Father killed himself after housing benefit cut, blame the Government

[TheAnimus]

No, i do not even support labour, successful people should pay their share equal to those that work for min wage and maybe more, successful people have a social responsibility, Landowners do nothing for this country apart from taking free money from the state. Until they tax landowners we'll always in the mess.

Equal tax to those that work for min wage?.... What that's no Tax, well employers NI, but no tax?

Or should we tax someone who is earning a lot down to minimum wage levels?

Both interpretations are stupid, but I can't see any other possibility in what you've written.

The private sector and a few rich individuals are making hundreds of million from your tax money its a transfer of wealth from you to the state to a few rich.

So we should pay less tax? Also I have no objection in private enterprise been funded by tax money, if it saves the government money, for example computers. I don't think the government should invent its own brand of computers and software.

They are making fools of you, Libya reports have suggested that some of the rebels are Al-Queda we are funding them giving them weapons etc... lets see when those weapons and tactics are used against the west.

Right so this thread you started, about a man killing himself is now about Al-Queda (which is often mistaken to be one organisation, with one direction, its not)

[petercook7]

Equal tax to those that work for min wage?.... What that's no Tax, well employers NI, but no tax?

Or should we tax someone who is earning a lot down to minimum wage levels?

Both interpretations are stupid, but I can't see any other possibility in what you've written.
So we should pay less tax? Also I have no objection in private enterprise been funded by tax money, if it saves the government money, for example computers. I don't think the government should invent its own brand of computers and software.
Right so this thread you started, about a man killing himself is now about Al-Queda (which is often mistaken to be one organisation, with one direction, its not)

No its just examples of how this and past governments pushed this country down this path, but dont twist what i say.
The tax paid in proportion to what a rich mans earns is less than what a poor man pays, simple really.
Private companies do not save the government money, look at private expansion over the past 30 years has it really saved money?

[TheAnimus]

No its just examples of how this and past governments pushed this country down this path, but dont twist what i say.

I'm not sure what I've been twisting here, but you said about minimum wage.

Someone earning minimum wage is unlikely to be earning above the personal allowance threshold.

The only tax they will pay, is therefore paid by the employer in NI.

The tax paid in proportion to what a rich mans earns is less than what a poor man pays, simple really.

But its not, in your example, the poor man will pay, 0%. The right man will be paying 50% on some of it.

I can't see how that isn't simple, its the exact opposite of what your saying!

Private companies do not save the government money, look at private expansion over the past 30 years has it really saved money?

Some haven't, but some have. On the whole the private sector is more innovative and efficient than the government controlled, I'm reminded of the story about the russian who visted London in the 50s and asked to see the minister responsible for keeping london so well stocked with bread......

[petercook7]

I'm not sure what I've been twisting here, but you said about minimum wage.

Someone earning minimum wage is unlikely to be earning above the personal allowance threshold.

The only tax they will pay, is therefore paid by the employer in NI.

..

huh, they pay the basic rate if working more than 30 hours a week. what proof do you have that a mw person does not pay tax, or does not earn above their Pa.

[petercook7]

But its not, in your example, the poor man will pay, 0%. The right man will be paying 50% on some of it.

.

What are you on about? poor man will always pay more in tax.

[roachcoach]

Edit: Saracen said it better.

I really should just sig that and be done with it.

[Saracen]

What are you on about? poor man will always pay more in tax.

Not true. A rich man nearly always, if not absolutely always, pays more. He can't help it, unless he never spends any of those riches. One reason why is VAT. That emphatically falls far more on the well-off as opposed to the poor, because most of what the poor spend they spend on things that are either exempt of zero-rated ..... like food, clothing and accommodation costs. A rich man goes and spends £60k on a new car and he'll pay more in VAT on that one purchase than some people earn in a year.

And then there's the Income Tax personal allowances that take much or all of the income of the very poorest out of Income Tax altogether, and the NI thresholds that do the same for a good proportion of basic earnings.

If you're going to make statement like that, you really need to define what you mean by "poor", because it is NOT true of the very poorest. If, on the other hand, you mean that a wealthy man pays less in percentage terms than the average income earner does, then you'd be far closer to the mark, but what evidence do you have that it is true, if for no other reason than that not every rich man deals with his wealth in the same way. Some have a conscience, and some do not.

But even if you're talking about the super-rich, you've got to remember that governments can only do what will work. Tax the super-rich too highly, and as someone pointed out earlier, you're better off with 40% of some of their income than 60% of none of it. Clobber them too hard and that's what you'll get, because the super-rich are best equipped to simply up sticks and leave. Labour learned (hopefully) that lesson 30-40 years ago.

[roachcoach]

Not true. A rich man nearly always, if not absolutely always, pays more. He can't help it, unless he never spends any of those riches. One reason why is VAT. That emphatically falls far more on the well-off as opposed to the poor, because most of what the poor spend they spend on things that are either exempt of zero-rated ..... like food, clothing and accommodation costs. A rich man goes and spends £60k on a new car and he'll pay more in VAT on that one purchase than some people earn in a year.

And then there's the Income Tax personal allowances that take much or all of the income of the very poorest out of Income Tax altogether, and the NI thresholds that do the same for a good proportion of basic earnings.

If you're going to make statement like that, you really need to define what you mean by "poor", because it is NOT true of the very poorest. If, on the other hand, you mean that a wealthy man pays less in percentage terms than the average income earner does, then you'd be far closer to the mark, but what evidence do you have that it is true, if for no other reason than that not every rich man deals with his wealth in the same way. Some have a conscience, and some do not.

But even if you're talking about the super-rich, you've got to remember that governments can only do what will work. Tax the super-rich too highly, and as someone pointed out earlier, you're better off with 40% of some of their income than 60% of none of it. Clobber them too hard and that's what you'll get, because the super-rich are best equipped to simply up sticks and leave. Labour learned (hopefully) that lesson 30-40 years ago.