Jump to content

UK Top Income Bracket Could Hit 61%


robbyb03
 Share

Recommended Posts

I hope it happens. They brought it on themselves. Wonder what they are talking about with that "national insurance" thing??? hmm.... I thought that **** was free!!!

Take it from some one who lives in the UK now, I will take the NHS over private insurance every day of the week.

You clearly don't understand how the welfare state works over here, the premise is that if everyone pays an amount to the state, they will get free health care, free education, housing benefits, and unemployment benefits if you happen to become unemployed.

The idea is that no one is excluded just because they can't afford to pay. Those at the top have a social responsibility to help those at the bottom after the state has given them health care and education at a fraction of a cost of private education and private health care.

The wealthy are about to get hit because the goverment is trying to stop the economic downturn, they have just cut VAT by 2.5% to try and increase spending in shops so the economy gets a quick boost, so the funds lost from VAT are going to be supplemented by tax's on those who can afford higher tax increases.

The UK government is the Labour Party, a central left socialist party that has been in power since 2007, the UK citizens are must like something the party is doing other wise they would not have elected them for 3 terms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Take it from some one who lives in the UK now, I will take the NHS over private insurance every day of the week.

You clearly don't understand how the welfare state works over here, the premise is that if everyone pays an amount to the state, they will get free health care, free education, housing benefits, and unemployment benefits if you happen to become unemployed.

The idea is that no one is excluded just because they can't afford to pay. Those at the top have a social responsibility to help those at the bottom after the state has given them health care and education at a fraction of a cost of private education and private health care.

The wealthy are about to get hit because the goverment is trying to stop the economic downturn, they have just cut VAT by 2.5% to try and increase spending in shops so the economy gets a quick boost, so the funds lost from VAT are going to be supplemented by tax's on those who can afford higher tax increases.

The UK government is the Labour Party, a central left socialist party that has been in power since 2007, the UK citizens are must like something the party is doing other wise they would not have elected them for 3 terms.

You're a case study for the mentality of those who believe in the welfare state. Thank you for lending us your opinion, and an insight into the thinking of those who except and expect government distribution and management of basic needs. This was a particular gem:

The wealthy are about to get hit because the goverment is trying to stop the economic downturn

Even the overtly liberal Obama is changing positions on raising taxes on the wealthy during an economic downturn because he actually understands the flawed logic of your premise.

Raise income taxes and cut the VAT? That's logical, lower the tax on goods to make them more affordable and simultaneously reduce the available disposable income to buy those very same goods. What economic genius thought of that one?

I enjoyed this one too.

Those at the top have a social responsibility to help those at the bottom after the state has given them health care and education at a fraction of a cost of private education and private health care.

So paying government fulfills your "social responsibility"? No wonder Europeans are so charitably stingy. I actually understand to a certain degree given their tax burden, or shall I say "social responsibility" burden.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're a case study for the mentality of those who believe in the welfare state. Thank you for lending us your opinion, and an insight into the thinking of those who except and expect government distribution and management of basic needs. This was a particular gem:

Even the overtly liberal Obama is changing positions on raising taxes on the wealthy during an economic downturn because he actually understands the flawed logic of your premise.

Raise income taxes and cut the VAT? That's logical, lower the tax on goods to make them more affordable and simultaneously reduce the available disposable income to buy those very same goods. What economic genius thought of that one?

I enjoyed this one too.

So paying government fulfills your "social responsibility"? No wonder Europeans are so charitably stingy. I actually understand to a certain degree given their tax burden, or shall I say "social responsibility" burden.

1) Unless you have actually experienced the welfare state how can you judge that it is not beneficial to the UK society.

2)The cut on VAT means that the wider population can afford to spend more money in shops meaning that spending and growth increases.

3)The Labour party are going to increase tax's on those that can afford the it, and they also benefit from the VAT cut.

4)Let me say this again, they have been given national education and national health care for a fraction of the cost of a private scheme. If they want the benefits of a free education and free health care then yes they do have a "social reponsibility" to the state and their fellow citizens that have supported their education and health care.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1) Unless you have actually experienced the welfare state how can you judge that it is not beneficial to the UK society.

2)The cut on VAT means that the wider population can afford to spend more money in shops meaning that spending and growth increases.

3)The Labour party are going to increase tax's on those that can afford the it, and they also benefit from the VAT cut.

4)Let me say this again, they have been given national education and national health care for a fraction of the cost of a private scheme. If they want the benefits of a free education and free health care then yes they do have a "social reponsibility" to the state and their fellow citizens that have supported their education and health care.

3) Why should they have their tax rates raised because they better themselves financially?

4)...is not true...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1) Unless you have actually experienced the welfare state how can you judge that it is not beneficial to the UK society.

2)The cut on VAT means that the wider population can afford to spend more money in shops meaning that spending and growth increases.

3)The Labour party are going to increase tax's on those that can afford the it, and they also benefit from the VAT cut.

4)Let me say this again, they have been given national education and national health care for a fraction of the cost of a private scheme. If they want the benefits of a free education and free health care then yes they do have a "social reponsibility" to the state and their fellow citizens that have supported their education and health care.

1) I've experienced all the extremes. From the most robust government welfare states to the most destitute of nations, which I hope gives me a relative amount of perspective.

2) Just look at the ratio of discretionary income spending between income brackets, particularly when you're in an economic downturn. When the wealthy are cutting back, then the lower income brackets are managing basic needs, not discretionary spending. The cut in VAT isn't going to stimulate the economy, particularly one so small, it's most likely attempting to reduce expenses on basic need items, which does little to nothing to generate growth economic activity.

3) Who's the arbiter of what they can afford, and help me with the math that says a 2.5% reduction in the VAT is going to benefit those whose incomes will be reduced by 5%?

4) What are you talking about? They are most likely the ones funding the majority of cost for the free healthcare and free education, and probably can afford private solutions for both should they choose. What social responsibility do those who aren't paying into the system, but receive those benefits have to society?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3) Why should they have their tax rates raised because they better themselves financially?

4)...is not true...

I gave my reason for 3 in 4

4 is true,

private education can cost upwards of £10,000 per year from junior school to college, here is a link to the fees of an average private school in the UK http://www.kingswood.bath.sch.uk/prepschool/fees.pdf

A top of the line package from health insurance specialist PPP, called the Ideal Package, would set you back £716.38 a year. While a similar offer from BUPA, called the Hearbeat package, costs £610.85.

by contrast here is the cost of my national insurance

if you earn above £105 a week (the 'earnings threshold') and up to £770 per week you pay 11 per cent of this amount as 'Class 1' NICs

you also pay one per cent of earnings above £770 a week as Class 1 NICs

you will pay a lower amount as an employee if you are a member of your employer's contracted out pension scheme

The following amounts will apply for the 2009-10 tax year

if you earn above £110 a week (the 'earnings threshold') and up to £844 per week you pay 11 per cent of this amount as 'Class 1' NICs

you also pay one per cent of earnings above £844 a week as Class 1 NICs

you will pay a lower amount as an employee if you are a member of your employer's contracted out pension scheme

here is the cost of a self employed persons national insurance

you pay 'Class 2' NICs at a flat rate weekly amount of £2.30 (£2.40 for tax year 2009-10)

you also pay 'Class 4' NICs as a percentage of your taxable profits - you pay eight per cent on annual taxable profits between £5,435 (£5,715 for tax year 2009-10)and £40,040 (£43,875 for tax year 2009-10)and one per cent on any taxable profit over that amount

if your earnings in the 2008-2009 tax year are expected to be less than £4,825(£5,075 for tax year 2009-10) then you may be entitled to the Small Earnings Exception (SEE), meaning you don't have to pay any Class 2 NICs - you can apply for SEE for the 2008-2009 tax year on form CF10

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1) I've experienced all the extremes. From the most robust government welfare states to the most destitute of nations, which I hope gives me a relative amount of perspective.

2) Just look at the ratio of discretionary income spending between income brackets, particularly when you're in an economic downturn. When the wealthy are cutting back, then the lower income brackets are managing basic needs, not discretionary spending. The cut in VAT isn't going to stimulate the economy, particularly one so small, it's most likely attempting to reduce expenses on basic need items, which does little to nothing to generate growth economic activity.

3) Who's the arbiter of what they can afford, and help me with the math that says a 2.5% reduction in the VAT is going to benefit those whose incomes will be reduced by 5%?

4) What are you talking about? They are most likely the ones funding the majority of cost for the free healthcare and free education, and probably can afford private solutions for both should they choose. What social responsibility do those who aren't paying into the system, but receive those benefits have to society?

1) so you have experienced the current welfare system of the UK?? that must meen you have been a resident here, just out of curiosity what constituency did u reside in.

2) The UK ecenomy is not small, London is the worlds biggest financial center, the UK is the 4th wealthiest country in the world with a population of just 60 million. All parties in the UK including the Liberals and Conservatives where in agreement that tax's had to be cut to stimulate growth. The easiest way to ensure that all citizens continued to recieve the same amount of services was to cut VAT by 2.5%. If the cost of good is reduced spending will increase, as will demmand for good business's will have a chance to supply the demmand that economy starts to grow again no matter how slowly.

3) The arbiter of wether they can afford it is the goverment, they have been elected by the population to make these decisions, if people did not want a left wing government making these decisions, David Cameron would be the PM not Gordon Brown. I said the benefit of a VAT cut would benefit them as although they wil have higher tax's they are also going to spend less on goods, a 2.5% reduction in costs while incomes reduced by 5%. a net loss of 2.5%

4)Everyone in the UK funds the welfare state, that is the beauty of it, the rich will of course have to pay more than the poor but it is in proportion with their earnings. Even the unemployed pay tax's so yes they are paying into the system to recieve the benefits.

It is all about poviding everyone with the same opportunity to achieve their potential be that a teacher, policeman, engineer ect. There should be no reason why those who are born into wealth have a better opportunity to achive their potential than someone born on to a council estate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is all about poviding everyone with the same opportunity to achieve their potential be that a teacher, policeman, engineer ect. There should be no reason why those who are born into wealth have a better opportunity to achive their potential than someone born on to a council estate.

Where is the incentive to "achieve your potential" if the government is just going to confiscate your wages to redistribute to those who have the opportunity but choose not to. Apparently you in the U.K. have a different idea of private property rights than us in the U.S. There is a reason that the average person living in "poverty" in the U.S. lives better than most Europeans, and it definitely is not because of government taking money away from people who earn it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1) so you have experienced the current welfare system of the UK?? that must meen you have been a resident here, just out of curiosity what constituency did u reside in.

2) The UK ecenomy is not small, London is the worlds biggest financial center, the UK is the 4th wealthiest country in the world with a population of just 60 million. All parties in the UK including the Liberals and Conservatives where in agreement that tax's had to be cut to stimulate growth. The easiest way to ensure that all citizens continued to recieve the same amount of services was to cut VAT by 2.5%. If the cost of good is reduced spending will increase, as will demmand for good business's will have a chance to supply the demmand that economy starts to grow again no matter how slowly.

3) The arbiter of wether they can afford it is the goverment, they have been elected by the population to make these decisions, if people did not want a left wing government making these decisions, David Cameron would be the PM not Gordon Brown. I said the benefit of a VAT cut would benefit them as although they wil have higher tax's they are also going to spend less on goods, a 2.5% reduction in costs while incomes reduced by 5%. a net loss of 2.5%

4)Everyone in the UK funds the welfare state, that is the beauty of it, the rich will of course have to pay more than the poor but it is in proportion with their earnings. Even the unemployed pay tax's so yes they are paying into the system to recieve the benefits.

It is all about poviding everyone with the same opportunity to achieve their potential be that a teacher, policeman, engineer ect. There should be no reason why those who are born into wealth have a better opportunity to achive their potential than someone born on to a council estate.

1) I had employees in London, Paris, Helsinki and Stockholm, as well as India, Thailand, U.A.E., Bahrain, Malaysia, and China. Have spent a good amount of time in those places as well as a vast number of others in Europe, Asia, and Africa.

2) I wasn't saying that the UK's economy was small, but the VAT reduction was relatively inconsequential. 2.5% reduction on a 17.5% rate, which gets charged at many levels during the production process? Not going to do much more generating of lower cost goods. Especially when you're going to remove an additional 5% of income from the marketplace. Particularly when disposable income spending is weighted heavily to the newly taxed group.

3) I agree. Which is why I appreciated the insight you're providing into the mindset of the welfare statists. The UK and Europe, other than Germany perhaps, have continued to lag economic progress, and are in danger of falling behind faster. The UK is actually the 5th largest economy, having been overtaken in the not too distant past by China. Your social welfare state is also why the UK has one of the highest debt ratios in the world. Your public debt is nearly 4 times your GDP. Even the US, whose public spending is out of control, hasn't even surpassed 1 times GDP.

4) Perhaps you can explain how the unemployed are paying taxes, unless you're making the argument that taxpayer provided funds (unemployment benefits) are then being taxed.

As to your last point, it isn't any such method at all. What it is, is a way to empower the government more and more over it's people. It's a control mechanism under the guise of social good. It doesn't cost any less than private solutions, it's just that the cost is underwritten by the taxpayers, and a price control mechanism over the medical industry. You and I simply have a different perspective on the role of government. I'm not looking to convince you, or delve into the political psyche of UK citizens, but I think it speaks volumes as to the strength of the US and the comparative decline of Europe over the latter half of the last century and the continuation into this millennium.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The funny thing is that I have to agree with my conservative American friends on this one. Cutting the VAT will help nobody since companies will just keep it as extra profit.... Germany just recently raised the VAT from 16% to 19% and prices didn´t raise, so companies obviously just took that as a hit to their margins... unless we talk about cuts or raises in double digits, there will never be any immediate effect on prices

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.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...