Fuel Duty To Rise.........?

[WILF 47,354]

It may not be simple but it is fair, make it 10%......you earn £10 you put in a £1.........you earn £10 billion you put in £1 billion

That is fair any way you cut it.

[Lloyd90 509]

It may not be simple but it is fair, make it 10%......you earn £10 you put in a £1.........you earn £10 billion you put in £1 billion

That is fair any way you cut it.

Those 3000 people at the top are paying 45% tax on their earnings over £42k and they make millions.

 

If you dropped them down to 25% you'd receive less tax, with the tax from the majority of people not even coming close to making up for it. You'd have even less money than you do now and be worse off.

[Born Hunter 17,788]

So a 25% flat rate for everyone, including corporations, on earnings over £10.6k with no other sources of tax revenue..........

 

Okay, here's my maths;

 

Average UK salary is £26.5k with approximately 31.4M people in work. Now for the sake of simplicity we can probably make the assumption that all of those earn over the threshold. This gives a tax revenue from private earnings of £125B.

 

I'm struggling to find data on the full value of UK corporation profits to calculate the potential tax revenue but based on revenues from the current 20% rate which generates around the £40B mark, this '20% flat rate and that's all your getting' falls several hundred billion pounds a year short of the mark and would leave the country without any services in very short order.

Edited March 9, 2016 by Born Hunter

[Born Hunter 17,788]

So quick google on corporate tax avoidance/evasion gave official figures as £4.7B lost! http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/revealed-47bn-corporation-tax-lost-through-evasion-and-avoidance-as-royal-mail-is-sold-for-650m-less-8874873.html

 

The real loss is likely to be significantly higher, as HMRC does not count controversial “profit shifting” schemes – run by companies such as Google, Amazon and Starbucks – as tax avoidance. One expert tonight estimated the true figure could be as much as £12bn a year.

 

So potentially £12B lost. Even at a 5% higher rate, the revenues generated are piss in the ocean! But please, prove me wrong.

Edited March 9, 2016 by Born Hunter

[WILF 47,354]

 

It may not be simple but it is fair, make it 10%......you earn £10 you put in a £1.........you earn £10 billion you put in £1 billion

That is fair any way you cut it.

Those 3000 people at the top are paying 45% tax on their earnings over £42k and they make millions.

If you dropped them down to 25% you'd receive less tax, with the tax from the majority of people not even coming close to making up for it. You'd have even less money than you do now and be worse off.

I wouldn't be worse off, the politicians would !.......I always hear everyone saying "ohh we need to run the country"........yeah!?......exactly what do you want the government to do for you that you couldn't do better yourself with your own money?

Everyone complains that politicians take the piss, well they do it because we want them to do everything for us like the NHS, make out rubbish disappear, wipe out arse......and we pay through the nose for it.

You just don't need all this money to run a country if you let people keep their money and do things for themselves !

[Born Hunter 17,788]

So you think that taking into account the £12B in UK Aid, £8.5B in net EU costs and the impact of immigration on our services that these things total up to approximately £500B a year? Do you have anything at all that would support this?

[Lloyd90 509]

 

 

It may not be simple but it is fair, make it 10%......you earn £10 you put in a £1.........you earn £10 billion you put in £1 billion

That is fair any way you cut it.

Those 3000 people at the top are paying 45% tax on their earnings over £42k and they make millions.

If you dropped them down to 25% you'd receive less tax, with the tax from the majority of people not even coming close to making up for it. You'd have even less money than you do now and be worse off.

I wouldn't be worse off, the politicians would !.......I always hear everyone saying "ohh we need to run the country"........yeah!?......exactly what do you want the government to do for you that you couldn't do better yourself with your own money?

Everyone complains that politicians take the piss, well they do it because we want them to do everything for us like the NHS, make out rubbish disappear, wipe out arse......and we pay through the nose for it.

You just don't need all this money to run a country if you let people keep their money and do things for themselves !

So your going to lay your own motorways ? Build your own school and hospitals ? You trolling ?

[Born Hunter 17,788]

 

 

It may not be simple but it is fair, make it 10%......you earn £10 you put in a £1.........you earn £10 billion you put in £1 billion

That is fair any way you cut it.

Those 3000 people at the top are paying 45% tax on their earnings over £42k and they make millions.

If you dropped them down to 25% you'd receive less tax, with the tax from the majority of people not even coming close to making up for it. You'd have even less money than you do now and be worse off.

I wouldn't be worse off, the politicians would !.......I always hear everyone saying "ohh we need to run the country"........yeah!?......exactly what do you want the government to do for you that you couldn't do better yourself with your own money?

Everyone complains that politicians take the piss, well they do it because we want them to do everything for us like the NHS, make out rubbish disappear, wipe out arse......and we pay through the nose for it.

You just don't need all this money to run a country if you let people keep their money and do things for themselves !

 

 

I know I probably come across as someone who defends those 'orrible politicians', but really what I'm trying to do is cut through the populist bollocks and bullshit so that a real solution, founded in facts and reality, can be resolved.

 

And that right there WIlf is the solution! People need to stop giving away their responsibilities and consequentially their liberty to the State! Less needs, less cost!

[Born Hunter 17,788]

Illegal mass immigration and everything that comes with it as iv posted above and a wasteful government will come to hundreds of Billions

 

Politicians won't say that

Politicians won't give you true figures

 

But by fook the total will be huge

 

So you think that 2/3rds of the government budget is spent on the effects of immigration? That's just incredible!

[Born Hunter 17,788]

Max, how can I quantify the impact of immigration on public services? I haven't attempted to but you seem to be sure in your own evaluation of it at half a Trillion pounds. A value that in the absence of some substantial evidence I find very hard to believe.

 

I've told you our net contribution to the EU.

 

I've also given a reasonable idea of what corporation tax revenue would be.

 

You are plucking numbers out of the air without a care for the facts. Now I'm completely open to having evidence presented to me that would question the validity of any facts I've presented and thus the conclusions based on those. Do you really think I like paying 70p + VAT on every liter of diesel I buy? Do you think I like paying council tax and national insurance? I'd love for your idea to work.

Edited March 9, 2016 by Born Hunter

[Truther 1,579]

Rule of thumb seems to be.............more people, less spent per capita?

 

http://www.ifs.org.uk/bns/bn43.pdf

 

If that's right, less need = less expenditure just don't add up?

[WILF 47,354]

 

 

 

It may not be simple but it is fair, make it 10%......you earn £10 you put in a £1.........you earn £10 billion you put in £1 billion

That is fair any way you cut it.

Those 3000 people at the top are paying 45% tax on their earnings over £42k and they make millions.

If you dropped them down to 25% you'd receive less tax, with the tax from the majority of people not even coming close to making up for it. You'd have even less money than you do now and be worse off.

I wouldn't be worse off, the politicians would !.......I always hear everyone saying "ohh we need to run the country"........yeah!?......exactly what do you want the government to do for you that you couldn't do better yourself with your own money?

Everyone complains that politicians take the piss, well they do it because we want them to do everything for us like the NHS, make out rubbish disappear, wipe out arse......and we pay through the nose for it.

You just don't need all this money to run a country if you let people keep their money and do things for themselves !

So your going to lay your own motorways ? Build your own school and hospitals ? You trolling ?

I'll happilly pay my own health (I do !) and pay in the £5 quid a year for roads!!.......pay the kids schools books (I do!).........do you seriously believe it takes nearly half of your income to provide the basic provisions of civilised life?.......and more so, that you hand it over to people that can't be trusted to spend it how they wish? Seriously!!??

 

I am afraid you have bought into the lie mate, hook, line and sinker

[Born Hunter 17,788]

Rule of thumb seems to be.............more people, less spent per capita?

 

http://www.ifs.org.uk/bns/bn43.pdf

 

If that's right, less need = less expenditure just don't add up?

 

The rule of thumb makes sense. Certain large expenditures are necessary irrespective of population size, others increase as a function of population.

 

However, I don't understand how that brings into question the conclusion that less need of government will result in a lower cost of government? My thinking, and it may very well be incorrect, is that if you cut back on government services then quite logically the government requires a smaller budget and therefore less tax revenue.

 

I'm not denying that for any given service, a larger population will result in a lower cost to each individual for that service if that's what you thought I meant? What I'm suggesting is completely eliminating certain services and taking back the responsibility to provide myself with that service. A more liberal, less authoritative system.

Edited March 9, 2016 by Born Hunter

[Truther 1,579]

 

Rule of thumb seems to be.............more people, less spent per capita?

 

http://www.ifs.org.uk/bns/bn43.pdf

 

If that's right, less need = less expenditure just don't add up?

 

The rule of thumb makes sense. Certain large expenditures are necessary irrespective of population size, others increase as a function of population.

 

However, I don't understand how that brings into question the conclusion that less need of government will result in a lower cost of government? My thinking, and it may very well be incorrect, is that if you cut back on government services then quite logically the government requires a smaller budget and therefore less tax revenue.

 

I'm not denying that for any given service, a larger population will result in a lower cost to each individual for that service if that's what you thought I meant? What I'm suggesting is completely eliminating certain services and taking back the responsibility to provide myself with that service. A more liberal, less authoritative system.

 

 

Its just a bit hard to get your head around "more people, less spend " for me BH? Take one thing, say injections..........surely more people, more people needing an injection = more spend.............Even weirder when you can't offset that with "more people more revenue" the spend is the spend regardless of the revenue more people bring in? I could be missing the "offset" angle somehow? To me it just doesn't seem to make sense mate?

[JDHUNTING 1,817]

I dont know what all the tax paid in is but the truest thing ive heard on here is if everybody was taxed 20% and all loopholes stopped then theres somrthing wrong if you cant run the country with that money. God knows what its wasted on I wouldnt even bother myself looking into it, all I know is all the public services are piss poor, transport network, nhs, councils services the whole lots ran shite