Students occupy University of Sheffield Auditorium

[Louis MacNeice]

So many words but none that answer the question I asked you.

I can see why you'd want to sidestep the marginal tax rate stuff, but why not have the courage of your convictions and defend your assertion that the rich will be forced to work for 5p in the pound?

Cheers - Louis MacNeice

 

[Pickman's model]

Fucking, like yeah. Fucking.

it's always good to see you engage in reasoned debate.

 

[chilango]

So many words but none that answer the question I asked you.

It's pointing out that your question is based upon a mistake and thus irrelevant.

 

[brogdale]

Barry43210 ...so few words regarding this question that you've ignored 3 times now.
Are you just here to troll people?

 

[kabbes]

Incredibly, different people enjoy different things. And just as importantly, different people find various less enjoyable tasks differently unpalatable.

Saying that people wouldn't be middle managers if they could be paid just as well by being cleaners flies in the face of obvious everyday reality.

 

[Barry43210]

It's a different question each time. Which one don't you think I've answered? If it is the oh so razor sharp 'would you rather do something you enjoy or something you don't for the same money', then my answer would generally be to choose the enjoyable option. That said I can imagine circumstances - indeed I've faced such circumstances - where the less enjoyable option would be the better choice.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice

Thanks. So who do you expect to do the less enjoyable work (for the same after tax pay) ?

 

[DotCommunist]

kabbes well thats it, some of the most social important work- care of the elderly and the young for example- is payed at peanuts wages. Which shows how skewed thing are I spose

 

[Barry43210]

Stop saying "someone" and tag me (use the @ followed by my user name it does this Barry43210 ) that way I can respond...

I don't think anyone else has argued for a 95% tax rate for the wealthy. I'll be honest I wasn't being entirely serious when I suggested it.

However, why the hell not?

Bear in mind that the 95% would only kick in on earnings over a certain amount. I think you mentioned 100k? Let's use that. Any earnings over 100k are taxed at 95%.

Are any of your arguments still valid in this hypothetical?

The brief and clear statement you made was that anybody who can 'afford it' should pay 95% tax on income whether they are in that financial
position because they earned it or inherited it.

To me this means you think that anybody who finds themself in a financial position ahead of anybody else can better afford things and therefore should pay 95% tax on the extra bit.

Whether you were serious or not others are defending your position and I am replying to them.

I just don't agree with you.

In my opinion (if allowed one) we should tax every last cent of inheritance but leave meaningful incentive in proressive tax rates for people to be compensated for putting extra effort in and also to attract skilled workers from overseas.

I do not think 5p in the pound would be enough compensation for some of the more challenging or otherwise less attractive jobs.

That really is the entirely of my opinion in response to the statement you made (which you now claim was not serious)

 

[Louis MacNeice]

Thanks. So who do you expect to do the less enjoyable work (for the same after tax pay) ?

Come on Barry you can do better than this; try thinking a bit harder.

Here's a couple of clues to help you along; I've already answered it in part (go back a read what I wrote) and it begs too many other questions to be given some easy categorical answer.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice

 

[Barry43210]

Incredibly, different people enjoy different things. And just as importantly, different people find various less enjoyable tasks differently unpalatable.

Saying that people wouldn't be middle managers if they could be paid just as well by being cleaners flies in the face of obvious everyday reality.

On your last paragraph we are 100% in agreement.

 

[Barry43210]

I can see why you'd want to sidestep the marginal tax rate stuff, but why not have the courage of your convictions and defend your assertion that the rich will be forced to work for 5p in the pound?

Cheers - Louis MacNeice

How have you concluded that it is my ascertion that the rich would pay 95% tax. That was what chilango said and I am arguing against it.

Are you reading the same thread ?

 

[Louis MacNeice]

The brief and clear statement you made was that anybody who can 'afford it' should pay 95% tax on income whether they are in that financial position because they earned it or inherited it.

To me this means you think that anybody who finds themself in a financial position ahead of anybody else can better afford things and therefore should pay 95% tax on the extra bit.

How on earth does the bit in bold follow from the first sentence? How do you slip from 'afford it' to 'a financial position ahead of anybody else' and not notice? And for the moment I'm leaving aside what we could mean by being able to afford it.

Maybe I've been too generous and you really can't do better than this. Say it ain't so Barry.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice

 

[brogdale]

In my opinion (if allowed one)

FFS, get back to your usual forum(s).

 

[Louis MacNeice]

How have you concluded that it is my ascertion that the rich would pay 95% tax. That was what chilango said and I am arguing against it.

Are you reading the same thread ?

Jesus wept Barry, I know you're arguing against it. I'm saying you're doing so dishonestly by trying to claim that the rich will be working for 5p in the pound when it is easily demonstrable that this is a load of cobblers. Moreover it's a load of cobblers you very understandably don't seem to want to engage with at all. I was hoping you had a bit more about you than just avoiding inconvenient facts and repeating specious opinions.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice

 

[chilango]

Barry43210.

Not "entirely serious", rather than "not serious". A subtle, but important distinction.

I'm not advocating it as a policy measure. I'm not hugely interested in doing so.

...but, regardless, it has opened up some questions which are of more interest.

Again, bear in mind that a 95% tax rate would be on income above whatever income threshold we decide here marks "rich/wealthy".

Let's say £100k p/a (though I'm happy to change that, personally I'd go lower, but that's not hugely important right now).

So all income above 100k is taxed at 95%/

So someone whose income is £130k p/a will be taxed at 95% for the £30k above the £100k. The previous £100k would be at some other lower tax rate(s).

Clear?

So there is still room for a huge range of possible, differentiated incomes for different jobs before we hit the 95% tax rate.

Clear?

This doesn't mean everybody would earn the same no matter what job they did (though I find that idea tempting, I haven't argued for that - yet.)

 

[chilango]

Although a quick look on wikipedia suggests I'm being far too lenient on the wealthy:

The highest rate of income tax peaked in the Second World War at 99.25%. It was slightly reduced after the war and was around 97.5% (nineteen shillings and sixpence in the pound) through the 1950s and 60s.[citation needed]
In 1971 the top-rate of income tax on earned income was cut to 75%. A surcharge of 15% on investment income kept the top rate on that income at 90%. In 1974 this cut was partly reversed, and the top rate on earned income raised to 83%. With the investment income surcharge this raised the top rate on investment income to 98%, the highest permanent rate since the war. This applied to incomes over £20,000 (£186,150 in 2016 terms),[3]. In 1974, as many as 750,000 people were liable to pay the top-rate of income tax.[7] Margaret Thatcher, who favoured indirect taxation, reduced personal income tax rates during the 1980s.[8] In the first budget after her election victory in 1979, the top rate was reduced from 83% to 60% and the basic rate from 33% to 30%.[9] The basic rate was also cut for three successive budgets - to 29% in the 1986 budget, 27% in 1987 and to 25% in 1988.[10] The top rate of income tax was cut to 40% in the 1988 budget.The investment income surcharge was abolished in 1985.

How did we manage without conveyencing and doctors and stuff until the 1980s?

 

[chilango]

Yep.

We've already had a 99.25% tax rate for the richest.

Nice.

 

[Louis MacNeice]

How did we manage without conveyencing and doctors and stuff until the 1980s?

It's a mystery nearly as impenetrable as how income inequality was reduced in the post war period....if only there was some way of finding this stuff out?

Cheers - Louis MacNeice

 

[DotCommunist]

wilsons government had a very high tax rate iirc


83% says google

I wasn't alive at the time but I can't imagine how tough it was for people when all the business in britain moved abroad and you couldn't get so much as a haircut

 

[chilango]

Must have been nice though everybody just doing easy jobs.

 

[Louis MacNeice]

Must have been nice though everybody just doing easy jobs.

British Leyland, bodies left unburied, the print...is that what you want?

Cheers - Louis MacNeice

 

[editor]

Again, I repeat, do you folks prefer to come here agree on everything ?

It would seems so. All I've seen so far is a foulmouthed tirade of nit picking and some twerp pretending I am somebody else

Have I stumbled intoa forum for teenagers in error ?

If you don't like it, fuck off. And quit pretending you're new here. Have some honesty at least.

 

[Louis MacNeice]

If you don't like it, fuck off. And quit pretending you're new here. Have some honesty at least.

Thanks for the heads up...unless Barry is a bit more straight (in terms of standing by what he's saying rather than revealing any past identities) then I think I won't bother trying to engage; it feels a bit like someone's taking the piss.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice

 

[redsquirrel]

Yep.

We've already had a 99.25% tax rate for the richest.

Nice.

Yes, these people that scream about tax rates aren't just idiots they're ignorant idiots.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Again, nit picking where you are unable to form an argument of any kind.

If you replace the word 'wealth' in what I said with 'money', what difference does that make to the subject matter at hand ?

No difference. No difference whatsoever.

Please add value ?

Wealth and money are two very different things, even in the context of what you said. Go buy yourself a dictionary.

 

[ViolentPanda]

You appear to be under the impression that the two words are inter-changeable and mean the same thing.

I always have money in my pocket, but in the society I live in, I have no wealth.

 

[ViolentPanda]

It's those inital expenses a lot of w/c families struggle with, though. The train ticket could be the thick end of a ton, more if a parent comes along to help. A first months rent could be £300 or more, plus at least £200 for a deposit. All needing paying up front *before* the term starts. A one-off grant of say £800 paid on hitting the target grades and before starting uni would make a real difference

As for paying the rest back....they will be paying *if* they reach the threshold. Note the word if.

Even in a shithole house-share in some armpit satellite town to your uni, will generally cost you more than £300 a month,even staying in halls will. Your £800 would go nowhere, regarding resettlement costs, either. Most landlords require deposits equivalent to 2 months' rent, plus the first month's rent, so even with that mythical £300pm, you'd need £900 to cover that ALONE.

As for the student loan repayment threshold, sure, you don't start repaying until you're earning over £21k, and repayments are supposedly proportionate to your earnings, but none of that is ironclad, any more. Not when the expressed intention is to eventually hive off ALL student loan debt to commercial companies who may or may not vary the conditions of the loan.

But that is another issue entirely. That's down to the housing crisis. It used to be perfectly possible for someone on modest wages (much less than the equivilent of 21k in todays money) to buy a modest terrace house.

At the turn of the century terraced houses in nice condition in perfectly reasonable areas of Derby went for 25k. Thats 39k in todays money. If the prices were that, almost anyone with a steady job even on NMW could get a 90% mortgage on one, assuming 3.5 times earnings.

Are you saying only graduates should be buying their own houses (I know you aren't, but you get my point)

High rents in uni towns is a long-standing problem that's existed since the 1970s, and has little to do with a crisis in building. It's about the neoliberal imperative of maximising return. Even where colleges have built entire blocks of halls on their land, price has never gone down, either for the halls themselves, or local rentals, because everyone - from individual rentiers to wealthy colleges - want the largest slice of cake possible.

 

[ViolentPanda]

It's layabout btw - multi-banned poster who once joined the BNP accidentally.

That much was more than obvious - same bull-headed ignorance, same disingenuousness, same arrogance.

 

[ViolentPanda]

I prefer the M1 myself, more direct.

Chasing the long white lines...

 

[ViolentPanda]

What do you folks talk about when people don't come here to offer an alternate point of view ?

Doesn't it get a bit boring ?

You're not offering an alternative perspective. You're claiming your opinions as common-sense truths, but provide little substance to support those opinions beyond that.