GUESS WHO INSISTS THAT 50p TAX RATE IS ABOLISHED ?

[Cannydc]

George Osborne should “accelerate” plans to scrap the 50p higher rate of income tax to help the economy during the euro crisis, business leaders will warn the Chancellor.

In a letter to the Chancellor, more than 30 of the City’s top figures agree that the “current turmoil in southern Europe” means that the Government must take “immediate actions” to boost confidence. They call for the immediate scrapping of the 50p rate to attract entrepreneurs to Britain........

Yes - the same business 'leaders' whose pay increased by a whopping, juicy 49% in the last year alone.

The same business leaders complaining that a nurse's pension is 'unaffordable' and who desperately claim the need to be allowed to employ people for far less than the minimum wage.

This really is another golden age of Tory greed. And while big business and the City of London continues to bankroll Dave and his pals, my fear is that this rotten, stinking coalition will continue to quietly acceed to the wishes of its' paymasters.

[art1hur1moh]

A recent sugestion I heard was a 3% reduction in income tax. Not enough to off set the VAT rise, but equates wages to what it was and rewards people for the hash measures that effect them.

I doubt there will be an increase in spending or growth. But for the twenty million employed it would give them a bit of a boost.

A friend of mine was a manager of NSW NEC lighting branch. He wanted his employes to be more efficent so he printed off afew A4 pages and stuck them around the wearhouse and offices where people would see them. What was writen was 5%. By the end of the day every one new that he was asking for five percent efficency. By the end of the month the books revealed that there was a greater than five percent gain and by the end of the quater profits where greater than head office.

It was an experiment that worked well, but shouldn't be abused. After the quater all pages where removed except one in some obscure corner (for posterity and a reminder of what can be achived).

[minjeeta]

Probably everyone who is subject to it.

[Guest]

Canny these are the same business leaders who insist that mass immigration is great for the economy and you usually quote from them to back up your support for open borders. When they speak of the alleged economic benefits of mass immigration you never question whether its really good for the economy or just good for them, ie lower wage costs. In this instance regarding the 50p tax rate you rightly question the motives behind them wanting to scrap it, its just a pity you aren't as inquisitive when they spout their nonsense regarding the benefits of immigration. Why do you take what they say about immigration at face value but doubt what they're saying about the possible negative effects of a 50p tax rate?


Sadly with people like Canny that critical part of their brain closes down when any issue regarding the great cult of the minorities is brought up and they believe anything that supports their own views on the issue. They turn off the part of their brain that allows them to suspect that maybe, just maybe, not everything being said here is entirely sincere. Whereas if some straight White male heterosexual conservative Christian says something, suddenly they become ultra-skeptical, and are all militant about sniffing out any self-serving, hidden agendas, put a statement from the Tories or a right wing organisation in front of them and watch as they dissect it exposing conspiracies and ulterior motives. But when a member of a favored class or one of their supporters says something, they simply deactivate their ability to detect potential lies, and then look upon anyone who suspects them of lying, as if they were weird, irrational bigots motivated by hate.


Is it selective thinking or wilful ignorance that causes this?

[Cannydc]

I don't do guests, and only invocate immigration to do the work indigenous slackers plainly eschew (see The Poles Are Coming)...

And I don't particularly have time for (anonymous) people willing to psycho-analyse me based on the flimsiest of evidence, having never met me and having clearly confused other people's posts with my own. Unless, of course, you have some of my posts saved which yoy can kindly refer us to ?

Doubt it, somehow.

[LordRaven]

I don't do guests, and only invocate immigration to do the work indigenous slackers plainly eschew (see The Poles Are Coming)...

And I don't particularly have time for (anonymous) people willing to psycho-analyse me based on the flimsiest of evidence, having never met me and having clearly confused other people's posts with my own. Unless, of course, you have some of my posts saved which yoy can kindly refer us to ?

Doubt it, somehow.

Didn't Regan cut taxes and then receive unexpectedly high tax increase in receipts?

If so,it is worth a try.

[wutang]

Didn't Regan cut taxes and then receive unexpectedly high tax increase in receipts?

Correct me if Im wrong but wasnt his cuts across the board whereas the cuts proposed here are purely for those at the very top?

Cutting taxes on lower earners benefits the economy more as lower earners are more likely to spend the extra money in their pockets, thereby increasing demand in the economy. So if the Government has any room for tax cuts it should be focusing them on low earners.

[Cannydc]

There is a known correlation between tax increases and a reduction in tax take, but only when the top of the curve is reached. Whether we are at the top of the curve now is open to debate, no-one really knows.

Hence it is impossible to say whether tax take would rise or fall if the average man got a tax cut. The only way to find out is to suck it and see. However, it would probably be better to increase tax relief to give extra income tax free. That would encourage the lowest paid to earn more without paying more tax.

[wutang]

That would encourage the lowest paid to earn more without paying more tax.

Encourage them to earn more? at a time of across the board pay-cuts/pay-freezes/job cuts/increased under-employment.

[spicy]

You can't continually moan about where the tory's get their money from when we all know where Labour get their donations from. All parties have vested interests. The unions is public sector workers and their own pockets.

I think it's a damn shame that all political parties are not state funded. To qualify you should have a certain amount of members.

[Maddog]

Reagan and Bush cut Marginal rates across the board, not just for the wealthy, and neither saw a decrease in revenue to the government.

A 50% rate is obscene. No human should ever be charged half what they make to be a citizen of a country.

[Cannydc]

You can't continually moan about where the tory's get their money from when we all know where Labour get their donations from. All parties have vested interests. The unions is public sector workers and their own pockets.

I think it's a damn shame that all political parties are not state funded. To qualify you should have a certain amount of members.

For your info, and to save you making a complete tit of yourself with yet more ridiculous generalisations, Unions are for all kinds of workers in all kinds of industries and jobs, both in private and public sectors alike.

And the Labour Party is indeed financed in part by the VOLUNTARY contributions of millions of those self same workers. Yet again, democracy in action...

[spicy]

You can't continually moan about where the tory's get their money from when we all know where Labour get their donations from. All parties have vested interests. The unions is public sector workers and their own pockets.

I think it's a damn shame that all political parties are not state funded. To qualify you should have a certain amount of members.

For your info, and to save you making a complete tit of yourself with yet more ridiculous generalisations, Unions are for all kinds of workers in all kinds of industries and jobs, both in private and public sectors alike.

And the Labour Party is indeed financed in part by the VOLUNTARY contributions of millions of those self same workers. Yet again, democracy in action...

Where did I state that unions were not for all kinds of workers? I merely stated that Labour get the majority of their contributions from Trade Unions. They also get money from celebrities who can afford it like certain authors and Mick Hucknall. There is also a lot of ignorance out there too, some workers don't even know they pay into Labour unless things have changed. I knew someone that worked for the Royal Mail and specifically requested that he did not pay into that union.

[Guest]

I don't do guests, and only invocate immigration to do the work indigenous slackers plainly eschew (see The Poles Are Coming)...

And I don't particularly have time for (anonymous) people willing to psycho-analyse me based on the flimsiest of evidence, having never met me and having clearly confused other people's posts with my own. Unless, of course, you have some of my posts saved which yoy can kindly refer us to ?

Doubt it, somehow.

Didn't Regan cut taxes and then receive unexpectedly high tax increase in receipts?

If so,it is worth a try.

No Reagan INCREASED taxes.

[Guest]

Reagan and Bush cut Marginal rates across the board, not just for the wealthy, and neither saw a decrease in revenue to the government.

A 50% rate is obscene. No human should ever be charged half what they make to be a citizen of a country.

They are not charged half of what they make.

Someone on £200,000 a year wouldn't pay half. Nowhere near half.

20% £0-37,400

40% £37,401-150,000

50% £150,000

So someone on £200,000 pays £78,000 Income Tax