It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Budget 2009: Alistair Darling targets rich with 50% tax

page: 2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in


posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 10:51 AM
reply to post by yeti101

Liberal and Conservative don't mean anything to anyone unless they want them to mean something in which case they mean whatever they intend them to mean for as long as they intend them to do so.

It's no different than someone lactose intolerant saying "cheese"
and someone fond of dairy saying "cheese"

It's all cheese.

posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 10:52 AM
as a `rule of thumb` in the UK , around 1/3 of your wages are whats called stoppages - tax and NI , and for that in this `left wing socialist haven` we get free health care (i go to hospital for a broken leg , its gets fixed and i come home , there no bill) , free dental , free or low charge doctors drugs (oh and free access to that doctor as well) - now prescription charges i actually agree with - whilst alot of drugs cost much less than the £8 charge - alot more cost many times that , so imo the system is a balance there.

btw that free ambulance ride to hospital is also paid for by stoppage and not council tax (thats fire and police)

thats something else as well - council tax - on average £1400 a year , for free waste collection on the kerbside and free waste disposal at the locak `dump` , which are services that in the usa you get charged for .

posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 10:52 AM
reply to post by pieman

Either you are a business owner, "benefiting" from loan provisions (it's not really a benefit, just a continuation of credit lines from before the crisis)...

or you work for someone who is a business owner.

The only ones directly benefiting monetarily from the bailouts are the bankers.

And will someone please refute my suggestion rather than brushing it aside... laughter is an easy defence

posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 10:54 AM
reply to post by thisguyrighthere

at todays exchange rate $72000 is £49800 - so as i said , we pay very similar amounts.

posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 11:01 AM

Originally posted by 44soulslayer
The only ones directly benefiting monetarily from the bailouts are the bankers.

the "bankers" that benefit in that case are the shareholders, which is just about everyone with a private pension. the thing is, they've all lost most of their share value as is so it's a pretty nebulous benefit. in reality, the people who actually benefit are those that require credit to make money. this tends to be people earning more than £150k a year.

And will someone please refute my suggestion rather than brushing it aside... laughter is an easy defence

to respond to that suggestion with anything other than gales of laughter is to give it far more credence than it is due.

posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 11:06 AM

Originally posted by 44soulslayer
Indeed I am. There isn't really an equivalent for "liberal" in British parlance. "Left Wing"would be the closest I suppose.

That would be a rough approximation, but still a very loose fit given what the term seems to mean in the US.

Originally posted by 44soulslayer
You made the point about taxes paying for vital services. Do they really?

Take a look at how much the government legitimately spends on the NHS, roads, fire, policemen etc.

The NHS accounts for 20% of the budget alone, education another 15%. Social Security (lets leave aside the rights and wrongs of benefit claimants for a minute) takes up a further 27%. Fire, police and other Public protection takes up another 5%, Defence spending another 5%.

You can see that all this adds up pretty quickly.

Originally posted by 44soulslayer
Then look at how much is wasted on quangos, asylum seekers, benefits and welfare provisions, civil servants and middle managers.

A lean state could easily function on a far smaller tax burden. The level of tax in the UK is solely because it is almost directly redistributive in nature. Take from the rich via taxes, give to the poor via benefits. The actual amount used for core services is negligible.

Indeed. Par for the course with the left-wing Labour types, I'm afraid. I actually agree with you on this. Government could be alot smaller, but Labour don't do small Government.

Originally posted by 44soulslayer
Certainly at the very least, how can tax increases under Labour be justified considering the quality of every major service has gone down during their administration.

Again, I agree 100%. But that isn't what this thread is about, it is about the 50% for earnings OVER £150,000.

Originally posted by 44soulslayer
Edit: and yes, only the rich made Britain great. The industrialists of the midlands, the merchants of Liverpool, the bankers and financiers of London, the small business owners up and down the country, the public schoolboys who ran the East India company etc etc etc. I suspect most, if not all, these people would fall into the category of "rich". Has a poor person ever contributed to the stature of Britain in any meaningful way?

Most of those "industrialists" were not rich to start with. Many might have been middle class, but certainly they weren't in the top 1% of earners prior to their Mills or factories doing well.

And do not foget that they got rich of the exploitation of others. Back then, there were no Safety at work laws, or minimum wages or any kind of worker protection. People were treated as little more than livestock. Britain was made Great by the people as a whole, not by the rich who exploited those that did the work.

Originally posted by 44soulslayer
Don't dismiss it as "tosh" please, try and back up what you say or at least refute what I claim.

I'll dismiss it as tosh because it is.

posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 11:22 AM

Originally posted by stumason
People were treated as little more than livestock.

That sir, I do not believe has changed.

posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 11:28 AM
reply to post by Shambles

As with livestock then and now, the same has happened to workers.

Today, Cows and Sheep can expect decent conditions to live and, eventually, die in. Back in the day they would have had no such luxuries.

The same can be said of our workers. Back then, they were treated like crap and got little for it. Today, we're treated slightly better than crap and have protections in law. Yes, we might still be viewed as livestock, but we're pretty well looked after given where we started from!

posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 11:46 AM
Govt tax revenues are the HIGHEST when tax rates are the LOWEST. When the tax rates get jacked up the revenue goes waaaaay down. Two main reasons. One - people pull out all the stops to avoid having the govt take half their money. Second - higher tax rates mean less people hiring which means the number of people who have a job and pay taxes goes way down.

It's history folks please go research it.

posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 12:09 PM
reply to post by stumason

Thank you for your considered response.

I think the fundamental difference between us is that we value different traits and functions in humanity.

If I may use a metaphor of a car, I value the steering wheel and engine more, while you value the bodywork and the wheels. It's a catch 22 of course... no success without the workers, and equally none without the industrialists.

To back up my position I would say that labourers are ordinary- a dime a dozen. The workers are easily replaced by any other workers. The industrialists were few and far between- irreplaceable and visionary, in my opinion.

The only other point I would make is that taxing the rich simply because they can afford to pay is hardly a good justification. Shouldn't we first work on creating an efficient government, reserving tax increases as a last resort? That was all I intended to say... I probably got sidetracked with anger against people who demonise the rich for no reason.

[edit on 22-4-2009 by 44soulslayer]

posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 12:19 PM

Originally posted by 44soulslayer
The workers are easily replaced by any other workers. The industrialists were few and far between- irreplaceable and visionary, in my opinion.

Totally agree

In fact, workers can be easily replaced by machinery but the visionaries (if I can use that word) of the business cannot be easily replaced. Truth be told, some animals are more equal than others and have a higher priority within the system.

We can argue for hours about morality and ethics within politics but a powerful nation - or empire - was never built on fairness.

Relating back to the thread, why should the wealth creators be the main victims and culprits of poor government economic mismanagement?

posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 12:35 PM
I think there is a great populistic notion that the only people who will be hit are the fat cat CEOs and bankers.

In reality, small business owners, GPs and even some academics will be hit.

The Telegraph has a very interesting article on the issue:

A new "supertax" of 50p in the £1 will now be imposed on all earnings over £150,000. This replaces the 45pc supertax proposed last November, and it will be introduced a year early – in April next year.

At the same time those earning more than £100,000 will also lose their tax-free "personal allowance". At present anyone in the UK can earn up to £6,475 before any tax is due. This removal of this allowance will be tapered, but those earning more than £113,000 will not benefit from tax-free earnings at all, costing them nearly £2,600 a year.

The final grab will be from higher earners' pension contributions. All those earning more than £150,000 will, from April 2011, no longer get full higher rate tax relief on pension contributions, with those earning over £180,000 getting just the basic rate relief.

The rich aren't going to stand for this. Who would willingly live in a country full of benefits seeking chavs, populists who hate their guts, provide employment for others while simultaneously being called thieves and exploiters... and then to cap it all see their money taken away by the government through more and more avenues.

Switzerland beckons... a clean, industrious country, with fairer taxes and a respectful yet curteous and proud people- oddly reminiscent of the UK in times past (if a little less colourful).

posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 12:39 PM
How callous! Workers are replaceable? A skilled craftsman would take alot longer to replace than a mill owner, that's for sure. In fact, during the industrial revolution, many "workers" became rich because their skills were in short supply. Are they pioneers? Or are they still replacable?

Many "workers" were/are only "workers" by virtue of birth.

Likewise, many of these "talented, rich people" are only rich and educated by virtue of birth.

There is nothing to say that lowly textile mill worker couldn't have done a great deal more, given the chance and opportunity!

To right people off just because of their position in society is wrong. And they said the class system in the UK was dead......!

Know your place, is the message you two are sending.

I am not saying, however, that the workers should get all the credit, but neither should the rich guy's who just rounded up a large amount of skilled workers and plonked them in a big building, called it a mill and suddenly became your heroes.

Obviously, there were a great many talented people from all walks of life, but I can, if you like, cite a great many people who invented some groundbreaking things during the 18th and 19th century, yet failed to profit from it due to a lack of business acumen.

Then rich, but otherwise untalented, money men would swoop in and make all the money of a clever guys work, who would then ide poor and broken. As he has no money, would he be classed as one of these "pioneers" you speak of that had all the cash? Or would he be "replacable"?

posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 12:47 PM
Anyway, on topic....

I actually agree with soulslayer in the general sense regarding this 50% tax hike. I just disagree about your view of the rich man being the talented man, without any equivocation.

Higher taxes is all we have got from labour. The country and economy would boom if the taxes were slashed.

A good example is Steam, the digital download thingy from valve. Before Crimble, they were selling Left 4 Dead at £29.99, it did ok. Then they slashed it by 50% for a week after christmas. Their sales shot up by 1300%, They actually made more money selling stuff cheaper, than selling stuff at full price. They now do cut price weekends all the time and make more money doing "sales" than flogging stuff at full price.

What I am trying to say is this taxation regime is stifling the economy and any green shoots are going to be eaten before they get a chance to flourish.

[edit on 22/4/09 by stumason]

posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 12:57 PM
reply to post by stumason

Everything you said is subjective opinion, tainted by your bias towards workers rather than owners.

Workers are entirely replaceable in the grand scheme of things. A person who starts up a mill is far harder to find than one who works in a mill... and that's why the market rewards the owner a higher share of profits- because he is rarer to find than a labourer, and he takes the risk of ownership.

I'm not the one playing games of class here. The market is a faceless, classless, raceless system. If a person is good enough to elevate from one class to another, they can do so. If you think otherwise, then how do you explain the concept of "nouveau riche"?

The problem with the majority of the lower class is that they allow themselves to think that their position was determined by birth and that they cannot rise up in stature. After all, claiming that their position was fixed by their birth is an easy route (defeatism).

Life is the test of success. Those who failed, failed. Simple as that. What you may ascribe to misfortune or theft, I may ascribe to a lack of acumen.

I take your point though. You characterise most rich men as lucky bastards who inherited their wealth while I characterise most rich men as hard working business owners who made their fortunes for themselves.

I characterise the working class as devoid of aspiration, mundane and replaceable, while you characterise them as hard working and given a raw deal.

The truth is probably somewhere in between.

posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 01:00 PM
It's about time the rich contributed more to society (some are currently paying less tax than their house cleaners) but instead of that happening they will just migrate to another country where they will pay less tax.

posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 01:22 PM
Well thats another labour manifesto pledge broken,I do feel sorry for poor old Darling as he doesnt deserve to go down in the history books as the man who broke Britain.

We all know our unelected blind as a bat leader is the one who has the most to blame for this!Blair can also shoulder the blame for wanting to do gods work in the middle east leaving this great country with a massive army bill to pay every week for years!

Off topic note here to my fellow brits-Did any of you see Browns hand written note(with marker pen!) to that conservative MP his delightfull spin doctor spread rumours about.

I could hardly make anything out,his hand writing is so bad and his eye sight so poor the thick black marker pen looked like it had been used by a child with poor english skills!If he personaly writes notes and memos then I am not surprised we are in the state we are in!No one can read them!

Anyway next year we can get rid of a lot of them,unless the labour smear machines can perform miracles

posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 01:39 PM

Originally posted by stumason
Know your place, is the message you two are sending.

I can only speak for myself, but yes, I am acknowledging a system that advocates a hierarchy and order of power. There has to be or chaos will sustain itself.

How can we have a productive country if every single individual is attributed as equal? That's why communism failed, people are not equal.

posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 06:20 PM
I'm in the US, so forgive me if i'm overstepping the international line where my opinion should end, but: When you overtax the rich, the rich take their toys elsewhere. They're just going to take their business to a more hospitable climate, which is bad for the economy. Forcing the relocation of that big an amount of the productive sector, through massive taxation is going to cause untold damage. $0.02


posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 03:47 AM
reply to post by infinite

Indeed. The loss of a stratified society is another issue in Britain today.

The Labour government had an equality agenda, and attempted to get everyone to go to university in the deluded belief that all men were capable of the academic rigour required for a degree. This resulted in a lack of people taking up traditional trades- plumbing, electrician etc. There was also an increase in people taking up random university subjects, or going to university because they were encouraged to do so.

A better vision would be to have a clearly hierarchical society, with mobility in between the levels based on merit.

new topics

top topics

<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in