This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
ukip (LOCKED)
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In
kangel  14 May 14 10.04am |
|
|---|---|
|
The real problem is how and on what the vast sums of taxation are spent. Much of it inefficient, wasteful, not needed, corrupt, politically motivated. If private businesses conducted their financial affairs in the same way they would soon all be bankrupt. Giving money to governments is like giving whiskey to an alcoholic.
|
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
|
 Kermit8  Hevon 14 May 14 11.03am |
  |
|---|---|
|
Prominent member of H.... I mean UKIP... Youth resigns due to party's 'racist populism'.
Big chest and massive boobs |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
 |
| Rudi Hedman Caterham 14 May 14 11.10am |
|
|---|---|
|
She's resigning because of one of their main policies everybody has known about for years, limited immigration. Well done girl, probably changing political stance anyway and got her day of fame before jumping on another party. Plus she's a bit too young and naive to realise that if you whisper your point among millions, nobody will listen or care. Non event.
COYP |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
pefwin  Where you have to have an English ... 14 May 14 11.14am |
|
|---|---|
|
What does the Ukip Youth do anyway? Climb mountains and fly gliders while wearing Lederhosen?
"Everything is air-droppable at least once." "When the going gets tough, the tough call for close air support." |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| crystal balls The Garden of Earthly Delights 14 May 14 11.49am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote npn at 14 May 2014 9.35am
Quote crystal balls at 14 May 2014 9.31am
Quote npn at 14 May 2014 9.15am
Quote crystal balls at 14 May 2014 9.04am
Quote npn at 14 May 2014 8.51am
Quote nickgusset at 13 May 2014 10.11pm
Quote kangel at 13 May 2014 10.01pm
Could it be that UKIP are getting a lot of support because a lot of people agree with their policies.
Who knows, a fairer system might even lead to less people trying to avoid paying their tax bills in any way possible.
how is it "fairer" for the rich and poor to pay the same rate of income tax? It certainly wouldn't simplify things, the tax system can easily cope with graduated rates of tax, that's not the problem. Because everyone gives up the same proportion of their income, regardless of what that income is - seems pretty sensible to me (obviously I'm not mega-rich). Every pound you earn, you give 25% (for instance) in tax - simple. Why on earth should you take home 75% of the first £30,000, then 60% of the next £50,000, then 50% of the remainder? Where's the logic in that? Just seems to be punishing people for earning more than most.
The system is already skewed against low earners as they pay a disproportionate amount on N.I. and a massively higher proportion of their income in VAT, which is far more difficult to avoid. BTW the highest rate of tax is now 45% on earnings over £150,000.
Nope, I stand by my assertion that a flat percentage is a fairer system of tax - you earn it all, you keep a set percentage of it all Taxation rates have never been measured by an individual's outgoings and I don't think anyone has ever suggested that they should be. On earnings over £150,000 people are required to pay an additional £5 for every £100 they earn, hardly onerous and certainly not the fulfillment of Jolly Jim Callaghan's promise to "squeeze the rich until the pips squeak".
I used to be immortal |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| crystal balls The Garden of Earthly Delights 14 May 14 11.53am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Hoof Hearted at 14 May 2014 9.54am
[ Not to mention that the personal allowance is £10,000, so zero tax is paid on it.
I used to be immortal |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Pete53 Hassocks 14 May 14 12.59pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Y Ddraig Goch at 30 Apr 2014 9.46am
Quote becky at 30 Apr 2014 7.12am
Ah yes! The Greens, who have so successfully displayed their credentials in Brighton......
Come on, give the man a break.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Johnny Eagles  berlin 14 May 14 1.33pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote npn at 14 May 2014 8.51am
I must admit I've never understood the objection to this. Simplifies the tax system, and is completely fair - regardless of what you earn, you pay x% of it to the governement, whether that be x% of £10,000, or x% of £2,000,000. I've never seen any logic behind the idea that earning more should alter the percentage you pay. Who knows, a fairer system might even lead to less people trying to avoid paying their tax bills in any way possible. It depends on your philosophy of who is responsible for success. If you're an individualist, you argue that I earn lots because I am successful, because I have worked hard, it's down to individual merit. If you're a collectivist, you argue that I earn lots because society has collectively invested in me, my achievement is a result of everyone's hard work. A 'flat tax' leans a bit too much towards the first for my liking. While I'm no über-collectivist, believe me, I think it's "fair" (whatever that means) that if you earn more you pay a higher proportion on the differential. Call it the return on investment that society has made. That said, I wouldn't differentiate too much. If you're down the low end (say up to about 20 grand) you'd pay next to nothing. In the upper end (say above 60 grand) you'd pay 40%. And in the middle something in between. If you earn more than 100 grand and still only pay 40%, fair play to you. IMHO the tax system is weighted too much in favour of the comfortable middle class, not because it's fair but because that's where the votes are.
...we must expand...get more pupils...so that the knowledge will spread... |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| the_mcanuff_stuff Caterham 14 May 14 1.39pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Johnny Eagles at 14 May 2014 1.33pm
Quote npn at 14 May 2014 8.51am
I must admit I've never understood the objection to this. Simplifies the tax system, and is completely fair - regardless of what you earn, you pay x% of it to the governement, whether that be x% of £10,000, or x% of £2,000,000. I've never seen any logic behind the idea that earning more should alter the percentage you pay. Who knows, a fairer system might even lead to less people trying to avoid paying their tax bills in any way possible. It depends on your philosophy of who is responsible for success. If you're an individualist, you argue that I earn lots because I am successful, because I have worked hard, it's down to individual merit. If you're a collectivist, you argue that I earn lots because society has collectively invested in me, my achievement is a result of everyone's hard work. A 'flat tax' leans a bit too much towards the first for my liking. While I'm no über-collectivist, believe me, I think it's "fair" (whatever that means) that if you earn more you pay a higher proportion on the differential. Call it the return on investment that society has made. That said, I wouldn't differentiate too much. If you're down the low end (say up to about 20 grand) you'd pay next to nothing. In the upper end (say above 60 grand) you'd pay 40%. And in the middle something in between. If you earn more than 100 grand and still only pay 40%, fair play to you. IMHO the tax system is weighted too much in favour of the comfortable middle class, not because it's fair but because that's where the votes are.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Johnny Eagles berlin 14 May 14 1.46pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote the_mcanuff_stuff at 14 May 2014 1.39pm
Quote Johnny Eagles at 14 May 2014 1.33pm
Quote npn at 14 May 2014 8.51am
I must admit I've never understood the objection to this. Simplifies the tax system, and is completely fair - regardless of what you earn, you pay x% of it to the governement, whether that be x% of £10,000, or x% of £2,000,000. I've never seen any logic behind the idea that earning more should alter the percentage you pay. Who knows, a fairer system might even lead to less people trying to avoid paying their tax bills in any way possible. It depends on your philosophy of who is responsible for success. If you're an individualist, you argue that I earn lots because I am successful, because I have worked hard, it's down to individual merit. If you're a collectivist, you argue that I earn lots because society has collectively invested in me, my achievement is a result of everyone's hard work. A 'flat tax' leans a bit too much towards the first for my liking. While I'm no über-collectivist, believe me, I think it's "fair" (whatever that means) that if you earn more you pay a higher proportion on the differential. Call it the return on investment that society has made. That said, I wouldn't differentiate too much. If you're down the low end (say up to about 20 grand) you'd pay next to nothing. In the upper end (say above 60 grand) you'd pay 40%. And in the middle something in between. If you earn more than 100 grand and still only pay 40%, fair play to you. IMHO the tax system is weighted too much in favour of the comfortable middle class, not because it's fair but because that's where the votes are.
Just checked the bands, the current tax rates are broadly in line with what I'd propose. 20% up to about 30 grand I'd maybe want to see a bit lower. 40% upwards of 30 grand is ok IMO. If only it were as simple as fag packet calculations on General Talk.
...we must expand...get more pupils...so that the knowledge will spread... |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Palace_denizen  filed under " time wasters " 14 May 14 1.52pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote pefwin at 14 May 2014 11.14am
What does the Ukip Youth do anyway? Climb mountains and fly gliders while wearing Lederhosen? Labour yoof are all pushing prams at age 15.
Laughing at Charlton - Every London Clyub's fourth or fifth most hated team - |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Johnny Eagles berlin 14 May 14 2.15pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote The White Horse at 11 May 2014 8.13pm
Quote Johnny Eagles at 11 May 2014 2.20pm
3. Given the unprecedented scale of the latest wave of immigration (ie, the last ten to fifteen years) how likely is it that these immigrants will integrate into the host culture and what will this integration look like? I think integration is inevitable over time, since it's pretty difficult to spend time within a society without being influenced by social norms, language and so on. Obviously there will be some exceptions, but I'd imagine any community that closes itself off from the rest of society will start to suffer over time. In a crude multicultural melting pot analogy, imagine someone's making a nice chocolate mousse and throws in a few extra ingredients. A lump of sugar, some milk, a marshmallow. Practically speaking it may take a while, but at the end of the process the mousse isn't radically different from how it was at the start because 99% of the ingredients remained the same. Quote Johnny Eagles at 11 May 2014 2.20pm
4. If immigration were to continue on a similar scale, how likely do you think that "integration" will actually mean a radical transformation of the prevailing culture within a generation or two? I think prevailing cultures are always changing, so it's difficult to define what constitutes radical change, but I think it's unlikely that an "external culture" would be able to affect the original culture profoundly unless there were significant parallels to begin with. Look at the resistance to Islam in the UK, for example. There are pretty strong parallels between Islam and Christianity and Muslims have been here for decades, so you'd think it might get some traction. But people are livid that someone's prayed at a cow before it ended up on their pizza. To avoid it turning into an absolute waffle-fest, I'll concentrate my reply on just the points above. I think we actually broadly agree. We differ essentially only on one point. You think it "unlikely that an "external culture" would be able to affect the original culture profoundly". I disagree. To borrow your melting pot analogy, I see the recent wave of immigration (ie, all the Eastern Europeans) if it continues at a similar pace as much more than a few extra ingredients. I think it will completely change the recipe. I'm not claiming certainty, but I do think it likely given the scale over the last few years and the changes which have already happened in a relatively short space of time. I've yet to see anything which convinces me otherwise. I think AT BEST the politicians who unleashed this wave of immigration have simply no idea what the long-term effects will be. I therefore think it likely that the prevailing culture will be radically altered and many things which are "traditionally British" (I know this is an incredibly slippery term to use, but I don't want to get bogged down in long definitions) will disappear or alter beyond recognition. Which isn't to foretell doom, necessarily. He he who rejects change is the architect of decay and all that. And I love a curry as much as the next person. But it will be sad to see some things go. And, most importantly, it's absolutely fair enough for some people to be concerned and even angry about it. It's going to have a massive effect on them and their children and they've not been given any choice in the matter whatsoever.
...we must expand...get more pupils...so that the knowledge will spread... |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / RegisterNew users
Registration is now on our new message board
Existing users
To login with your existing username you will need to convert your account over to the new message board.
Sponsors
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2024 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.