To ask those who voted for the conservatives ....

[ginorwine]

Reading the threads here there is much criticism about conservative policy .
A lot of people must have voted for them .
Where are they on mums net ?
And on threads such as those re the w t c cuts are they not representing their views as it was clear this would happen ?
I can tell that they may be slated but surley differing views can be expressed so long as it doesn't get nasty - a know that feeling run high but surley ppl can do so .
So to Tory voters -is it how you anticipated .what are your views ?

Thanks - I'll have a google and a think

" The highest paid 3,000 people in the UK pay more income tax than the bottom nine million, according to official Government statistics.

The figures show that the very highest earners - amounting to just under 3,000 people with a declared income above £2.7 million - will contribute 4.2 per cent of the total Government revenue from income tax in the current financial year.

By contrast, Britain’s nine million poorest paid workers contribute less than four per cent of the total income tax receipt.

In all, 29.9 million people pay income tax in the UK. According to the new figures released by HM revenue & Customs (HMRC), almost one-third of income tax payers contribute less to the Exchequer than the top 3,000 earners - equivalent to 0.01 per cent of the total.

The figures were disclosed in a Freedom of Information (FoI) request to the journalist Fraser Nelson as part of his investigation into growing wealth inequality in Britain. His findings will be broadcast in Channel 4’s investigations programme Dispatches, entitled How The Rich Get Richer, which is shown tomorrow [Monday].
Related Articles

Mr Nelson, editor of The Spectator magazine, said yesterday that the new figures ‘blow apart’ Ed Miliband’s claim last week that Britain had become a ‘zero zero’ country where the richest pay zero tax and the poorest work on ‘zero hours’ contracts.

“In the last tax year, the richest were shouldering a greater share of the burden than any time in history,” said Mr Nelson. “And this was achieved after the top rate of income tax was reduced from 50p to 45p in April 2013.

“It is now harder than ever for Ed Miliband to justify bringing back the 50p tax. Indeed, now that the richest pay such a great share of income tax, the British government is financially reliant on a small number of highly mobile super-taxpayers.” "

I agree that the more interesting issue though is why people hold their left or right views and I certainly agree about the Tories. They are very very wet. I support a welfare state as do many non-wet Tories and a welfare state but I would like the size of the state halved and much more responisblity put on tax payers. The state gets bigger and bigger and bigger even when the Tories are in power with more and more rules and complexity. No one in power ever wants to give themselves less power.

Those wanting to leave the EU do note that the EU this week has held that special tax regimes for particular companies are illegal state aids (Fiat has one such arrangement with somewhere like Lux.) So the EU there is helping those who are worried about lawful tax avoidance.

The problem, again, with that spectator article is that it only talks about income taxes. Which are only 25 % of the take, corporation taxes are about 16 %.

Regressive taxes such as VAT and duty take up proportionally more of the income of poorer people, so they pay PROPORTIONALLY more tax, which I regard as unfair. Especially as tax cuts for the poor/middle tend to mean the money gets spent, where as tax cuts given to higher rate payers mean a higher level is saved or invested in assets such as housing causing asset bubbles.

Where is the other 59% coming from? Surely it's not all VAT and inheritance tax.

Out of curiosity, longtime, how would you address the impact of VAT and duties on poorer people? I can see what you are saying, but how on earth do you go about means-testing transaction taxes? You could abolish VAT and duties on tobacco, alcohol, fuel etc etc and try to make up the shortfall with income tax. So income taxes would have to go up by 59%, presumably with proportionally more being taken from the richest - who would then leave the country in droves like they did from France.

Alternatively I suppose would be some kind of VAT exemption given to people earning below a certain threshold. While this might seem superficially attractive, how do you define it? Is it just people in work? Is it anyone who isn't earning or earning below a certain level? Does that include children? Pensioners? How is it assessed? It would create an extraordinary amount of bureaucracy, as well as imposing a punishing marginal tax rate on anyone earning just over the threshold, thus exacerbating the poverty trap.

I sort of take your point about proportions of income, but not only can I not see a solution that doesn't create as many problems as it solves, but to be honest I think the situation you describe sounds more unfair than it actually is. Put simply, if my income is £100 a month and I pay £50 of it in tax, while my neighbour's income is £10,000 a month and she pays £4,900 of it in tax, she's paying a smaller proportion of her income in tax than I am but in net terms she's still paying a hell of a lot more tax. So if I complain about the fact that I pay a higher proportion of my income in tax than my neighbour, I may be ignoring the fact that part of her £4,900 is coming to me in social security benefits of various kinds.

If, then, we decide that in the interests of fairness my neighbour should pay £7,500 a month in tax so that I can pay £30 rather than £50 - as after all she still has £3,500 and that's loads more than I've got! - but that causes my neighbour to emigrate, I'm not really any better off.

I think if we actually took the tax we are supposed to take as said before HMRC estimate it at £39bn per year we could have lower VAT rates.

I'd also like to see an increase in council tax based on current values, not ones from 1992. Keep inheritance tax where it is, not increasing the threshold.

I'm one of the few people I know that read Pikety's book, and a wealth tax would be useful, but failing that the "Robin Hood Tax" on financial transactions etc.

There are lots of solutions...

But I do support WTC cuts. Where I work its difficult to get some people to do overtime or go for a promotion as they will be no better off and will cause trouble with WTC. That can't be a good thing.

Got to love the ignorance of some people.

!

The thing with people "not going over" is that they get their WTC changed that week, and it can then take 6 weeks to get them changed back but the hours have remained the same (and they won't be back dated), s there is no incentive to go over as it doesn't give an incentive to go over the hours prescribed.

However, as the IFS says the increase in the minimum wage won't replace the impact of the WTC cuts till 2020 and in many cases won't at all.

Even Government MPs are objecting now, it really is hitting the people the tories said they represented at the last election.

I dunno LongTime - I think that could just as easily be spun as a benefit to the rich as to the poor. Even assuming you could track down that elusive £39bn (also known as 'the magic money tree' and spent several times over in every political manifesto ever) and use it to make (by my calculations) a 35% cut in VAT, you could argue that it benefits the rich far more than the poor, simply because they spend more on goods and services.

For example, imagine a well-off couple with a family income of £200K spends £80K on house renovations over the course of a year. They would be dancing in the streets if VAT dropped to 13% as you'd have saved them about six grand to spend on further enposhening their already posh house Meanwhile, a struggling family whose total yearly expenditure on goods and services (excluding food, which is VAT exempt) is £2,000 is a mere £140 better off. Social justice? The Corbynites would be up in arms

This is all pretty arcane, but serves to illustrate the fact that it's easy to come up with high-minded justifications for this or that tax policy, but how it works in practice doesn't always live up to the rhetoric.

Food is not VAT exempt, certan foods yes, not all. Jaffa Cakes are exempt because they are a cake and not biscuit, and therefore an essential....

I don't know what the solution is, but I know its not hitting the poorest hardest when there are broader shoulders out there.

Actually, maybe making corporations and the very richest pay more but lowering tax rates on the bottom and middle earners, which would increase consumption, and drive economic growth in the short term, whilst using the increased tax receipts from PAYE and VAT to invest long term.

As said before, I'm none too sympathetic with the wealthy squealing, and people like a poster above complaining cause they will pay huge stamp duty. I'd probably up the top rate to 50% and enforce it hard.

I'd also like people to stop citing the deficit when this is all really about ideological change.

The thing with people "not going over" is that they get their WTC changed that week, and it can then take 6 weeks to get them changed back but the hours have remained the same (and they won't be back dated), s there is no incentive to go over as it doesn't give an incentive to go over the hours prescribed.

People in this position are responding completely rationally, and actually they are being responsible for themselves in an odd way. They can only work with in the constraints they face, like the rest of us. It just seems that this is surely a good reason to look at simplifying some of this bureaucracy.

My concern is that it becomes political impossible to change anything because any change is inconvenient and possibly creates losers. Also any change can be painted as a reduction, wether it actually is or not. As we've seen on this thread, everyone is looking at slightly different facts. I think this is why sometimes people switch off and just go with what they think is right in their gut. It's not always easy to find reliable information from authoritative sources. All of the newspapers are partisan, and that includes the Guardian too.

The whole point I've been trying to make is that 'hitting the poorest hardest when there are broader shoulders out there' sounds great and stirring and social-justicey but when you look at the detail you can make a good case for implementing it in all kinds of ways.

In my view a system that overall takes more in tax is superior to one that skews towards taxing the rich for the sake of 'fairness' but as a result manages an overall lower tax take, meaning less money to spend on the poor. Assuming you subscribe to the idea that the government amassing more money to redistribute is good, I'll take the system that is more effective at doing so over the one that looks more social-justicey. Much of the debate between centre-left and centre-right comes down to this principle.

As an aside, the 50p top rate is a perfect example of a tax that looks social-justicey but actually delivers very little dosh to spend on actual social-justice stuff, while having some negative effects along the way.

The wider point I've been trying to make in my contributions to this thread, such as they are, is that the mutual incomprehension and insult-trading between left and right is frustrating. Both sides are full of people who are neither stupid nor evil and who really, genuinely want the best for our country. They just often disagree on what 'the best for our country' looks like, and even when they don't often disagree on how to achieve it.

The problem with the 50p rate is it was avoided in ways that you could crack down on. I'd also like to see bonuses paid AFTER corporation tax not before.

I could agree with the smaller state theory, IF and only IF the free marketeers will agree to genuine free markets, but what they often get are state monopolies becoming private monopolies/oligopolies, and massive levels of state aid for investment and to keep operating.

That's a genuine problem for me, the Hayek free marketeers only want it to apply to the poor, not to them or to anyone else. Just look at the governments deals with China and the energy firms, its the same with many other deals. Private profit, public risk, same as the banking crash.

Prior to 2008 (when in many circles I was viewed as a Cassandra) many, many people told me the bankers were the ones taking the risks so they deserved their epic rewards, by the way if the banks had paid out 20% in dividends and bonuses between 04 and 08 there would have been no need for bail outs, it turned out that the risk was socialised but the profits are not.

I'm 100% with you on 'socialism for the rich, capitalism for the poor' critique, longtime. In my view the greatest scandal of the banking crisis in '08 was that the banks were not allowed to fail. Instead, the bad debts were nationalised and made the taxpayer's problem, while the profits continued to be privatised. I think if you're going to have capitalism, you should sodding well have capitalism, and that includes letting companies go to the wall that take bad risks. Otherwise you just lock in a bad system, which is exactly how markets aren't supposed to work.

I voted Tory this time round because I felt it was the best option for the country at the time of the election. I have over my lifetime voted for all 3 major parties at some point or another dependent on the type of election and political and economic climate at the time. I am a rare person who researches before I vote. This time in all honesty no one had it really right but Tory came closest for me.

We do need much less relience on benefits as a nation. I am all for supporting businesses to enable them to pay more and for working to pay.

I am currently on benefits but trying desperately to get off them. I need a government which will support me in that. Right now if I take on a 30-40 hour a week minimum wage job I am WORSE off than I am staying on benefits. That just isn't right. It's not good for anyone as employers will suffer having people who will only work certain hours etc in order to get the optimal benefits top up otherwise they are ending up worse off.

We always hear people bang on about "making work pay" but the moves the tories are making now are actually the first ones we have seen that are trying to do this. I can't say I agree with all the ways they are doing things BUT they are definately moving in the right direction. I suspect some changes may be adjusted or reversed as they seek to balance it but tbh I think they can be better trusted to manage it than labour can.

Grinch, I feel you, I really do, but I don't think this lot will help you in that regard, benefits cut now, wages later (Oh and btw your 9.somthing an hour will be less than it would if wages were to wide with predicted inflation). Always Jam tomorrow..

The economy argument is simply erroneous, but I so can't be bothered to go back into it. Even the Labour Party left it alone, but the laying blame at their door for the events of 2008 and beyond is simply wrong, and they should have challenged it better from 2010 on wards.

longtimelurker i struggle with why things aren't nationalised if your having to subsidise them (several foreign companies) and give tax credits to top up staff pay as well.

That subsidy and the profits surely could be used to improve the infrastructure and pay a decent wage straight away, or is this crazy talk?

...makes sense to me BreakingDad but I don't know anything about it.

I think often privatisation ends with state subsidised private monopolies /oligopolies who make large profits from the consumer but hold out their hands for subsidies when investment is needed. The energy companies.as a really good example, the infrastructure they got on privatisation was fairly good and well maintained. Thirty years onow it.needs massive capital injections due to lack of investment..

Don't get me started on privatisation supposedly bringing competition and consumer benefits, it would if implemented properly but often there is the issue of crony capitalism.

you mean where your predjudices are confirmed rather than challenged, be my guest!

I only get on mn in the evenings and see it has moved on, I would just like point out to you longtime that I didn't say anything regarding corbyn, so we have crossed wires or you tried to build a straw man, I will go with the former.

I do agree with many of your posts regarding what we should be doing as a country, but as ohug as already pointed out, ideological policies have unintended consequences and can be spun to fit any agenda of either side, such as tax credits.

Ignoring globalisation for a second labour introduced a policy that has further 'bent' the free market ideology by allowing zombie business to survive, it is stupid to deny that everyone would not take advantage of this policy, on creation for every legitimate person working part time who needed a leg up, there where multiple more who specifically downsized for a better standard of living (better home/work balance ifysim), why would a company offer a competitive wage when a floor has been set via the government, and why would someone work ~40 hours when you can get better lifestyle choice.

I also agree with the misinformation spread out pre election, but this is not just a right wing issue, if you take of the partisan glasses you see the tactic is widespread, ed's bee in his bonnet about zero hours contracts was one, the current housing/cost of living crisis as being just a Tory problem is another, both of these (housing/cost of living) have been bubbling for years and yes there are always 2 sides to an economic argument, but it is quite ironic seeing the left hold up these same bears as authoritative voices now that they do not have to fully address the situation.