REFORM Party Questions.....

[Modernfamily2011]

Genuine question here, I do not want to start arguments but i'm honestly curious as to the hate for the Reform party....... I will be the first to admit that politics is absolutely not my strong point but this Election and for the last few months I have been doing a lot of research

I will not be voting Conservatives but Labour don't fill me with any confidence either, the Reform party Manifesto actually looks good, I would love the minimum income tax rate to be raised, Stamp Duty threshold to be higher, NHS change, energy bills to be lower etc

Am I just a little naïve and is this just a case of Farage talking nonsense? A bit like the Brexit debacle? Surely if these policies could have been implemented then they would have and where would the money come from? Farage is an excellent speaker and he knows how to play the public, there is no doubt about that

I would love some insight from those who know a little more about politics than me!

If that is for me. I do not support Reform and I am not voting for them but if people start going on about how clueless they are do it at your own peril. You may see the rise on polling day. Surely people so concerned about politics have learned something on latest elections around the West.

Quite. Well said 👏

The very wealthy are already taxed heavily. That's why the the top 1% earners contribute over 30% of the income tax revenue. And the top 10% earners contribute over 50% of the income tax revenue.

Someone earning 50k will pay 10.5k in tax and national insurance so about 20% of their wage. Someone earning 2.5m will pay 1.2m in tax and national insurance, so nearly 50% of their wage.

That seems like they are already heavily taxed to me.

Closing loopholes such as has been done with IR35 would be useful.

Experience tells me that many private school parents are snowplough parents and intensely dislike anything that might be get in Alexander's way.

The trouble is then that Alexander ends up with a very limited skill set, and is not able to cope in adult life with rules and people telling him he is wrong.

Sure! I meant wealthy not PAYE employees.

I disagree with his plan to scrap net zero. I think the money and future is in green technologies and I think he is wrong about that draining the economy.

I think his plans will literally destroy the university sector and education is one of our biggest ways of bringing money into the country.

I disagree with the idea to leave the ECHR

I disagree with the healthcare system he said described was more like America and would rather a European social insurance model.

I do like proportional representation and house of Lords reform.

I dont know if his farming, fishing or immigration plans have any merit as I dont really understand these issues

I do think some things contradict like scrap any EU laws but renegotiate trade deal with the EU which will mean we have to follow their rules anyway

Omg really. Not everyone.

Private eductaion stinks. Its shoud be abolished and the money put into the state system.

Isn't everyone bored of the VAT on fees debate yet? I certainly am. It's not on I'm going to lose sleep over.

Proposing that human and civil rights law does not apply to military on active service in the UK terrifies me though. Maybe they took it out of "the contract"

Someone on £2.5m income is unlikely to be receiving all of that in salary. Most likely there is a chunk of it being received in dividends, the tax rates for which are lower than income tax:

• £0 – £12,570 | 0% (Personal Allowance)
• £12,571 – £50,270 | 8.75% (Basic Rate)
• £50,271 – £125,140 | 33.75% (Higher Rate)
• Over £125,140 | 39.35% (Additional Rate)

And there is other unearned income that is subject to lower tax rates than income tax.

E.g. someone in employment earning £35,000 a year pays almost double the effective tax rate of someone with a rental income of £35,000 a year. The £35k worker also pays more tax than someone with an income of £60,000 a year in the form of capital gains or dividends.

When we talk about taxing top earners more it shouldn't be as income tax - it should be bringing the effective tax rates of ALL types of incomes to a level playing field. It shouldn't be that wealth allows you to 'buy' the kind of income that means you are taxed less than you wuld be if you earned it.

So company owners? I.e. people where the company pays 20% tax, and then the individual pays income tax on the same money when they pay themselves from their company?

There seems to be some notion that there are hoards of people in this country who don't pay any tax, and it just isn't true. That's why over half of the revenue generated by income tax does not come from us mere mortals.

Of course, there are loopholes like non dom status and paying with dividends, but as I said, closing those loopholes would be far more beneficial.

It's still there:

"Introduce new Armed Forces Justice Bill
Protect our servicemen and women on active duty inside and outside the UK from civil law and human rights lawyers.The bill will also create an armed forces watchdog to fast-track complaints and appeals in housing and welfare."

Welcome to the KGB, UK style.

‘Aladdinzane · Today 08:30

@Triestre

Oh the bitterness is showing.

I teach in a private school honey, I don't hate private school kids or their parents. I do dislike some of the behaviour or PE parents here.’

Well if you teach in a private school for real you have come out as a hypocrite. Why not work on a state school for your beliefs? You have actually rubbish private school and parents in several posts. Very odd to benefit from them.

@Triestre

No, I don't come across as a hypocrite, I just think that the noise made by some PE parents on this issue is way out of proportion with the impact its going to have.

BTW I'd have hoped that you didn't get a private education, if you can't debate without making logical fallacies.

Where are there records that I've said state schools are great and perform better than private

Omg Amazon , apple, google. Etc… not small companies. Should I said billionaires instead.

@CassieMaddox I don't know the ins and outs of their policy on criminalising soldiers but it is a reaction to dodgy legal cases like thishttps://www.theguardian.com/law/2017/feb/02/iraq-human-rights-lawyer-phil-shiner-disqualified-for-professional-misconduct and where soldiers fighting in Northern Ireland have prosecuted 50 years later (whilst IRA members were immune from prosecution thanks to Tony Blairs peace deal) which has understandably led to difficulties in army recruitment.

@Northernnature

Why shouldn't soldiers be prosecuted for war crimes?

The members of the IRA was prosecuted and jailed, repeatedly, for decades. The British army never got any kind of legal case against it.

"Protect our soldiers" = British troops are allowed to commit war crimes because they are British.

Since you asked. I saw several of your posts in this threat “Labour confused and arguing among themselves over VAT on school fees”

🤔

The only time a company owner pays tax on funds already taxed is dividends paid after corporation tax. And tax on dividends is paid at a reduced rate of tax compared to income tax to reflect this.

Any salary a company owner is paid comes out of the business before corporation tax.

We know where it’s come from. But that’s no different to them saying “Some men have wrongly been accused of rape by women, so to stop this happening we’re going to pass a law to make all men immune from rape charges”. It’s terrifying.

There are also cases where servicemen have been found guilty of horrific crimes. Under Reform, they’d never have been charged. Every sick psychopath will be drawn to the military because they’ve got an automatic ticket to get away with murder.

@Triestre

"Since you asked. I saw several of your posts in this threat “Labour confused and arguing among themselves over VAT on school fees”

and I never said what you claimed.

Please back it up.

Because in that instant of ira @Aladdinzane it is very difficult to find out what happened after 50 years and very easy for "armchair critics" who have never put themselves in danger to criticise people who have to make split second decisions when they're life and others on the line. They should have been prosecuted at the time if there is a case to answer. Don't think Reform is saying soldiers should never be prosecuted though if there's a clear case to answer that has always happened.

That's a very positive way of looking at it.

In countries that use their military to keep the population in line (like Russia, China, Myanmar, parts of Africa) - how do you think this started?

Noone should be above the law. If soldiers break the law, they should be held accountable.

May be you go and read again what you wrote or anybody interested?

@Triestre

Maybe you back up your points. Otherwise Hitchen's razor applies.