General Election 2017

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.

General Election 2017

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 212 of 450 < 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 >

Stirlingsays 23 May 17 12.50pm
Originally posted by Mr_Gristle As opposed to voting for the idiots that fall over themselves to back the regimes that actively promote the spread of extreme wahhabi islam ? Quality advice. ISIS themselves attack the house of Saud and have been doing it for quite a while. Extremist Wahhabi groups before them did. I don't think you quite get it yourself. 'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays

23 May 17 12.50pm

Originally posted by Mr_Gristle

As opposed to voting for the idiots that fall over themselves to back the regimes that actively promote the spread of extreme wahhabi islam ?

Quality advice.

ISIS themselves attack the house of Saud and have been doing it for quite a while. Extremist Wahhabi groups before them did.

I don't think you quite get it yourself.

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert a moderator to this post

hedgehog50 Croydon 23 May 17 12.51pm
Originally posted by CambridgeEagle VAT is a regressive tax. The debate is on replacing income tax with what I assume would have to be a higher sales tax. I agree with you for once, Income Tax is much fairer than VAT. We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men. [Orwell]
Alert a moderator to this post

hedgehog50

Croydon 23 May 17 12.51pm

Originally posted by CambridgeEagle

VAT is a regressive tax. The debate is on replacing income tax with what I assume would have to be a higher sales tax.

I agree with you for once, Income Tax is much fairer than VAT.

We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men. [Orwell]

Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger 23 May 17 12.55pm
Originally posted by Rudi Hedman You're not being very clever mate. Value added tax being regressive is an economic belief/theory/proven effect and term given to such a tax system/idea yet you're in favour of it. If it was such a good idea it would've been a tax system in the western world by now or at least for a time and the tea party would be visiting Saudi Arabia right now. Oh and I wasn't being condescending. You're being a bit stubborn don't ya think? Oh and the better off would save more and the worker off would be even worse off, getting into debt, gap widening etc etc. We have VAT and income tax right now. I see no problem with that system but I do see a problem with putting an even higher burden of tax on those who already pay 40% and 45%. There is an argument for a higher rate for the super rich but they only represent a tiny amount. You might not like VAT but it allows for choice to spend or not. That is it's advantage whether you like it or not. The better off still pay more income tax which is reasonable all the time it does not become pointless to be ambitious. Your ideology risks that outcome.
Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger

23 May 17 12.55pm

Send a Private Message to Hrolf The Ganger

Originally posted by Rudi Hedman

You're not being very clever mate.

Value added tax being regressive is an economic belief/theory/proven effect and term given to such a tax system/idea yet you're in favour of it. If it was such a good idea it would've been a tax system in the western world by now or at least for a time and the tea party would be visiting Saudi Arabia right now.

Oh and I wasn't being condescending. You're being a bit stubborn don't ya think?

Oh and the better off would save more and the worker off would be even worse off, getting into debt, gap widening etc etc.

We have VAT and income tax right now.
I see no problem with that system but I do see a problem with putting an even higher burden of tax on those who already pay 40% and 45%. There is an argument for a higher rate for the super rich but they only represent a tiny amount. You might not like VAT but it allows for choice to spend or not. That is it's advantage whether you like it or not. The better off still pay more income tax which is reasonable all the time it does not become pointless to be ambitious. Your ideology risks that outcome.

Alert a moderator to this post

CambridgeEagle Sydenham 23 May 17 12.56pm
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger Please don't condescend. You aren't that clever. Your view is heavily prejudiced by your politics. Necessities are not taxed and of course you pay a lower percentage of income in VAT if you are better off. It's called being better off. What you are suggesting is that we should all be equalised. I would rather have a choice to spend or not spend rather than pay income tax. Edited by Hrolf The Ganger (23 May 2017 12.27pm) Income tax accounts for 27% of the total tax take. VAT for 18%, some of which is paid for by exempt businesses such as charities, certain cultural and sporting organisations, private residential property rental businesses and insurance companies. So not only would VAT have to increase (by quite a lot) to cover your proposed cuts in income tax, prices of things like insurance and rent would also rise to cover the increased input costs for those businesses, which again would most adversely impact the poorest. The only stuff that's zero rated is books and basic food stuffs. Utilities have VAT on them, tampons have VAT on, white goods have VAT. Plenty of stuff you don't have much of choice but to buy have VAT on them. Are you suggesting poor people should keep their food on the doorstep to keep cool rather than buy a fridge? I've not seen anyone say we should be equalised, but the tax system should be progressive. Income is too unequal as it is without making matters worse. Edited by CambridgeEagle (23 May 2017 1.00pm)
Alert a moderator to this post

CambridgeEagle

Sydenham 23 May 17 12.56pm

Send a Private Message to CambridgeEagle

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

Please don't condescend. You aren't that clever.

Your view is heavily prejudiced by your politics. Necessities are not taxed and of course you pay a lower percentage of income in VAT if you are better off. It's called being better off.
What you are suggesting is that we should all be equalised. I would rather have a choice to spend or not spend rather than pay income tax.

Edited by Hrolf The Ganger (23 May 2017 12.27pm)

Income tax accounts for 27% of the total tax take. VAT for 18%, some of which is paid for by exempt businesses such as charities, certain cultural and sporting organisations, private residential property rental businesses and insurance companies. So not only would VAT have to increase (by quite a lot) to cover your proposed cuts in income tax, prices of things like insurance and rent would also rise to cover the increased input costs for those businesses, which again would most adversely impact the poorest.

The only stuff that's zero rated is books and basic food stuffs. Utilities have VAT on them, tampons have VAT on, white goods have VAT. Plenty of stuff you don't have much of choice but to buy have VAT on them. Are you suggesting poor people should keep their food on the doorstep to keep cool rather than buy a fridge?

I've not seen anyone say we should be equalised, but the tax system should be progressive. Income is too unequal as it is without making matters worse.

Edited by CambridgeEagle (23 May 2017 1.00pm)

Alert a moderator to this post

nickgusset Shizzlehurst 23 May 17 12.59pm
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger The man who wants to 'negotiate' with ISIS. Don't vote for this idiot. 1. What did Corbyn actually say to lead you to this conclusion? 2. Hypocrite. You had a pop at me yesterday for being party political.
Alert a moderator to this post

nickgusset

Shizzlehurst 23 May 17 12.59pm

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

The man who wants to 'negotiate' with ISIS.

Don't vote for this idiot.

1. What did Corbyn actually say to lead you to this conclusion?

2. Hypocrite. You had a pop at me yesterday for being party political.

Alert a moderator to this post

CambridgeEagle Sydenham 23 May 17 1.00pm
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger We have VAT and income tax right now. I see no problem with that system but I do see a problem with putting an even higher burden of tax on those who already pay 40% and 45%. There is an argument for a higher rate for the super rich but they only represent a tiny amount. You might not like VAT but it allows for choice to spend or not. That is it's advantage whether you like it or not. The better off still pay more income tax which is reasonable all the time it does not become pointless to be ambitious. Your ideology risks that outcome. An additional 5% tax on the top 5% of earners hardly seems too much. It would be broadly in line with Germany (50.5% for top earners) and lower than many other OECD countries.
Alert a moderator to this post

CambridgeEagle

Sydenham 23 May 17 1.00pm

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

An additional 5% tax on the top 5% of earners hardly seems too much. It would be broadly in line with Germany (50.5% for top earners) and lower than many other OECD countries.

Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger 23 May 17 1.01pm
Originally posted by hedgehog50 I agree with you for once, Income Tax is much fairer than VAT. We could scrap VAT entirely and increase income tax. I don't have a problem with that as long as middle income people don't get hammered. That is what is likely to happen. Paying 40% tax is a lot of tax already.
Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger

23 May 17 1.01pm

Originally posted by hedgehog50

I agree with you for once, Income Tax is much fairer than VAT.

We could scrap VAT entirely and increase income tax. I don't have a problem with that as long as middle income people don't get hammered. That is what is likely to happen. Paying 40% tax is a lot of tax already.

Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger 23 May 17 1.08pm
Originally posted by CambridgeEagle An additional 5% tax on the top 5% of earners hardly seems too much. It would be broadly in line with Germany (50.5% for top earners) and lower than many other OECD countries. Tax is a balancing act. I don't know what you earn but remaining disposable income is not a vast amount for the majority of people even when the earn 50 to 100k a year. We need to be careful not to make pursuing a good career worthless.
Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger

23 May 17 1.08pm

Originally posted by CambridgeEagle

An additional 5% tax on the top 5% of earners hardly seems too much. It would be broadly in line with Germany (50.5% for top earners) and lower than many other OECD countries.

Tax is a balancing act. I don't know what you earn but remaining disposable income is not a vast amount for the majority of people even when the earn 50 to 100k a year.
We need to be careful not to make pursuing a good career worthless.

Alert a moderator to this post

Rudi Hedman Caterham 23 May 17 1.09pm
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger We could scrap VAT entirely and increase income tax. I don't have a problem with that as long as middle income people don't get hammered. That is what is likely to happen. Paying 40% tax is a lot of tax already. The problem here in this country is the cost of housing which isn't the case elsewhere. Sort that and a lot of income problems will be eased. Taking with one hand and giving with another or being better off under one government and then worse off under another solves nothing yet the shortfall in housing rises every year and has been since I looked in about the mid noughties. COYP
Alert a moderator to this post

Rudi Hedman

Caterham 23 May 17 1.09pm

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

The problem here in this country is the cost of housing which isn't the case elsewhere. Sort that and a lot of income problems will be eased. Taking with one hand and giving with another or being better off under one government and then worse off under another solves nothing yet the shortfall in housing rises every year and has been since I looked in about the mid noughties.

COYP

Alert a moderator to this post

Hansy 23 May 17 1.12pm
Originally posted by Mr_Gristle As opposed to voting for the idiots that fall over themselves to back the regimes that actively promote the spread of extreme wahhabi islam ? Quality advice. Didn't Corbyn meet with President Assad? I could be wrong, but I am sure I heard about this a while ago. Edit: Just checked, looked like he did in 2009. And strongly condemned the US airstrikes on Syria after the Regime's chemical attack. Edited by Hansy (23 May 2017 1.13pm)
Alert a moderator to this post

Hansy

23 May 17 1.12pm

Originally posted by Mr_Gristle

As opposed to voting for the idiots that fall over themselves to back the regimes that actively promote the spread of extreme wahhabi islam ?

Quality advice.

Didn't Corbyn meet with President Assad? I could be wrong, but I am sure I heard about this a while ago.

Edit: Just checked, looked like he did in 2009. And strongly condemned the US airstrikes on Syria after the Regime's chemical attack.

Edited by Hansy (23 May 2017 1.13pm)

Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger 23 May 17 1.21pm
Originally posted by nickgusset 1. What did Corbyn actually say to lead you to this conclusion? 2. Hypocrite. You had a pop at me yesterday for being party political. [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger

23 May 17 1.21pm

Originally posted by nickgusset

1. What did Corbyn actually say to lead you to this conclusion?

2. Hypocrite. You had a pop at me yesterday for being party political.

[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger 23 May 17 1.23pm
Originally posted by Rudi Hedman The problem here in this country is the cost of housing which isn't the case elsewhere. Sort that and a lot of income problems will be eased. Taking with one hand and giving with another or being better off under one government and then worse off under another solves nothing yet the shortfall in housing rises every year and has been since I looked in about the mid noughties. I agree that mortgages and rents are the biggest problem we face. They are far too expensive. Increasing income tax now would be crippling for some.
Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger

23 May 17 1.23pm

Originally posted by Rudi Hedman

I agree that mortgages and rents are the biggest problem we face. They are far too expensive. Increasing income tax now would be crippling for some.

Alert a moderator to this post

Page 212 of 450 < 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

General Election 2017

Site Map

New users

Existing users

Sponsors