Perthbum Posted March 22, 2013 Share Posted March 22, 2013 Are the rich not the working man then? One of the great things about living in a country like Britain is that we generally all have the opportunity to do well and make money if we are driven enough, plenty of people will have started from nothing and made millions and on the way paid loads of tax, employed countless people and contributed greatly to the economy while countless people have decided for whatever reason to settle with a "normal job" and income and got on very well, while some others will have done sod all except whinge about how much money others have got and how it should be taken off of them. Yes...but if the rich like the fat cats running our banks are getting rich while whilst the working man is getting poorer just tax the bank bosses more and reduce the tax for the working man. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perthbum Posted March 22, 2013 Share Posted March 22, 2013 The UK is full of self made millionaires, Richard Branson, James Dyson, John Bloor and many many more. Those 3 alone would employ literally 1000's of people. As we have seen in the past if you tax the rich disproportionatly they pick up sticks and leave. No they don't, who has left the country because of the tax rates? It's bullshite that people leave...where they going? They going to move their company and family overseas? Where to? Are they going to take their kids out of private school to try overseas....it's bullshite ...they vast majority don't leave. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest chris955 Posted March 22, 2013 Share Posted March 22, 2013 No they don't, who has left the country because of the tax rates? It's bullshite that people leave...where they going? They going to move their company and family overseas? Where to? Are they going to take their kids out of private school to try overseas....it's bullshite ...they vast majority don't leave. Its a well known fact and the UK has seen it before, France is seeing it now it has imposed a ridiculous upper tax rate. Yes they will in fact do all the things you say, they have done it before and they would do it again. Im not saying dont reduce tax for the lower paid but high rates of tax for high earners is counterproductive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevieF8 Posted March 22, 2013 Share Posted March 22, 2013 KPMG 2009: “The new 50 percent rate on income above £150,000 due to come into effect on 6 April next year has proved very unpopular. Over eight out of ten respondents (82 percent) said it had made the UK less attractive and would make it harder to attract senior talent to the UK. A quarter of those saying they had considered or were actively considering leaving said that the 50 percent rate of income tax was the main reason or one of the reasons behind their views on whether their companies would remain UK resident.” But why should I believe a well renowned firm who has probably thousands of pounds researching the matter and publishing its findings when I can just ask the local barman, who thinks he knows more than one of the biggest firms in the world. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest chris955 Posted March 22, 2013 Share Posted March 22, 2013 The thing is it is too simplistic to just say tax the lower paid less and the higher paid more. As has been said the higher earners and those employing lots of people need an incentive to stay, tax them too much and they leave, its a fact. It is also happening in California since they increased the tax rate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perthbum Posted March 22, 2013 Share Posted March 22, 2013 Its a well known fact and the UK has seen it before, France is seeing it now it has imposed a ridiculous upper tax rate. Yes they will in fact do all the things you say, they have done it before and they would do it again. Im not saying dont reduce tax for the lower paid but high rates of tax for high earners is counterproductive. Who has done it? One in a thousand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perthbum Posted March 22, 2013 Share Posted March 22, 2013 KPMG 2009: “The new 50 percent rate on income above £150,000 due to come into effect on 6 April next year has proved very unpopular. Over eight out of ten respondents (82 percent) said it had made the UK less attractive and would make it harder to attract senior talent to the UK. A quarter of those saying they had considered or were actively considering leaving said that the 50 percent rate of income tax was the main reason or one of the reasons behind their views on whether their companies would remain UK resident.” But why should I believe a well renowned firm who has probably thousands of pounds researching the matter and publishing its findings when I can just ask the local barman, who thinks he knows more than one of the biggest firms in the world. Ohhhh:biglaugh: a quarter had CONSIDERED leaving. How many left......0 I would imagine, of course they are going to say that but anyone with an ounce of intelligence knows t s bullshite and said in the hope that they lower the tax bands.....why are you so naive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perthbum Posted March 22, 2013 Share Posted March 22, 2013 The thing is it is too simplistic to just say tax the lower paid less and the higher paid more. As has been said the higher earners and those employing lots of people need an incentive to stay, tax them too much and they leave, its a fact. It is also happening in California since they increased the tax rate. Incentive to stay in the country that were born in and made their fortune in, where would they go? Uproot their family, take their kids out of schooling...get real. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest chris955 Posted March 22, 2013 Share Posted March 22, 2013 Seriously, I dont think it is me that has to get real Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pablo Posted March 22, 2013 Share Posted March 22, 2013 A few points: 1. It's not illegal to be rich in the UK, this is a free country, this is not North Korea 2. Who cares who buys the houses? They have to be new build only to get the 20% loan, which means creating jobs in the construction, makes money for the Government on the interest on the loans 3. Helps people who can't get on the housing ladder a helping hand 4. The finer details have still to be ironed out Wasn't it Labour who signed up to loads of PFI schemes that proved to cost more money to run than they will ever make?, this, on the face of it, looks like a good idea. Majors tory gvnmt were the ones who introduced PFI's tho,lets not overlook that. It does matter to an extent who buys the houses,there isnt a bottomless pit of money,so if investors/speculators "did" use up a lot of the funds there would be less for those who "really" cant afford a deposit,the scheme "might" work tho,hopefully it will Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevieF8 Posted March 22, 2013 Share Posted March 22, 2013 Majors tory gvnmt were the ones who introduced PFI's tho,lets not overlook that.It does matter to an extent who buys the houses,there isnt a bottomless pit of money,so if investors/speculators "did" use up a lot of the funds there would be less for those who "really" cant afford a deposit,the scheme "might" work tho,hopefully it will I never overloked it, I said that Labour signed up to loads of PFI schemes that cost more money to run than they will make.... Tories 1992 - 1997 signed up about 25/30 PFI Schemes, Labour 1997 - 2010 sined up to around 650. PFI is actually a very good scheme and a good way of getting construction projects off the ground without the Government carrying much risk, but it requires careful management and robust contracts, something that Labour (and possibly the Tories 92-97) failed to do on a vast scale. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pablo Posted March 22, 2013 Share Posted March 22, 2013 I never overloked it, I said that Labour signed up to loads of PFI schemes that cost more money to run than they will make.... Tories 1992 - 1997 signed up about 25/30 PFI Schemes, Labour 1997 - 2010 sined up to around 650. PFI is actually a very good scheme and a good way of getting construction projects off the ground without the Government carrying much risk, but it requires careful management and robust contracts, something that Labour (and possibly the Tories 92-97) failed to do on a vast scale. No,i know how you worded it,i'm just pointing out that Labour aren't the only ones to use PFI schemes,you "could" infer from your post that it was "only" Labour that signed up for them,thus perpetuating the myth that Labour are spendthrifts and the tories fiscally frugal,and we wouldnt want that,would we Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Andy Posted March 22, 2013 Share Posted March 22, 2013 No,i know how you worded it,i'm just pointing out that Labour aren't the only ones to use PFI schemes,you "could" infer from your post that it was "only" Labour that signed up for them,thus perpetuating the myth that Labour are spendthrifts and the tories fiscally frugal,and we wouldnt want that,would we Why not? :biglaugh: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pablo Posted March 22, 2013 Share Posted March 22, 2013 Why not? :biglaugh: Because Osbourne is 250 billion out in his estimates of how much he would have to borrow in his short term in power,its 300 billion+,so a fair way out in a short period eh? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Andy Posted March 22, 2013 Share Posted March 22, 2013 Because Osbourne is 250 billion out in his estimates of how much he would have to borrow in his short term in power,its 300 billion+,so a fair way out in a short period eh? Oh well whats the odd 250 billion :eek: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pablo Posted March 22, 2013 Share Posted March 22, 2013 Oh well whats the odd 250 billion :eek: Havent you got an opinion on it then?adding 300 billion in just 2 and a half to 3 years? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bunbury61 Posted March 22, 2013 Share Posted March 22, 2013 So yet again under the Tories the rich will get richer....................................Quentin Tarantino couldn't come up with a script like this!!!!!!!! I can not believe how anyone other than the very rich and aristocracy can vote for these fools, any working/middle class person who puts an X next to them is living in dream world...they do not care about you! Every policy they have is geared up to look after there own!! Row over Budget home loans plan A row has erupted over whether a Budget initiative aimed at helping people get on the housing ladder could be used to fund the purchase of second homes. Under the scheme, due to start next January, loans for those putting down 5% deposits would be guaranteed. Labour said there was nothing to stop people using it to buy second homes. The Treasury says this is not the point of the scheme but parents may be allowed to buy homes for their children when it is finalised. The Help to Buy scheme was one of the most eye-catching initiatives in Wednesday's Budget, but Labour has said the policy is beset by confusion amid questions about who might benefit. The aim of the policy, which will be available for homes up to £600,000 from January 2014, is to breathe new life into the housing market, which has been hit by banks demanding bigger deposits from homebuyers. The final details have yet to be worked out but it could facilitate £130bn of home loans over three years. Treasury sources initially stressed to the BBC that it was not designed for second homes but they would not be specifically excluded. As the government sought to clarify the situation, Housing Minister Mark Prisk denied suggestions by Labour shadow chancellor Ed Balls that the Help to Buy scheme was potentially a second-home "subsidy". The minister told the BBC applicants would have to "divest" their existing properties if they were to qualify for help. But No 10 later had to clarify its position. A Downing Street spokesman said Mr Prisk had been referring to another part of the Help to Buy scheme, called the "equity loan scheme". This starts on 1 April 2013 and will help people who want to buy a new-build property in England only, unlike the mortgage guarantee scheme, which will be UK-wide. No 10 insisted the government's overall approach was "clear and coherent" and designed to overcome obstacles in the mortgage market that were stopping people from getting finance and reducing the number of new homes being built. "I don't think the government makes any apology for recognising the desire that a good number of families have to enter the housing market," said the prime minister's official spokesman. The BBC's chief political correspondent, Norman Smith, said Treasury officials were trying to work out a definition of the rules surrounding eligibility for the mortgage guarantee scheme that allowed parents to buy a home for their children but not to buy a holiday home. Full article http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21881007 Dont worry Baz , you may get your wish and labour will get re elected .....the sun will shine ......the debt they created will disappear overnight , because we have ED BALLS .....and everyone will live happily ever after .....and you can finally get your head out of your ar,e Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pablo Posted March 22, 2013 Share Posted March 22, 2013 Have any tories got an opinion on osbourne being 250 billion out on how much he would have to borrow in nearly 3 years? He knew what the debt was when he took over,so as regards his forecast... that has nothing to do with Labour,he knew what the debt was(811 billion),its now 1,111 billion(December gone,more now?),any opinions,or just rhetoric/myths? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pablo Posted March 22, 2013 Share Posted March 22, 2013 Dont worry Baz , you may get your wish and labour will get re elected .....the sun will shine ......the debt they created will disappear overnight , because we have ED BALLS .....and everyone will live happily ever after .....and you can finally get your head out of your ar,e Have you an opinion why osbourne is 250 billion out on his borrowing forecast???? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pablo Posted March 22, 2013 Share Posted March 22, 2013 Have you an opinion why osbourne is 250 billion out on his borrowing forecast???? A reply tonight would be good.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bunbury61 Posted March 22, 2013 Share Posted March 22, 2013 Have any tories got an opinion on osbourne being 250 billion out on how much he would have to borrow in nearly 3 years?He knew what the debt was when he took over,so as regards his forecast... that has nothing to do with Labour,he knew what the debt was(811 billion),its now 1,111 billion(December gone,more now?),any opinions,or just rhetoric/myths? YOU REALLY ARE A ONE TRICK PONY ......part of me hopes labour gets re elected .......this session of govt was a poisoned chalice .........you could not put a cigarette paper between the labour fiscal plans , and what is being carried out by the coalition ., there is no room for manoevure Pablo , thank god you live in a country where you can be anti flag .....anti monarchy ......and call an ex prime minister a bitch .......you lucky boy . If you were in socialist hugo chavez s venezuela and came out with that rhetoric , you would be found hanging from a tree . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pablo Posted March 22, 2013 Share Posted March 22, 2013 YOU REALLY ARE A ONE TRICK PONY ......part of me hopes labour gets re elected .......this session of govt was a poisoned chalice .........you could not put a cigarette paper between the labour fiscal plans , and what is being carried out by the coalition ., there is no room for manoevurePablo , thank god you live in a country where you can be anti flag .....anti monarchy ......and call an ex prime minister a bitch .......you lucky boy . If you were in socialist hugo chavez s venezuela and came out with that rhetoric , you would be found hanging from a tree . I'll ask yer again,HAVE YOU AN OPINION ON WHY OSBOURNE IS 250 BILLION OUT ON HIS BORROWING ESTIMATES? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pablo Posted March 22, 2013 Share Posted March 22, 2013 I'm not anti flag btw,you can fly whatever flag you want,doesnt bother me at all,yes im 100% anti monarchy tho,and thatcher to me and millions of others is a t##t,thats being kind Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wakeboard1980 Posted March 22, 2013 Share Posted March 22, 2013 What's your opinion Pabs? Why do you think the UK is 300b further in debt? How do you think it should have been done differently? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pablo Posted March 22, 2013 Share Posted March 22, 2013 What's your opinion Pabs? Why do you think the UK is 300b further in debt? How do you think it should have been done differently? By carrying on with the growth they were left with?by not cutting hundreds of thousands of public sector jobs(some,yes,but not the amount they have),paying off said public workers,then paying said public sector workers in unemployment benefit=no taxes. So what do you think of osbourne being 250 billion out in his estimates wakey? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.