Fairer Taxes? Find Out Who Will Make Sure No-one Pays Tax On The 1st £10k They Earn

[Greg Lance-Watkins]

Hi,

Reading this advert for the Lib.Dims. are we to deduce that although they are determined to surrender governance to The EU and totally emasculate Westminster - apart of course for its ready source of relatively unqualified cash to bribe salesmen with they intend to oppose vat which The EU aims to levy on food and houses.

That they aim to try to stabilise their failed currency, which the Lib.Dims. so wish to join by increasing vat across the whole EU on all goods to a single standard level which of course the Lib.Dims. would endorse.

Perhaps they would care with the economically illiterate theorist Vincent Cable who is much vaunted because he has a different ridiculous theory to the imbecilic Brown or the confussed capitalist Darling and as for the Tory economic twit - wuch that he has to have it explained to him on a Russian oligarch's yacht in Greek waters by Peter Medlesome for the EU!

Now run that ad past me again:
'Fairer Taxes?
Find Out Who Will Make Sure No-one Pays Tax On The 1st £10k They Earn'

NO Tax on the 1st. £10K - are you sure the Lib.Dims. economic genius didn't mean income tax?

Is this just the sort of sloppy logic we would expect from Lib.Dims.? Hardly surprising they want to surrender Governance to the EU!

Regards,
Greg L-W.

[LA]

To be quite honest, I believe the increased tax allowance is the best policy the Liberal Democrats have.
I personally believe the tax allowance should be increased to £15,000 if not more.
Then when individuals begin paying tax, they should be faced by a ten percent tax rate... This Labour Government made a huge blunder over the abolition of the ten percent tax band and failed to reverse their idiocy over this policy.

[Midas]

To be quite honest, I believe the increased tax allowance is the best policy the Liberal Democrats have.
I personally believe the tax allowance should be increased to £15,000 if not more.
Then when individuals begin paying tax, they should be faced by a ten percent tax rate... This Labour Government made a huge blunder over the abolition of the ten percent tax band and failed to reverse their idiocy over this policy.

I agree LA, but I'd go even further and say that the threshold for income tax should be as high as £20,000. Not only would this remove all less well-off families from the tax net but it would enable a significant simplification of some of the benefit schemes. Probably no surprise but I'd lower the top end scale of tax too, after all, only a small percentage of revenues come from the top rate tax-payers and the other benefits by way of encouraging more people to remain in the UK make this well worth while. A quick look at the government accounts and the colossal waste and misdirection of funds show that both the above could easily be accomplished without any significant expenditure cuts, simply by doing what you'd think anyone who wanted to be prudent with their finances would do; cut out loss, waste and short-term party-politically inspired schemes.

[LA]

I agree LA, but I'd go even further and say that the threshold for income tax should be as high as £20,000. Not only would this remove all less well-off families from the tax net but it would enable a significant simplification of some of the benefit schemes. Probably no surprise but I'd lower the top end scale of tax too, after all, only a small percentage of revenues come from the top rate tax-payers and the other benefits by way of encouraging more people to remain in the UK make this well worth while. A quick look at the government accounts and the colossal waste and misdirection of funds show that both the above could easily be accomplished without any significant expenditure cuts, simply by doing what you'd think anyone who wanted to be prudent with their finances would do; cut out loss, waste and short-term party-politically inspired schemes.

Midas, I agree entirely. I said "£15,000 if not more" because I am not sure how much of an allowance we could afford. I think £20,000 before you start paying 10% would be brilliant frankly.
You say it wouldn't need significant expenditure cuts, such a move would help facilitate cuts. As people are wealthier, there would be no need for such wasteful public expenditure programmes.

In regards to tax I think the following should happen

1/ Abolition of 50% tax rate
2/ Abolition of 40% tax rate
3/ Abolition of Inheritance Tax*
4/ Reintroduction of 10% tax rate
5/ Introduction of 30% tax rate**
6/ Increase of tax allowance
7/ Transferable tax allowance for married couples (and civil partnerships)

This should be paid for by sweeping cuts across all budgets excluding Defence and Universities.

* I am willing to accept this one in stages. I.e. start at 1million, then 2million, then 3million then abolition.
** Not a priority though should be done.

[Kiwi 1691]

Or introduce a simple tax structure, the more simple the tax structure the harder tax avoidance is. I.E. a flat 25% tax rate, that cuts in at 25,000 pounds. Has anyone ever considered dropping VAT and replacing it with a 1% or 2% transaction tax?Also whats this I hear of National Insurance?

[pauli007001]

Fairer Tax =5% for all and not a penny more, once the govnt have it they better make it last, or else they can **** off.5% is more than enough to do what is nessesary with regards to public services.

[pauli007001]

Or introduce a simple tax structure, the more simple the tax structure the harder tax avoidance is. I.E. a flat 25% tax rate, that cuts in at 25,000 pounds. Has anyone ever considered dropping VAT and replacing it with a 1% or 2% transaction tax?Also whats this I hear of National Insurance?

If you dont know about National Insurance perhaps you should keep your nose out of British politics.National insurance is another layer of Taxation on the populace, Taxation being the life blood of the totalitarian.

[Greg Lance-Watkins]

Hi,

perhaps since this is now talking in idealogical terms it is a little pointless to have it linked to a Party Political base - Party Politics is self serving and NOT for the benefit of the people.

The record shows this consistently or never would we have transferred our liberty for the gain of a self serving, self selecting self styled political elite feeding from OUR money on their Gravy Train with the malign and damaging EU.

Regards,
Greg L-W.

[Jim Franklin]

Or introduce a simple tax structure, the more simple the tax structure the harder tax avoidance is. I.E. a flat 25% tax rate, that cuts in at 25,000 pounds. Has anyone ever considered dropping VAT and replacing it with a 1% or 2% transaction tax?Also whats this I hear of National Insurance?

Kiwi, VAT= Value Added Tax...which is at 17.5% in the UK... is a sales tax, which is the same thing as a transaction Tax.

National Insurance is money paid as a proportion of Gross Income on a sliding scale which was designed to pay for the pensions of the Old Folk. Many believe it pays for the NHS, but in fact it does not.

No disrespect, but if you do not have any real knowledge of the UK tax systems, then might I suggest you hold back from commenting or others will simply attack you..if you want to comment, make sure it is on part of it your clear about.

[Jim Franklin]

Tax is something that was being discussed on another forum I use and I posted some thoughts I have had for a very long time for a more equal tax system.

Unfairly taxing high earners will only drive the best abroad and will harm industry, this has been shown time and time again.

Remove all Tax Allowances for all groups so that everyone can then work out exactly what they earn. I would also abolish National Insurance and lump it all in with Tax.

0-12K = 0%
12001-18000 = 6%
18001 - 24000 = 10%
24001-30000 = 15%
30001 - 35000 = 20%
35001 - 40000 = 25%
40001 - 45000 = 30%
45001 - 60000 =35%
60001+ =40%

Further, all people who work for the State (Service Personnel, Police, Fire, Nurses, Paramedics etc [but not civil servants] would have a different scale.

UP to 30,000 = 0%
30,001 - 40,000 = 10%
40,001 - 60,000 = 15%
60,001+ = 20%

This would help those who earn the least and given them a defacto pay rise, but it would also be an incentive to keep the best people where the country needs them

As well as this I would alter the VAT system.

Water = VAT FREE (This would include bottled water except Carbonated and Flavoured (10%))
Essential Items, including fuel for heating, electricity etc, as it is = 5%
Luxury Items = 20%
Food Items = 4%
Non-essential Food (Chocolate, sweets etc) = 15%

I would also abolish the current Council Tax system and introduce a LOCAL sales tax of 5% on all items bought in a given county. This would be fixed and local authorities would not be able to play with it. Central Government should give each Council a fixed sum per person living in their jurisdiction. The Number of councils should be drastically reduced and money saved from the duplication that goes on.

I seriously believe that tens of billions could be saved every year by trimming back on the Quango's, committee's, old boys networks, top heavy management, inefficient Civil Service and red tape. We need to bin political correctness and simply clean house. I accept that in the short term we may increase unemployment from the Public Services, but then perhaps we can retrain many and then not so many would need to be welcomed from abroad...perhaps...

Obviously what we didn't touch on above was Corporation Tax and in this country that is also unfair and ties companies, both large and small, in unnecessary red tape and buearocrasy. This whole system needs to be streamlined and made fairer too.

For example I would be inclined to do this:

Pre-Tax profits:
£1 - £10,000 = 5%
£10,001 - £50,000 = 10%
£50,001 - £100,000 = 12%
£100,001 - £250,000 = 15%
£250,001 - £500,000 = 18%
£500,001 - £750,000 = 20%
£750,001 - £1,500,000 = 22%
£1,500,001 - £10,000,000 = 25%
£10,000,001 to £100,000,000 = 28%
+£100,000,001 = 30%

I think such a system would be fairer as it would reflect that companies also benefit from Government and connections the more successful they become and that they should also contribute more just as individuals should, but it should never go above 30% or we risk driving companies abroad.

lastly, I believe the Government should make available Interest free Loans of up to £1,000,000 for any business that can show economically sound reasons for said loan. The Loans should be limited in scope to those companies who would not usually be considered for such loans by banks and the Business has a net profit of less than £1,000,000 for the previous 3 tax years.

The tax system should be fair and treat all tax payers equally, whether they are an individual or a corporation, we are all important parts of society.

[Kiwi 1691]

Kiwi, VAT= Value Added Tax...which is at 17.5% in the UK... is a sales tax, which is the same thing as a transaction Tax.

Wrong, VAT is a consumption Tax. A tax on all financial transactions would be further reaching than VAT, so could be at a lower rate.

[Midas]

Tax is something that was being discussed on another forum I use and I posted some thoughts I have had for a very long time for a more equal tax system.

Unfairly taxing high earners will only drive the best abroad and will harm industry, this has been shown time and time again.

Remove all Tax Allowances for all groups so that everyone can then work out exactly what they earn. I would also abolish National Insurance and lump it all in with Tax.

0-12K = 0%
12001-18000 = 6%
18001 - 24000 = 10%
24001-30000 = 15%
30001 - 35000 = 20%
35001 - 40000 = 25%
40001 - 45000 = 30%
45001 - 60000 =35%
60001+ =40%

I certainly agree with you about high taxes driving the more productive people out of the country, but then you go and spoil it by advocating a top rate of 40%! Is this scale you come up with actually based on any calculations or it is simply a case of what you think is right? FWIW a tax allowance of up to £20,000 and a top rate of 25% is well in excess of what's necessary to run the British government provided that efficiency was introduced and wastefulness reduced, and that is a figure based on actual calculations.

Further, all people who work for the State (Service Personnel, Police, Fire, Nurses, Paramedics etc [but not civil servants] would have a different scale.

UP to 30,000 = 0%
30,001 - 40,000 = 10%
40,001 - 60,000 = 15%
60,001+ = 20%

This would help those who earn the least and given them a defacto pay rise, but it would also be an incentive to keep the best people where the country needs them

And there I was thinking from what you said in other threads that you were into a fairer and more democratic society, but here you are advocating unfairness and discrimination for people in certain state-employed jobs! Have a high enough tax threshold and you remove the necessity for all this.

As well as this I would alter the VAT system.

Water = VAT FREE (This would include bottled water except Carbonated and Flavoured (10%))
Essential Items, including fuel for heating, electricity etc, as it is = 5%
Luxury Items = 20%
Food Items = 4%
Non-essential Food (Chocolate, sweets etc) = 15%

Yes, the system of VAT does need a re-think, it's become overly complex, but you need to move away from descriptions such as 'luxury items'. Who defines them and why?

I would also abolish the current Council Tax system and introduce a LOCAL sales tax of 5% on all items bought in a given county. This would be fixed and local authorities would not be able to play with it. Central Government should give each Council a fixed sum per person living in their jurisdiction. The Number of councils should be drastically reduced and money saved from the duplication that goes on.

Yes, agreed entirely, although I wouldn't care to quote a specific percentage without doing some calculations first, and there would need to be some exclusions. The current system of council tax is grossly unfair; Maggie's idea of a poll tax was a far better one in that everyone uses local services, therefore everyone should pay for them, but a flat rate national sales tax in lieu is far easier to administer.

I seriously believe that tens of billions could be saved every year by trimming back on the Quango's, committee's, old boys networks, top heavy management, inefficient Civil Service and red tape. We need to bin political correctness and simply clean house. I accept that in the short term we may increase unemployment from the Public Services, but then perhaps we can retrain many and then not so many would need to be welcomed from abroad...perhaps...

Absolutely! But if coupled with significant reductions in tax liabilities, many of those out of a job would find opportunities in the private sector, which would benefit enormously by such a restructuring.

Obviously what we didn't touch on above was Corporation Tax and in this country that is also unfair and ties companies, both large and small, in unnecessary red tape and buearocrasy. This whole system needs to be streamlined and made fairer too.

For example I would be inclined to do this:

Pre-Tax profits:
£1 - £10,000 = 5%
£10,001 - £50,000 = 10%
£50,001 - £100,000 = 12%
£100,001 - £250,000 = 15%
£250,001 - £500,000 = 18%
£500,001 - £750,000 = 20%
£750,001 - £1,500,000 = 22%
£1,500,001 - £10,000,000 = 25%
£10,000,001 to £100,000,000 = 28%
+£100,000,001 = 30%

I think such a system would be fairer as it would reflect that companies also benefit from Government and connections the more successful they become and that they should also contribute more just as individuals should, but it should never go above 30% or we risk driving companies abroad.

As with income tax I do believe that corporation tax needs to be brought down significantly. Many countries manage very well with such tax levels at between 10% and 15% tops, reduced to zero for periods of time and for certain categories of business in order to attract new companies to their countries.

lastly, I believe the Government should make available Interest free Loans of up to £1,000,000 for any business that can show economically sound reasons for said loan. The Loans should be limited in scope to those companies who would not usually be considered for such loans by banks and the Business has a net profit of less than £1,000,000 for the previous 3 tax years.

That's the business of banks, but the government could certainly do more in order to underwrite many more small business loans.

The tax system should be fair and treat all tax payers equally, whether they are an individual or a corporation, we are all important parts of society.

Quite, yet a statement somewhat spoilt by your advocating still too high rates and an inequality in tax rates between public service and private employees.

[Jim Franklin]

Wrong, VAT is a consumption Tax. A tax on all financial transactions would be further reaching than VAT, so could be at a lower rate.

Stick to NZ tax and we will stick to UK tax...It is a sales tax.

[LA]

You arrogant little goit...You stick to NZ tax and we will stick to UK tax...It is a effing sales tax you nob jockey.

Actually Jim, though I would like to see Kiwi get owned over something simple; purely for simple pleasures, the fact is that he is correct.
VAT; or value added tax, is a consumption tax.

[Citizen Smith]

e tax up to 17 grand, everyone above 50 grand get 90p tax 70 grand 95p, above 100 grand 99.9p

[Jim Franklin]

I certainly agree with you about high taxes driving the more productive people out of the country, but then you go and spoil it by advocating a top rate of 40%! Is this scale you come up with actually based on any calculations or it is simply a case of what you think is right? FWIW a tax allowance of up to £20,000 and a top rate of 25% is well in excess of what's necessary to run the British government provided that efficiency was introduced and wastefulness reduced, and that is a figure based on actual calculations.

Midas, eventually I would like to see all people pay exactly the same, but at the moment the nation is so poorly run that we need the extra income to the public purse so we can afford to sort the mess out. I agree that basing a tax level on someone's ability to earn is inherently unfair, but we are not in a position be be totally fair, so we simply have to be fairer than the current system..this is why I would simply abolish tax allowances for a start, they are unfair and actually penalise the lower paid who can actually claim nothing back and improve their potential. People who earn more usually are more aware of the tax laws and know they can claim legitimate expenses in many cases.

And there I was thinking from what you said in other threads that you were into a fairer and more democratic society, but here you are advocating unfairness and discrimination for people in certain state-employed jobs! Have a high enough tax threshold and you remove the necessity for all this.

The problem is that people in the public sector (excluding the civil servants) earn, on average, 25% lower salaries than those in the private sector, the nation is not yet in a position to give them a pay rise directly, so the next best thing is to alleviate the tax burden they face. It would be effectively giving them a couple of thousand pound a year pay rise without the direct costs. I think this is especially true for the very low paid in these jobs who are just starting out in their careers.

Yes, the system of VAT does need a re-think, it's become overly complex, but you need to move away from descriptions such as 'luxury items'. Who defines them and why?

Luxury, by my definition, and that does not mean it is right or should be used, is any item that is not deemed a necessity for life. If an item is a necessity, then it should have a low VAT rate, but we do not need cd players, TV's and that type of item for life (But they make it bearable I accept). Kettles, saucepans, cutlery etc are not luxury items. Do you see where I was going, but this would need to be very clearly thought through.

Yes, agreed entirely, although I wouldn't care to quote a specific percentage without doing some calculations first, and there would need to be some exclusions. The current system of council tax is grossly unfair; Maggie's idea of a poll tax was a far better one in that everyone uses local services, therefore everyone should pay for them, but a flat rate national sales tax in lieu is far easier to administer.

Actually the 5% came about because some time ago when discussing with friends, one of whom is a chartered accountant, we all worked out what we spent and where we spent it, and all ended up accepting that about 70% of our "free money" was spent around where we all lived. We then got Sam (accountant) to calculate a percentage that would give the council where most lived (Chelmsford) 70% of the current Council tax (averaged) for the area. This was then averaged by the population of the Chelmsford Borough Council. Based on what we all reckoned we spent, Sam then calculated that for the Council to get from each person 70% of the current Council Tax as calculated above, then you would need to add just over 5% to each item to ensure the council had the same or better revenue that before.

That was not precise, but it was the best way we could come up with it in a pub on a Thursday night after a few bevies!

Absolutely! But if coupled with significant reductions in tax liabilities, many of those out of a job would find opportunities in the private sector, which would benefit enormously by such a restructuring.

I would hope that would be the case and certainly agree that is what the nation should aim at.

As with income tax I do believe that corporation tax needs to be brought down significantly. Many countries manage very well with such tax levels at between 10% and 15% tops, reduced to zero for periods of time and for certain categories of business in order to attract new companies to their countries.

Having been a partner in a business I understand how all the corporate tax system works, and it is unfairly slewed toward the heavy players. Bear in mind one thing we have not touched on here is the contribution in tax and NI that employers make for employing someone. This is a significant cost, so altering this would offset any increases for the bigger players. I already mentioned about scrapping NI and lumping it in with tax, I would reduce the tax liability of a company so it would encourage them to employ people. To many people do not realise that their employer is a de facto tax collector for the government at significant cost to the company, reducing this burdensome overhead would realise net savings and a more efficient operation. Thus increasing the corporation tax would benefit both sides of the coin. It would actually encourage companies to invest more in research and development as this is all tax deductible...the more they can offset against tax the better for them and the better it is for the economy in the long run. (It's way more complicated than that makes it sound though and would need very careful consideration)

That's the business of banks, but the government could certainly do more in order to underwrite many more small business loans.

I agree, but the history of Government doing this is blooming poor, and I see that a Government investing in a company (viable) is a good return on the increased productivity of the company, so they pay more in taxes, and they hopefully employ more people who then spend it and so on. I think Banks have too much power over the economy, as has recently been seen, and Government needs to have a foot in the pond so to speak.

Quite, yet a statement somewhat spoilt by your advocating still too high rates and an inequality in tax rates between public service and private employees.

I think I have addressed that above.

[Jim Franklin]

Actually Jim, though I would like to see Kiwi get owned over something simple; purely for simple pleasures, the fact is that he is correct.
VAT; or value added tax, is a consumption tax.

It is not a consumption Tax. It is a POINT OF SALE TAX. Under HMCR legislation it is specifically called a SALES TAX and always has been. If it was a consumption tax then all food items would be taxed, and they are not. It was originally brought in to raise money to pay for the UK's membership of the EU and was originally only attached to "luxury goods". All that has long gone out of the window though because to pay for the UK membership of the EU VAT would only need to be something in the region of 6% (Panorama).

[Jim Franklin]

e tax up to 17 grand, everyone above 50 grand get 90p tax 70 grand 95p, above 100 grand 99.9p

How to ruin a country in one easy lesson. Only a muppet would advocate that in serious conversation.

[LA]

It is not a consumption Tax. It is a POINT OF SALE TAX. Under HMCR legislation it is specifically called a SALES TAX and always has been. If it was a consumption tax then all food items would be taxed, and they are not. It was originally brought in to raise money to pay for the UK's membership of the EU and was originally only attached to "luxury goods". All that has long gone out of the window though because to pay for the UK membership of the EU VAT would only need to be something in the region of 6% (Panorama).

How VAT works - Taxation and Customs Union - European Commission

From the Europa website.

The Value Added Tax, or VAT, in the European Union is a general, broadly basedconsumption tax assessed on the value added to goods and services. It applies more or less to all goods and services that are bought and sold for use or consumption in the Community. Thus, goods which are sold for export or services which are sold to customers abroad are normally not subject to VAT. Conversely imports are taxed to keep the system fair for EU producers so that they can compete on equal terms on the European market with suppliers situated outside the Union .

Value added tax is

• a general tax that applies, in principle, to all commercial activities involving the production and distribution of goods and the provision of services.
• a consumption tax because it is borne ultimately by the final consumer. It is not a charge on businesses.
• charged as a percentage of price, which means that the actual tax burden is visible at each stage in the production and distribution chain.
• collected fractionally, via a system of partial payments whereby taxable persons (i.e., VAT-registered businesses) deduct from the VAT they have collected the amount of tax they have paid to other taxable persons on purchases for their business activities. This mechanism ensures that the tax is neutral regardless of how many transactions are involved.
• paid to the revenue authorities by the seller of the goods, who is the "taxable person", but it is actually paid by the buyer to the seller as part of the price. It is thus an indirect tax.

I don't know about you but I am starting to get the idea that it is a consumption tax.

EDIT:

I am sorry if this is going to far but I thought I would bring the point home.

This is the VAT Directive: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/...01:0118:en:PDF

Look at Article 1 section 2 (page 9 on the document). It reads:
2. The principle of the common system of VAT entails the
application to goods and services of a general tax on
consumption exactly proportional to the price of the goods
and services, however many transactions take place in the
production and distribution process before the stage at which the
tax is charged.



As we can see, it is clearly a consumption tax.

[Jim Franklin]

LA...that's fair enough, according to the EU it is a Consumption Tax...I accept that, but the HMRC class it as a sales tax in the UK, and regardless of what the EU call VAT, in this country it is a sales tax because it is the HMRC that impose it.

Don't forget that the collection of VAT was always undertaken by HM Customs and Excise before the amalgamation with the Revenue and the name change to HMRC. Under the law in the UK the only revenue that Customs could legally impose was Import/Export levies, sales taxes and "use duty levies". The last one equates to the duty added by Government to cigarettes, alcohol etc.

The statement that it is not borne by business is misleading too. It should be neutral as is pointed out, but the tax is still paid at the point of sale, even if the company does not "consume" the goods. Companies buy materials to create products, this is not the final phase of production, but they still pay the VAT on those materials. If the tax were "consumption" in the real sense of the word, then companies would not be exempt from it as they still consume, this cost would simply be added to their tax deductible costs as all other legitimate expenses are, this is clearly not the case.

Now looking at this it can be seen as simply a matter of semantics as in order to consume you have to buy, but as you pay the tax at the point of sale, not when you actually "consume" or "use" a purchase, I am inclined to (In the UK) accept the HMRC standing on this..but I will bow to the statement above that the EU view this differently.

[Kiwi 1691]

LA...that's fair enough, according to the EU it is a Consumption Tax...I accept that, but the HMRC class it as a sales tax in the UK, and regardless of what the EU call VAT, in this country it is a sales tax because it is the HMRC that impose it.

That is probably because sales tax is a Consumption Tax.

[Jim Franklin]

That is probably because sales tax is a Consumption Tax.

That could be argued I agree, but it is a misuse of the word consumption. In essence a consumption tax is something I would pay when using goods or services even if they had been provided for free, ie: You buy a car and the dealer gives you free Insurance for a year..as a sales tax you would pay nothing, but as a consumption tax you would have to pay in order to use that "free" insurance. I think this could be why HMRC differentiate between the two descriptions.

[Midas]

Can we please get back on topic rather than resort to pedantic posts over the definition of a word......

[Barry]

Mandelson warns of further tax rises next year - Telegraph
This may be over simplistic, but surely taxes should have been raised by now in an effort to balance the budget, but it is just cynical political philandering to wait, as Mandelson can then blame the Tories for doing what Labour should have done - BEFORE any election.

[Jim Franklin]

Can we please get back on topic rather than resort to pedantic posts over the definition of a word......

If we must...LOL

[Midas]

Mandelson warns of further tax rises next year - Telegraph
This may be over simplistic, but surely taxes should have been raised by now in an effort to balance the budget, but it is just cynical political philandering to wait, as Mandelson can then blame the Tories for doing what Labour should have done - BEFORE any election.

Or perhaps the government could have realised that it's been their spendthrift ways and party-politically inspired waste which as made the situation here far worse that it otherwise might have been, then addressed correcting those problems before plunging us deeper and deeper into debt......

[Jim Franklin]

Or perhaps the government could have realised that it's been their spendthrift ways and party-politically inspired waste which as made the situation here far worse that it otherwise might have been, then addressed correcting those problems before plunging us deeper and deeper into debt......

The first is highly likely, but as the actual debt and borrowing is far less than predictions, one has to ask who is looking after the books. Perhaps there should be a commission created to look at all the public accounts impartially and identify where all the money is spent.

Then perhaps we can look at what we need to save on. The way we all debate it is from a position of "not enough clarity". An independent revue of the public accounts, without any recommendations as that would not be helpful, is in the nations interests and way overdue.

[Citizen Smith]

How to ruin a country in one easy lesson. Only a muppet would advocate that in serious conversation.

Well, muppet I am, because I don't believe a bit of equality ruins a country.

[Midas]

Well, muppet I am, because I don't believe a bit of equality ruins a country.

No, socialist policies and excessive taxes do that all on their own

[Jim Franklin]

Well, muppet I am, because I don't believe a bit of equality ruins a country.

How is taxing most of the money a person makes equality, sorry do you own a dictionary, perhaps you should look the word up. By your twisted logic, a person earning £90,000 a year would be worse off than someone earning £15,000, how on earth is that equality, where is the incentive for the person earning the £90K?

You should really do some research on Communism and it's principle of equality....there is none in practice...the equality comes from the power you yield and how you are able to shield yourself from the ravages of paranoid dictators. Think I'm wrong, read a factual history book on any communist country.

[Kiwi 1691]

No, socialist policies and excessive taxes do that all on their own

You wish Midas

[Kiwi 1691]

You should really do some research on Communism and it's principle of equality....there is none in practice...the equality comes from the power you yield and how you are able to shield yourself from the ravages of paranoid dictators. Think I'm wrong, read a factual history book on any communist country.

Knowing you, you'd probably be silly enough to class the former USSR and China as communist states.

[Midas]

You wish Midas

No Kiwi, history tells us so.

Knowing you, you'd probably be silly enough to class the former USSR and China as communist states.

Since they both called themselves that, who are we to argue with their own assessment of their political style?

[Kiwi 1691]

No Kiwi, history tells us so.

Both socialism and capitalism are as bad as each other Midas. There are/have been plenty of rich and poor socialist nations, there are wealthy and poor capitalist nations.

Since they both called themselves that, who are we to argue with their own assessment of their political style?

The US considers itself the home of Freedom and democracy, just because someone says they are something doesn't make that true.

[LA]

The US considers itself the home of Freedom and democracy, just because someone says they are something doesn't make that true.

But the difference is, China was very much a communist nation.
Less so after the liberalisation that China underwent.

[Kiwi 1691]

But the difference is, China was very much a communist nation.
Less so after the liberalisation that China underwent.

China is rather capitalist, just they are a rare capitalist (totalitarian capitalist).

[Jim Franklin]

Kiwi, the Soviet Union was a Communist state, hence it had a Proletoriat and why did all those who wanted decent jobs, achieve a ranking position in the military or Police, be a teacher or educator of any description have to join Комунистическая Партия whose literal translation into English is COMMUNIST PARTY. It's name was the Soviet Socialist Union Republic (CCCP)..or Souiz Sovetskih Socialisticeskih Respublik.

The Russians were as Communist as it gets.

I would agree that the model the Chinese used, whilst initially purely communist, was adapted to suite themselves, but it was in essence communist up until the early 1990's when they relaxed regulations to allow free markets.

[Kiwi 1691]

Kiwi, the Soviet Union was a Communist state, hence it had a Proletoriat and why did all those who wanted decent jobs, achieve a ranking position in the military or Police, be a teacher or educator of any description have to join Комунистическая Партия whose literal translation into English is COMMUNIST PARTY. It's name was the Soviet Socialist Union Republic (CCCP)..or Souiz Sovetskih Socialisticeskih Respublik.

The Russians were as Communist as it gets.

I would agree that the model the Chinese used, whilst initially purely communist, was adapted to suite themselves, but it was in essence communist up until the early 1990's when they relaxed regulations to allow free markets.

If you read The Revolution Betrayed by Leon Trotsky, you may disagree.

Leon Trotsky: The Revolution Betrayed (1936)


The idea that the USSR was a communist counrty was false. Communism can only exist on a worldwide scale after the means of production are in full control of the workers of the world.

According to Stalin in a letter to Pokoyev in 1954, the Soviet Union hadn't achieved socialism yet.
The Possibility of Building Socialism in Our Country

The USSR was a "Deformed workers' state"

[Jim Franklin]

If you read The Revolution Betrayed by Leon Trotsky, you may disagree.

Leon Trotsky: The Revolution Betrayed (1936)


The idea that the USSR was a communist counrty was false. Communism can only exist on a worldwide scale after the means of production are in full control of the workers of the world.

According to Stalin in a letter to Pokoyev in 1954, the Soviet Union hadn't achieved socialism yet.
The Possibility of Building Socialism in Our Country

The USSR was a "Deformed workers' state"

Without wishing to get into a debate here, Trotsky fell out several times with Lenin before he joined the Bolsheviks and was later outmanoeuvred by Stalin for the top job. He was exiled and had a lot of anger toward the powers in Russia, so what he said you need to take with a pinch of salt.

The simple fact is that Russia was run by the Communist Party, they called themselves communists and so did the entire planet....so what was written in a book almost 80 years ago by an embittered man in exile ain't worth squat.

We can all reinterpret history to suit our arguments at some point in the future, and we can all agree that pure communism has only ever existed in a book or a dream, but there is no clear definition of Communism in the real world, so it is largely subjective rather than objective.

It is similar to the top bods in the Labour Party all claiming to be good and true socialists, yet all are Multi-millionaires in their own right...through running capitalist companies in many cases....

[Midas]

The idea that the USSR was a communist counrty was false.

In that case perhaps you'd like to say why both the USSR and China under Mao actually called themselves 'communist' and the rest of the world termed them 'communist'? A point you didn't answer when I asked it before.

[Kiwi 1691]

In that case perhaps you'd like to say why both the USSR and China under Mao actually called themselves 'communist' and the rest of the world termed them 'communist'? A point you didn't answer when I asked it before.

They did wish to create "communist states" or as close to communism as a state can be. They may have called themselves that, but they weren't.

The intention was always to create communism, but it was never achieved. The communist revolution in Russia did not create communism, it began the road to Communism. MN would have been able to explain this far better to you, if he had not been banned.

[Opinionated]

In that case perhaps you'd like to say why both the USSR and China under Mao actually called themselves 'communist' and the rest of the world termed them 'communist'? A point you didn't answer when I asked it before.

I can call myself a fairy princess it doesn't make it so. Why did they? Same reason Hitler included socialism in the Nazi party's title (then proceeded to kill all left wingers after they got power), because Communism has been a very popular discourse which captures the imagination of the proletariat (promising them freedom from oppression) and lip service is a useful tool in order to gain power.
In some cases of course (I'm thinking Castro in particular) it is a case of power corrupting and absolute power corrupting absolutely. What might start out with a truely altruistic intention ends in corruption and totalitarianism (largely as a result of a desire to hold onto power), part of the human condition perhaps?
The rest of the world termed them communism because we like to place labels on everything, those in the intellectual communities actually often label it Lenninism, Stalinism and Maoism - but that doesn't suit the purpose of the Capitalist elite for whom they provide useful examples of "communism's" failure.

[Jim Franklin]

What amazes me is that people here, who have likely never been to Russia or possibly known a Russian, believe they know better about the place because they read a book. I have no desire to get into an argument over this, it is taking this thread and I would love it to return to the topic at hand..namely fairer taxation for all, but as I explained in a different thread..I am sat beside a Russian, my ex-wife is a Russian, her parents are Russian, Lenin (Vlads nickname) was a member of the COMMUNIST PARTY (so he kept his job) and I have been fortunate enough to speak to people involved in various parts of the former USSR Government..not too high though, just locally..and they all describe themselves as COMMUNIST.

Now I am sorry, you can read and interpret all the flipping books you like, but these people lived it, were part of it and some still hope for it's return. They know what they were and are. Stalin knew what he was when he said he was a communist. The blooming titles of Leninism, Stalinism, Moaism and all the other ism's, like Thatcherism, Majorism, Blairism, Bushism etc etc etc are simply creations of the popular media.

The simple fact is we all know that the names created by the popular press are just bullisms!

They followed the precepts of the Communist roadmap, they advocated the use of the writings of Marxs and Engles....that is a simple cold hard fact.

Now can we please return to the topic of discussing taxation... philosophy of the politics of the USSR et al belongs in a different thread.

[Opinionated]

In all likelihood this will create the need for a new thread - there was a sticky on it but it seems to be lost in the software "move".

What amazes me is that people here, who have likely never been to Russia or possibly known a Russian, believe they know better about the place because they read a book. I have no desire to get into an argument over this, it is taking this thread and I would love it to return to the topic at hand..namely fairer taxation for all, but as I explained in a different thread..I am sat beside a Russian, my ex-wife is a Russian, her parents are Russian, Lenin (Vlads nickname) was a member of the COMMUNIST PARTY (so he kept his job) and I have been fortunate enough to speak to people involved in various parts of the former USSR Government..not too high though, just locally..and they all describe themselves as COMMUNIST.

Now I am sorry, you can read and interpret all the flipping books you like, but these people lived it, were part of it and some still hope for it's return. They know what they were and are. Stalin knew what he was when he said he was a communist. The blooming titles of Leninism, Stalinism, Moaism and all the other ism's, like Thatcherism, Majorism, Blairism, Bushism etc etc etc are simply creations of the popular media.

No, I've never been to Russia that's sadly true; and the fact your partner (wife - not sure and doesn't matter really) is Russian does give you an insight into how the system introduced there effected the people and what their personal discourse around it is and was. What it doesn't do is give any greater insight or claim on an opinion around the various external effects or legitimacy of calling that system "communism". The people of the USSR and China had/have every right to consider themselves communists and it is useful shorthand in everyday converstaion but it still doesn't mean that they were actually communist! Good news! The fairies have just made me queen!

The simple fact is we all know that the names created by the popular press are just bullisms!

The press created the term "communism"
They followed the precepts of the Communist roadmap, they advocated the use of the writings of Marxs and Engles....that is a simple cold hard fact.

I’m not so sure that is cold hard fact as you put it. Were they influenced greatly by the communist manifesto yes obviously, but as with everything in life it’s all down to interpretation and context.
The “great revolutions” of the twentieth century in Russia and China were not Communist revolutions or the establishment of Communism, but actually social revolutions against feudalism, leading to the establishment of a state capitalism, and the creation of a modern industrial infrastructure. In both cases the authors felt they had reasoned some loophole through Marx's prescriptions (the road to communism is evolutionary not revolutionary) by which they could force the process in a few years, but this was a delusion, in both Marxist and ordinary terms.

Now can we please return to the topic of discussing taxation... philosophy of the politics of the USSR et al belongs in a different thread.

I’m afraid I have nothing to say on that topic beyond “two things are certain in life death and taxes”

[Midas]

The press created the term "communism"

In this context I'd disagree; having been to the former USSR a number of times, they themselves used the word 'communist' to describe themselves and their regime, on both a national and international basis.

I’m afraid I have nothing to say on that topic beyond “two things are certain in life death and taxes”

Not necessarily much of the latter if you take care to structure your financial affairs correctly

[Jim Franklin]

I don't think it was the press who actually coined the phrase Communism, as far as I am aware it comes from the Russian word Socialisticeskih which has the literal translation of Socialist, but when spelt using the Cyrillic alphabet it is социалист, and it was a mis-translation of this Russian spelling that led some to use the term Communist

However the Russians actually used the term Communist to describe it's people based on the Latin word Communis which means common or belonging to all. Lenin and the Bolsheviks believed the Russian nation belonged to the people and that they were one big community of people and used the word Kommunistih (KошчHцст) to describe the members of that community

Many think that Communism is a modern (19th/20th Century) idea, but in fact it can be traced right back to the ancient Greeks who believed everyone was equal. They had Communes set up..where that word comes from..where everyone in this commune was equal and they all decided (elected) a person to speak on behalf of the community. It is believed to be the origins of the democratic principle.

The Hebrew version is kibbutz, meaning "communal" but mostly used for "communal settlement", in the latter meaning it is a society dedicated to mutual aid and social justice, a socioeconomic system based on the principle of equal joint ownership of property, equality and cooperation of production, consumption and education and the fulfillment of the idea “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs”. In Hebrew a member of the Kibbutz is a Kibbutznik and the English translation of this is Communist!!.

So based on the above the Russians most certainly where Communist....I don't know enough about the Chinese to comment on them..

[pauli007001]

Tax on the first 10k, No one should pay more than 5%, that would be more than enough to run any nation properly, go on do the maths, it works if you remove un needed spending. Anything more that 5 % is totalitarianism and should be stood up to.

[Jim Franklin]

Tax on the first 10k, No one should pay more than 5%, that would be more than enough to run any nation properly, go on do the maths, it works if you remove un needed spending. Anything more that 5 % is totalitarianism and should be stood up to.

Sadly 5% won't do it unless we increase all other areas of taxation..although it would be nice.

I suppose one way would be to put VAT up to 25% on the stuff it is currently at 17.5% on, increase it to 8% on the 5% band and totally scrap Income tax...perhaps scrapping the VAT concession for companies would be good too. However instead of them payiong to full 25%, they contribute 5% of all transactions..that way you raise more tax but do not overtly harm the companies.

[Midas]

Sadly 5% won't do it unless we increase all other areas of taxation..although it would be nice.

I suppose one way would be to put VAT up to 25% on the stuff it is currently at 17.5% on, increase it to 8% on the 5% band and totally scrap Income tax...perhaps scrapping the VAT concession for companies would be good too. However instead of them payiong to full 25%, they contribute 5% of all transactions..that way you raise more tax but do not overtly harm the companies.

In theory at least I don't think Pauli's that far out with the 5% figure, at least if we moved over to full free market capitalism. There are a huge number of jobs and projects which our taxes currently fund which could be done equally well, if not far better, and far less wastefully, by the private sector. This would free up huge amounts of money all of which would flow within the economy and become far more useful than being tied up within the public sector.

Pauli or perhaps one of our American members might know, but I'm sure that some years ago the team behind Harry Browne, when he was considering running as a Libertarian Party candidate in the US elections, carried out some very significant research into this and came up with the 5% figure.

[Kiwi 1691]

Sadly 5% won't do it unless we increase all other areas of taxation..although it would be nice.

I suppose one way would be to put VAT up to 25% on the stuff it is currently at 17.5% on, increase it to 8% on the 5% band and totally scrap Income tax...perhaps scrapping the VAT concession for companies would be good too. However instead of them payiong to full 25%, they contribute 5% of all transactions..that way you raise more tax but do not overtly harm the companies.

When he talks about 5%, he is talking about a system where the govt would run health care or education etc I presume.