[Archived] The General Election 2015

[thenodrog]

This may not be exactly correct but here goes just to make a start

A. 10k a year = no tax/week or no tax/year

B. 20k a year = £38.50/week or £2,002/year

C. 40k a year = £115.40/week or £6,000.80 tax/year

D. 60k a year = £269.30/week or £14,003.60 tax/year

E. 120k a year =£730.80/week or £38,001.60 tax/year

I make the 120k figure higher at £41,387. This is due to the Personal allowance falling by £1 for every £2 earned above £100k. Over a working life of lets say 45 years that poor blighter pays income tax in excess of £1.86 million. Individual A (10k) pays nothing and individual B (20k) pays £90K.

Individual 'E' therefore earns 6x what individual 'B' earns but ends up paying 20x more tax during his entire working life. As George Orwell pointed out 'all animals are equal but some are more equal than others'.

[yoda]

I make the 120k figure higher at £41,387. This is due to the Personal allowance falling by £1 for every £2 earned above £100k. Over a working life of lets say 45 years that poor blighter pays income tax in excess of £1.86 million. Individual A (10k) pays nothing and individual B (20k) pays £90K.

Individual 'E' therefore earns 6x what individual 'B' earns but ends up paying 20x more tax during his entire working life. As George Orwell pointed out 'all animals are equal but some are more equal than others'.

Didn't know about the bit in bold, not had the pleasure as yet

Like you say though it makes it worse. Easy for people to quote percentages but I think we all shop using £'s. I think the person who has earned the higher amounts knows how to spend it (and the tax) better than any Government and especially a Labour Government, look at their last attempt !

[Gav]

What do you see as particularly unfair about this country den?

I'll start the ball rolling with the ridiculously high level of cumulative taxation that people in employment must pay. Income tax, higher rate, NI, VAT, duty on alcohol, Community charge, stamp duty, duty on tobacco, inheritence tax, fuel duty etc. The list is never ending. How much out of every £ we earn ends up in the Chancellor's kitty? My wild guess would be at least 80p in every pound is tax of one sort or another. That is one issue and what the buggers spend it on is another entirely. It's just easier to say yes to every request from people with their begging bowls out and then simply lump it on to their favourite milch cow..... the nations taxpayers.

Food banks in most Northern towns surely can't be fair.

Pity our taxes aren't going towards eradicating those, but no surprise their as Cameron doesn't acknowledge they exist.

Bedroom tax, the most ridiculous policy since the poll tax, that's not fair, same with mansion tax if Labour gets in may I add.

Tax cuts for millionaires, that's not fair.

Welfare cuts to the most vulnerable in society, disgusting.

Uncapped immigration, that's not fare.

I could go on.

[scotchrover]

Where's that come from?

"Still, the poverty figures don't look good: the number of children in poverty almost doubled under Thatcher, from 1.7 million in 1979 to 3.3 million in 1990. Pensioner poverty in the same period increased too, from 3.1 million to 4.1 million. Those numbers rise still further if housing costs are factored in."

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/apr/12/thatcher-britain

Interesting article comparing stats before, during and after the Thatcher era. Also talks about the fact that Britain did get wealthier as a nation, but only the top end of society felt the impact of this.

[scotchrover]

Harriet Harman, Patricia Hewitt mean anything?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think they knew about it at the time. Even so, harman/ Hewitt weren't exactly in a position to cause a mass cover up, like Thatcher.

I stand to be corrected though!

[jim mk2]

Really? So can we assume that you are strong enough in your principles to have challenged him about it and reported him to the good people at HMRC? Or have you just hidden out of sight twitching your curtains to check every time he sets off and comes home from work?

You might snitch on a neighbour but I wouldn't although I must admit it's temptingif only because he's a ManU supporter. The point is (and as Paul points out you always go off on a tangent and miss the point) it is the system that is at fault that allows builders and the like to get away with it.

What you mean is that the poorest depend on the wealthier to subsidise their lives by funding the nations services including nhs, defence, welfare etc etc that they can't afford. Make more sense to address that first. The wealthier the society the more everyone benefits. You policies would just make everyone poorer.

The poorest pay a greater proportion of their income in tax than the wealthy so it makes more sense to make the wealthy pay their correct share. The problem is, the wealthy pay even less than they should because they have clever accountants who exploit all the loopholes. The sentence is bold is nonsense - the US is the wealthiest country in the world yet little of that wealth has trickled down. Average wages in the US have not grown for decades while those at the top have powered ahead. This isn't my opinion - it's fact, unlike your bullshit.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/10/09/for-most-workers-real-wages-have-barely-budged-for-decades/

As I said yesterday two thirds of the people on zero hours contracts are quite happy and do not want to work any more hours. Two thirds constituting a significant majority!

All this 'zero hours' guff is just a convenient soundbyte constantly repeated by Labour along with 'NHS' and simply because with their recent record they dare not commment on anything else! Have you forgotten that in his speech to the Labour Party Conference just 6 months back that Ed neglected to say one single word about the economy? Well we all know why that was don't we? He bloody well daren't!

But if the tax rate was a standard 20% for example for every taxpayer on every pound earned (for easy reckoning) you already would be paying 4x the amount of someone on 25k. And thats even without the 40% rate kicking in. It's blood from a stone you want Gav.

Lets run a poll and punish a minority is what you are effectively saying.

Have you asked the two-thirds ? Where is the evidence, or as usual are you just making it all up again?

Zero hours, the NHS, Europe and an economy that works for everyone and not just a select few are central planks of Labour's election message. Ed send his apologies if they don't suit your agenda.

Flat tax rewards the better off at the expense of the rest - as has been explained to you many times before. Maybe that does suit your agenda.

Let's run a poll and run the countryfor the benefit of the vast majority would be fairer.

What on earth is wrong with that? Something has to be done with the NHS funding. We can't afford where we are heading and sticking ones head in the sand is no good. We might manage a NHS for ourselves but we simply can't operate a free health service for the bloody world. Tough decisions need to be made in govt. Any govts first responsibility is to it's own citizens.

Correct. The NHS needs to be funded properly by government.

As far as sole traders / builders etc go I do have some sympathy. it's not all a bowl of cherries is it? No one guarantees them a pay packet come what may every week do they? No one pays them when the weather freezes for a few weeks in winter and they can't work, no one gives them holiday or sick pay either.

I might have known you would be advocating tax evasion. Seems to come naturally to you.

I agree and if thats the case then the only answer is that the financial disaster and economic crash under Labour did not hurt enough people significantly enough.

The financial crash started in the Us and spread worldwide. But then you already knew that

Quite happy to pay my share BUT I'm not happy to pay more than my share. Why tf should I?

You're not happy to pay your share because as you resent paying any tax.

[yoda]

You might snitch on a neighbour but I wouldn't although I must admit it's temptingif only because he's a ManU supporter. The point is (and as Paul points out you always go off on a tangent and miss the point) it is the system that is at fault that allows builders and the like to get away with it.

The poorest pay a greater proportion of their income in tax than the wealthy so it makes more sense to make the wealthy pay their correct share. The problem is, the wealthy pay even less than they should because they have clever accountants who exploit all the loopholes. The sentence is bold is nonsense - the US is the wealthiest country in the world yet little of that wealth has trickled down. Average wages in the US have not grown for decades while those at the top have powered ahead. This isn't my opinion - it's fact, unlike your bullshit.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/10/09/for-most-workers-real-wages-have-barely-budged-for-decades/

Have you asked the two-thirds ? Where is the evidence, or as usual are you just making it all up again?

Zero hours, the NHS, Europe and an economy that works for everyone and not just a select few are central planks of Labour's election message. Ed send his apologies if they don't suit your agenda.

Flat tax rewards the better off at the expense of the rest - as has been explained to you many times before. Maybe that does suit your agenda.

Let's run a poll and run the countryfor the benefit of the vast majority would be fairer.

Why have a poll, there's an election coming up,

I thought the central planks of Labour were Ed and Balls

(see what I did there, it is still a football MB is it not)

[broadsword]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/11512104/Labour-backer-Wayne-Hemingway-forced-to-defend-using-zero-hours-contracts.html

ooops

and oh dear, oops again

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3022956/Labour-supporting-designer-Wayne-Hemingway-fire-using-zero-hours-contracts-unpaid-internships.html

[Gav]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/11512104/Labour-backer-Wayne-Hemingway-forced-to-defend-using-zero-hours-contracts.html

ooops

and oh dear, oops again

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3022956/Labour-supporting-designer-Wayne-Hemingway-fire-using-zero-hours-contracts-unpaid-internships.html

Most companies use zero hour contracts, doesn't make them right though.

[yoda]

Most companies use zero hour contracts, doesn't make them right though.

I think he was pointing out the Labour party backers that are using them. Conflict of interest coming up ?

[Gav]

I think he was pointing out the Labour party backers that are using them. Conflict of interest coming up ?

As I said, most companies use them, doesn't matter which side of the political divide you sit, if Labour get in they’ll regulate them, and about time to.

[Mike E]

Someone tell me what's wrong with zero hour contracts? I had one from June 2013 til September 2014. It worked fantastically for me and benefitted my employer. At no point did it restrict any tax I owed or NI contributions.

[Gav]

Someone tell me what's wrong with zero hour contracts? I had one from June 2013 til September 2014. It worked fantastically for me and benefitted my employer. At no point did it restrict any tax I owed or NI contributions.

How about not knowing from one week to the next what hours, if any, you'll be working?

No holiday pay, sick pay or normal workers rights?

They do work for some Mike like yourself, no doubt about that, but businesses are exploiting workers, and its legal, which just isn’t right.

[thenodrog]

As I said, most companies use them, doesn't matter which side of the political divide you sit, if Labour get in they’ll regulate them, and about time to.

Someone tell me what's wrong with zero hour contracts? I had one from June 2013 til September 2014. It worked fantastically for me and benefitted my employer. At no point did it restrict any tax I owed or NI contributions.

Well said Mike. Problem with Labour 'regulating' zero hour contracts as Gav says is that companies will just stop using them and chuck lots of people onto the scrap heap under a 'more bother than it's worth' policy. Whats better Gav half a loaf or none?

How about not knowing from one week to the next what hours, if any, you'll be working?

No holiday pay, sick pay or normal workers rights?

T

As I pointed out to jim previously thats just like being a sole trader. Welcome to the real world Gav.

[yoda]

As I said, most companies use them, doesn't matter which side of the political divide you sit, if Labour get in they’ll regulate them, and about time to.

Actually they said they would ban them, do you know something that Ed does not ?

[broadsword]

It's just two faced nonsense.

Labour scrabbling around to find a headline grabbing vote winner, when they haven't got their own house in order.

It will take a lot more than that for labour to win

[Mike E]

How about not knowing from one week to the next what hours, if any, you'll be working?

No holiday pay, sick pay or normal workers rights?

They do work for some Mike like yourself, no doubt about that, but businesses are exploiting workers, and its legal, which just isnt right.

Like a supply teacher, was how I justified it.

In actuality I was promised one day a week and they were impressed with my work ethic, so had me working everyday most weeks after about 2 months. As long as the employer has a need for zero-hour worker and someone's happy to fulfil that need, there's no issue. What I dislike is people disregarding them outright, when they are no different (worse imo) than people claiming benefits while working 'cash-in-hand' jobs.

I will say this though: I wouldn't sign a zero hour contract with a company I didn't trust.

[Gav]

Actually they said they would ban them, do you know something that Ed does not ?

Actually they said they'd regulate them by turning them into full time contracts after 3 months as a starting point.

Keep up Yoda.

[Gav]

Like a supply teacher, was how I justified it.

In actuality I was promised one day a week and they were impressed with my work ethic, so had me working everyday most weeks after about 2 months. As long as the employer has a need for zero-hour worker and someone's happy to fulfil that need, there's no issue. What I dislike is people disregarding them outright, when they are no different (worse imo) than people claiming benefits while working 'cash-in-hand' jobs.

I will say this though: I wouldn't sign a zero hour contract with a company I didn't trust.

I'm glad you had a good experience with a zero hours contract Mike and I'm sure plenty do, but plenty don't.

Just for a bit of balance, I spoke to someone who was covering a works reception recently and she informed me she was on a bank of staff all of whom were on zero hours contracts. She had no idea if she's be working the day after let alone the week after, how can that be right? These people are forced to take zero hours contracts or will have job seekers allowances and any other benefits stopped.

Its not right.

[Biddy]

Actually they said they'd regulate them by turning them into full time contracts after 3 months as a starting point.

Keep up Yoda.

Ha, ha, ha,ha. You do know what will happen right?

Company - "good morning John, your 3 month contract is up tomorrow. Unfortunately business pressures dictate that we cannot sustain a full time salary. Please collect your P45 on the way out"

John - "typical, again!"

I honestly don't know where the out cry is coming from for the zero hours contracts. It seems its mainly those that do not have these contracts and don't personally know people that do that are the most offended. Or is it just that we are being told by certain parties and the media to be offended by them?

She had no idea if she's be working the day after let alone the week after, how can that be right? These people are forced to take zero hours contracts or will have job seekers allowances and any other benefits stopped.

Its not right.

So she was working and still keeping benefits and job seekers allowance? Sounds like an absolute winner to me!

[Steve Kean's Hypnotoad]

These people are forced to take zero hours contracts or will have job seekers allowances and any other benefits stopped.

Its not right.

I'd argue that is right depending on how long they've been on jobseekers. I've no problem with anyone being on it who is, as the phrase goes, actively looking for work. And by that I mean 8 hours a day, 5 days a week, they're applying for jobs (so they apply for maybe 50 a week). That's what seeking a job is, and doing that would get pretty much anyone a job in a matter of months at most.

The people on jobseekers for longer than that should have their benefits stopped if they won't take zero hours or basically anything going, because I'd argue in the vast majority of cases to get to that stage they haven't been doing, or haven't properly been doing, the one thing that justifies them taking other people's money, looking for a job.

And that last bit is probably my biggest gripe with labour and a lot of leftist voters. There doesn't seem to be much acknowledgement or realisation that everything the government spends money on, so the entire public sector, pensions, benefits, overseas aid etc, is money belonging to people. Its not the government's money or money that falls out of the sky, its our money. And personally I'm pretty tight because I don't have much of it. They can spend it on people who work as hard as me but have just been unluckier in life, but as far as I'm concerned they can't spend it on anyone else.

[jim mk2]

And that last bit is probably my biggest gripe with labour and a lot of leftist voters. There doesn't seem to be much acknowledgement or realisation that everything the government spends money on, so the entire public sector, pensions, benefits, overseas aid etc, is money belonging to people. Its not the government's money or money that falls out of the sky, its our money. And personally I'm pretty tight because I don't have much of it.

Thatcher used to say the same - and it's standard right wing claptrap.

If you think it's your money go and ask for your share of the money back. I think you'll find there is not any part of the government's money that is earmarked as yours. That, of course, is because none is.

Then try not paying what the government thinks you owe it and see what happens. If there are any staff still in the relevant HMRC office not hit by cutbacks, you will find they will take a dim view of your approach and will then begin legal proceedings to recover the sum you owe.

It's your net income after tax that you own; the rest very definitely belongs to the government.

[yoda]

Actually they said they'd regulate them by turning them into full time contracts after 3 months as a starting point.

Keep up Yoda.

mmmm an optimistic socialist

[Gav]

mmmm an optimistic socialist

Me a socialist

[yoda]

Me a socialist

It was in jest as you twigged,

If Ed gets in though, can't see him following through on it as described pre election.

Some of the consequences of Labour getting in with support/coalition with the SNP are frightening for the UK as a whole,

I might have to move back to France!