their arses, get out and earn some bloody money for themselves AND pay their fair share of taxes into the bargain.

Is this tax avoidance by the rich your talking about?

 

[A Dashing Blade]

Is this tax avoidance by the rich your talking about?

I suspect not!

 

[HarrisonSlade]

They will chose more taxes.

They should choose less public services.

Eh????

Brown is a Tory in the same mould as Blair on economic issues, just as Kinnock was and that deceased banker looking dullard who preceeded Blair. Brown will do a Heally now that he knows that Labour can cripple the Unions even more effectively than the Tories did. He'll sack loads of Civil servants, reduce the wages of the others and bring in more PPPs to help fund the rest through the Private industry charging people for individual services. ie Charging people to have their bins emptied and fining those who refuse to pay the individual private charge.

 

[Kameron]

So perhaps, rather than trying to make the books balance with the little bit of surplus value we're left with, maybe we ought to try to change our society from the grassroots up, so we're not dependent on multinational corporations and don't have to pay them Danegeld?

I would argue that serves our long-term interests a whole lot better and that no imaginable central government would see it that way, so we have to find ways to do it ourselves.

Where as instead our education system doesn't drive children to excel but rather seeks to up skill them in a broad range of "vocational" areas to make them good little workers rather than giving them the building blocks to reason and draw their own conclusions.

 

[Kid_Eternity]

The IMF are warning that the UK growth rate predicted by Gordon Brown and the Treasury at the last Budget is likely to fall far short of it's target. Accordingly, a budget deficit is now predicted. This, according to the IMF, will need to be addressed by either raising taxes, or cutting public services.

Which of these two options will the Treasury and Brown choose?

Poll?

 

[audiotech]

Poll?

Let me get my head around that.

 

[tbaldwin]

The voice of socialism speaks.

EDIT: And so consistent with your belief that students should have to fully pay (or at least pay a lot more) for their universtity education.

AS H/E students are likely to earn more as a result of the privellege of going into H/E it seems only fair they should pay more.
As a Socialist i want to see more money spent on education for all not just a privellged group.
Do you still think Old Etonians should get free H/E subsidised by people who never had H/E?

 

[redsquirrel]

AS H/E students are likely to earn more as a result of the privellege of going into H/E it seems only fair they should pay more.

But then shurely they'll leave the country? At least according to you

Raising taxes for the rich might not work so well if they just transfer their assets and businesses abroad.

 

[tbaldwin]

But then shurely they'll leave the country? At least according to you

Better if they leave before we subsidise Free H/E for them.
Of course some people are happy for people from Independent Schools to get subsidised H/E myself,id prefer the money went into smaller class sizes for people in 5-18 education and more money for F/E.

 

[redsquirrel]

Better if they leave before we subsidise Free H/E for them.
Of course some people are happy for people from Independent Schools to get subsidised H/E myself,id prefer the money went into smaller class sizes for people in 5-18 education and more money for F/E.

What the hell are you talking about? I'm not arguing whether tuitions fees are a good idea or not. I'm pointing out that you're contradicting yourself once again. The arguments
- you can't raise taxes on the rich cos they'll all leave the country
and
- you should make people pay the full tuition fees
are contradictory. Choose one and go with it.

 

[tbaldwin]

What the hell are you talking about? I'm not arguing whether tuitions fees are a good idea or not. I'm pointing out that you're contradicting yourself once again. The arguments
- you can't raise taxes on the rich cos they'll all leave the country
and
- you should make people pay the full tuition fees
are contradictory. Choose one and go with it.

No contradiction in saying that raising taxes could lead to rich people leaving the country and saying that people should pay for the privellege of H/E

The difference is paying your own way as opposed to paying for someone else. TUITION FEES ARE NOT A TAX,They are a payment for services.
SO WHERE IS THE CONTRADICTION?

 

[redsquirrel]

No contradiction in saying that raising taxes could lead to rich people leaving the country and saying that people should pay for the privellege of H/E

The difference is paying your own way as opposed to paying for someone else. TUITION FEES ARE NOT A TAX,They are a payment for services.
SO WHERE IS THE CONTRADICTION?

Of coarse it's a bloody contradiction, are you taking stupid lessons off pbman? Who do you think pays for tuition fees? The paretns of the students thats who (certainly in the vast majority of cases). INcreasing tuition fees is equivalent to increasing tax on petrol/VAT/council tax.