A Political party finally says "Income Tax" needs to rise - HotUKDeals
We use cookie files to improve site functionality and personalisation. By continuing to use HotUKDeals, you accept our cookie and privacy policy.
Get the HotUKDeals app free at Google Play

Search Error

An error occurred when searching, please try again!

Login / Sign UpSubmit

A Political party finally says "Income Tax" needs to rise

£0.00 @
Whenever we hear policies from ALL the political parties, they ALL usually state hey will not raise taxes. This then gets broken with various backdoor rises. e.g. National Insurance etc. This is b… Read More
artnada Avatar
2w, 4d agoPosted 2 weeks, 4 days ago
Whenever we hear policies from ALL the political parties, they ALL usually state hey will not raise taxes. This then gets broken with various backdoor rises. e.g. National Insurance etc.

This is because they're all scared of the dreaded "T" word!

However, I've said over the years, [and it has been a long time], that Income Tax does need to rise, whereas, the political parties never come straight out and say "income tax needs to rise"....until now!

The Lib Dems have finally said that they will raise Income Tax by 1 penny in the pound, raising an estimated £6BN. £3 average per working person. Or, an average of losing just one of those expensive coffees so many people drink!

If this goes toward the NHS funding then GOOD.

Finally someone has the sense to say what actually needs to be done, and is coming out with the truth instead of **** and avoiding the issue, like they all usually do.

I've also said, to help with the roads budget [i.e potholes], why not put 2 pence on a litre of fuel and actually use it for roads, ON TOP OF the usual roads budget? Ring fence that money to prevent it from being used for anything other than roads. Call it a "Road Fund Tax" if you like.

This could potentially raise the billions needed to repair the roads that have been massively underfunded over the last 10 years. After all, the price of fuel rises and falls so often, Joe Bloggs barely even notice when the price goes up or down!

All the parties should be pledging this.

I don't earn a great deal, but if these 2 policies were actually implemented I would be for it.

The Lib Dems are not necessarily my "always" Political choice, however, I will be voting for them this time one, on the basis of the tax above, and 2 for a tactical vote to prevent the Tories from gaining our town.
artnada Avatar
2w, 4d agoPosted 2 weeks, 4 days ago
Options

Top Comments

(3)
15 Likes
Or why not just make huge corporations pay the tax they should be paying by closing tax loopholes. Drivers are already stung enough, road fund, congestion charging, insurance premiums constantly rising and the amount of tax already on fuel.
13 Likes
Benjimoron
£3 average per working person? I make that, at say 33 million working people at a guess, £100 million raised. A little short of £6 billion!

Seems like op has been to the diane abbott school of economics.
6 Likes
With freedom of movement being maintained by the LibDems, they would need to increase it by more than 1p.

We would be the free health care capital for the entire Planet.

All Comments

(60) Jump to unreadPost a comment
Comments/page:
Page:
15 Likes #1
Or why not just make huge corporations pay the tax they should be paying by closing tax loopholes. Drivers are already stung enough, road fund, congestion charging, insurance premiums constantly rising and the amount of tax already on fuel.
#2
Unfortunately clear simple and logical ideas such as yours get thrown out because they make far too much sense.
#3
Raising income tax may or may not help NHS, but I believe they also said that it would go towards mental health services which is a good thing.
Personally I'd prefer a party said that they'd work on stopping QE and raise interest rates, and we have a national debate on how to move forward with the NHS.
3 Likes #4
Vote for a tax rise.

Great vote winner.

Looks like it won't just be Labour looking for a new leader in June.
2 Likes #5
Here's something people here will find annoying.

I don't mind paying extra and the argument against that will be - it'll only get wasted.
Well I have to have faith that whilst some may get wasted but most will go towards better infrastructure like schools, roads, NHS etc etc.


Edited By: Joey.Bloggsy on May 07, 2017 10:00: .
#6
Makes so much sense that if the country is short of money then everyone takes a hit. This should extend to disability claimants, job seekers, low earners, middle earners, high earners and the mega rich. Just a percentage based hit on everyone.

Problems start as soon as an individual realises they will be worse off, then groups start shouting and then voters get annoyed and politicians lose power. Then it becomes a case if trying to please the loudest shouters so other groups start shouting and round and round we go....
2 Likes #7
Smell my spaniel.

Statement ends.
6 Likes #8
With freedom of movement being maintained by the LibDems, they would need to increase it by more than 1p.

We would be the free health care capital for the entire Planet.
#9
What this man said.

Close loopholes raise billions. Or leave them open and pummel the public for yet another few quid.
1 Like #10
£3 average per working person? I make that, at say 33 million working people at a guess, £100 million raised. A little short of £6 billion!
13 Likes #11
Benjimoron
£3 average per working person? I make that, at say 33 million working people at a guess, £100 million raised. A little short of £6 billion!

Seems like op has been to the diane abbott school of economics.
#12
Paddy_o_furniture
Or why not just make huge corporations pay the tax they should be paying by closing tax loopholes. Drivers are already stung enough, road fund, congestion charging, insurance premiums constantly rising and the amount of tax already on fuel.
You wouldn't want to do this as the property owners (where the coffee shops are) would be very upset.
.
A business exists to make profit, pretty right and sensible to do, so if coffee shop pays more tax then either the shop rent has to go down or the coffee price has to go up. 1/ If shop rent goes down then the property asset would go down and propertry owner hates this; 2/ If the coffee price goes up the the price elasticity curve principle means coffee sales goes down.
.
So better to raise income tax ?
1 Like #13
Benjimoron
£3 average per working person? I make that, at say 33 million working people at a guess, £100 million raised. A little short of £6 billion!

It's an average of £3 a week, not annual. Apparently the tax will include dividends, but I don't see anywhere that the average of £3 includes them.
1 Like #14
Are they aiming to lose even more support? Or are they trying to behave like a serious party?

The Lib Dems could announce a free Ferrari for every man woman and child...they are still not going to win.
#15
Raise interest rates and VAT by 1% and guarantee to spend the money-

Year 1- NHS
Year 2- Fixing/ building prisons.
Year 3- Fixings roads.
Year 4- Upgrading railways.
Year 5- NHS again.
Year 6- Expect Tories will be voted out by then so Labour can then start borrowing again to put us further in debt.
#16
Disagree. Get some knowledge.
1 Like #17
it doesnt even need to be a direct tax rise, they could just as easily freeze the tax free allowance, which would then affect everyone the same way.

lets be honest, all the political parties are owned by rich people so they're not going to increase higher rate tax by any significant amount, even though this would be seen as the most 'fair' of the options.
1 Like #18
Benjimoron
£3 average per working person? I make that, at say 33 million working people at a guess, £100 million raised. A little short of £6 billion!

TheNoid
Benjimoron
£3 average per working person? I make that, at say 33 million working people at a guess, £100 million raised. A little short of £6 billion!
Seems like op has been to the diane abbott school of economics.
The hypothetical scenario's maths is probably correct if you say £3 per week equates to one cup of coffee per week (assuming one cup averages £3);
But the HUGE fault and the gross misleading factor of this artifical scenario is that not everyone who is affected by this 1% income tax drinks one cup of coffee per week.
For a truer scenario of mathematical illustration you would have to apply more maths skills such as statistical distribution of outcomes such as:

https://www.thinkmoney.co.uk/news-advice/the-cost-of-britains-love-of-coffee-shops-0-4432-0.htm
3 in 8 people treat themselves to a coffee once or twice a month
By this mathematical inference, as an example, it is clearly a lot of people could/would treat themselves once or twice a week.
One could also asks the question of how many out of ten who could NOT afford or want to buy even a cup of Starbucks/Nero etc. coffee for a whole month? And who are now caught with the 1% extra tax?
#19
splender
Benjimoron
£3 average per working person? I make that, at say 33 million working people at a guess, £100 million raised. A little short of £6 billion!
TheNoid
Benjimoron
£3 average per working person? I make that, at say 33 million working people at a guess, £100 million raised. A little short of £6 billion!
Seems like op has been to the diane abbott school of economics.
The hypothetical scenario's maths is probably correct if you say £3 per week equates to one cup of coffee per week (assuming one cup averages £3);But the HUGE fault and the gross misleading factor of this artifical scenario is that not everyone who is affected by this 1% income tax drinks one cup of coffee per week.
For a truer scenario of mathematical illustration you would have to apply more maths skills such as statistical distribution of outcomes such as:https://www.thinkmoney.co.uk/news-advice/the-cost-of-britains-love-of-coffee-shops-0-4432-0.htm3 in 8 people treat themselves to a coffee once or twice a month
By this mathematical inference, as an example, it is clearly a lot of people could/would treat themselves once or twice a week.
One could also asks the question of how many out of ten who could NOT afford or want to buy even a cup of Starbucks/Nero etc. coffee for a whole month? And who are now caught with the 1% extra tax?

Or, the Lib Dems just release a tax calculator for those who don't want to figure out how they will be affected for themselves, rather than whittle it down to a per week basis. Maybe it would be more palatable if they had said that it would be an average of a few pence (per hour) at the cost of some penny sweets!
2 Likes #20
A vote for Lib Dems is a wasted vote, They've got absolutely zero chance.
1 Like #21
splatsplatsplat
Are they aiming to lose even more support? Or are they trying to behave like a serious party?
The Lib Dems could announce a free Ferrari for every man woman and child...they are still not going to win.

Corbyn is already trying that by giving 4 bank holidays to bribe voters. Nothing quite like giving away something you haven't got and can't afford to give. I'd like to think people are not stupid enough to think it's a good idea, but you have to take into account his target audience to know he will win some votes from gullible people. Fortunately not enough to matter.

Edited By: 3dprince on May 07, 2017 10:46
#22
The merest suggestion of income tax rises is a proven vote loser since time immemorial. You can get away with backdoor tax rises (National Insurance and even VAT) but the public don't like income tax increases.

But do either Labour or the LibDems really want to win this election? The answer is probably not. With the shambles of Brexit looming, now is not necessarily a good time to be in power. Presumably, the Tories are hoping the country will have recovered or the floating voters will have forgotten by 2022 but that rather depends on just how bad things get. We will just have to wait and see who made the right decision.

Edited By: RonChew on May 07, 2017 10:58: wrong year
2 Likes #23
3dprince
splatsplatsplat
Are they aiming to lose even more support? Or are they trying to behave like a serious party?
The Lib Dems could announce a free Ferrari for every man woman and child...they are still not going to win.
Corbyn is already trying that by giving 4 bank holidays to bribe voters. Nothing quite like giving away something you haven't got and can't afford to give. I'd like to think people are not stupid enough to think it's a good idea, but you have to take into account his target audience to know he will win some votes from gullible people. Fortunately not enough to matter.

Labour could promise anything they like knowing that they've got absolutely zero chance of getting in.
#24
splender
Benjimoron
£3 average per working person? I make that, at say 33 million working people at a guess, £100 million raised. A little short of £6 billion!
TheNoid
Benjimoron
£3 average per working person? I make that, at say 33 million working people at a guess, £100 million raised. A little short of £6 billion!
Seems like op has been to the diane abbott school of economics.
The hypothetical scenario's maths is probably correct if you say £3 per week equates to one cup of coffee per week (assuming one cup averages £3);But the HUGE fault and the gross misleading factor of this artifical scenario is that not everyone who is affected by this 1% income tax drinks one cup of coffee per week.
For a truer scenario of mathematical illustration you would have to apply more maths skills such as statistical distribution of outcomes such as:https://www.thinkmoney.co.uk/news-advice/the-cost-of-britains-love-of-coffee-shops-0-4432-0.htm3 in 8 people treat themselves to a coffee once or twice a month
By this mathematical inference, as an example, it is clearly a lot of people could/would treat themselves once or twice a week.
One could also asks the question of how many out of ten who could NOT afford or want to buy even a cup of Starbucks/Nero etc. coffee for a whole month? And who are now caught with the 1% extra tax?

You missed out the distribution of coffee outlets. Statistically there will be more in areas with higher wealth and these people buy more coffee. These people also earn more so would pay more tax.

Another way would be to add a line to the council tax for your local NHS authority. Then you are directly funding your local hospitals.
3 Likes #25
The government already spends (and wastes) over 40% of GDP - and the 'vote winner' is, let's spend (and waste) more!!

Now here's a tip, why not do like the vast majority of the population and manage your income to match your expenditure. Try cutting waste (and there's plenty of it) and trimming back on the vanity projects.
#26
splender
Paddy_o_furniture
Or why not just make huge corporations pay the tax they should be paying by closing tax loopholes. Drivers are already stung enough, road fund, congestion charging, insurance premiums constantly rising and the amount of tax already on fuel.
You wouldn't want to do this as the property owners (where the coffee shops are) would be very upset.
A business exists to make profit, pretty right and sensible to do, so if coffee shop pays more tax then either the shop rent has to go down or the coffee price has to go up. 1/ If shop rent goes down then the property asset would go down and propertry owner hates this; 2/ If the coffee price goes up the the price elasticity curve principle means coffee sales goes down.
.
So better to raise income tax ?

Or the coffee shops stop being so greedy after all this is people like Starbucks we are talking about not local independent shops, as a franchise if they try to pass it on there's nothing stopping those who have signed up with them telling them to stick it and going solo
#27
Benjimoron
£3 average per working person? I make that, at say 33 million working people at a guess, £100 million raised. A little short of £6 billion!


TheNoid
Benjimoron
£3 average per working person? I make that, at say 33 million working people at a guess, £100 million raised. A little short of £6 billion!
Seems like op has been to the diane abbott school of economics.

Really? oO

Edited By: Joey.Bloggsy on May 07, 2017 11:44: .
3 Likes #28
Oh and another thing.

The NHS has set aside over £50 billion yes £50b for future negligence claims.

Last figures were for pay outs to claimants of over £1.5b for the year.

The NHS staff, unions and politicians are quick to point out how 'hard working' the employees are, but fail to point out the never ending catalogue of botched care that patients receive. Anyone thinking that chucking more money at this broken institution will fix it, is living in a fantasy land - they'll just fritter it away on compensation claims?

What the NHS needs to concentrate on is Quality - get that right and they will generate savings way above the £6b that is suggested could be raised by raising tax rates.

Unfortunately no political party would dare to adopt a Quality solution to the NHS woes.


Edited By: Dumbstruck on May 07, 2017 11:26
2 Likes #29
The Income Tax increase might indeed raise £65 billion, but the NHS has always been a bottomless pit with regards to funding. Both Labour and the LibDems know that funding alone will not solve the crisis in the NHS, but they are too cowardly to admit it.
1 Like #30
How much tax is raised currently...and spent incorrectly - its not only how much you generate in revenue but how you spend it...council tax has risen over many years but councils still seem fine with wasting our cash more and more... an interesting question is where in the NHS is money wasted - Management / IT budgets?
#31
an interesting question is where in the NHS is money wasted - Management / IT budgets?

Try the £50b set aside for compensation claims?
#32
Dumbstruck
an interesting question is where in the NHS is money wasted - Management / IT budgets?
Try the £50b set aside for compensation claims?
true - ambulance chasing law firms cashing in, somewhat unethical.
4 Likes #33
Or they could just not pay any of the billions the EU want instead.
But they're not the type of party that puts British people ahead of the EU.
#34
shasnir
What the Liberal 'Democrats' say they are going to do and what they actually do once in power are not always the same thing.
Tuition Fees
They campaigned on a promise to scrap tuition fees if they got into power, and every Liberal 'Democrat' MP pledged to vote against future tuition fee increases. But once in government, the Liberal's voted to treble tuition fees to £9,000.
The Liberal's campaigned against what they called a “Tory VAT Bombshell” during the election. But it was a bombshell that they voted to increase to 20% once in government.
Special Advisers
In opposition, the Liberal Democrats said that special advisers “are political jobs, and should be funded by political parties”. But once they got into Government. Nick Clegg alone had sixteen Special Advisers, paid for at the taxpayers’ expense.
Mansion Tax
In opposition, the Liberal Democrats said they backed a mansion tax. Even after they went into coalition with the Conservatives Nick Clegg said “The Mansion Tax is right, it makes sense and the Liberal Democrats will continue to make the case for it. We’re going to stick to our guns”. When given the chance to stand up for their own principles and vote for a mansion tax the Liberal Democrat MPs voted against it.
The Lib Dems deserve to die.
#35
Load of Bs, you guys talk like their out of money, it hasn't run out, they just don't want to fund the NHS etc anymore. If you think raising income tax will wholly benefit the NHS you need head checked.
1 Like #36
I just had a Lib Dem newsletter through the door disguised as local newspaper. In all the political publications I've had through the door it has to rate as the worst. Loads of claims against the current MP, no evidence, no statistics, and at one point it asked the reader to Google something.
#37
drasim
I just had a Lib Dem newsletter through the door disguised as local newspaper. In all the political publications I've had through the door it has to rate as the worst. Loads of claims against the current MP, no evidence, no statistics, and at one point it asked the reader to Google something.
You clearly haven't seen the spotty nazi party efforts. :)
#38
qbs
drasim
I just had a Lib Dem newsletter through the door disguised as local newspaper. In all the political publications I've had through the door it has to rate as the worst. Loads of claims against the current MP, no evidence, no statistics, and at one point it asked the reader to Google something.
You clearly haven't seen the spotty nazi party efforts. :)

Did they at least get grammar right? At end of the paper it says "YES! I can help the Lib Dems delivery real change!" X)
#39
Here's a graph showing the impact across income groups:

https://i.imgur.com/5eKichSl.jpg

Edited By: drasim on May 07, 2017 16:10
3 Likes #40
splender
Benjimoron
£3 average per working person? I make that, at say 33 million working people at a guess, £100 million raised. A little short of £6 billion!
TheNoid
Benjimoron
£3 average per working person? I make that, at say 33 million working people at a guess, £100 million raised. A little short of £6 billion!
Seems like op has been to the diane abbott school of economics.
The hypothetical scenario's maths is probably correct if you say £3 per week equates to one cup of coffee per week (assuming one cup averages £3);But the HUGE fault and the gross misleading factor of this artifical scenario is that not everyone who is affected by this 1% income tax drinks one cup of coffee per week.
For a truer scenario of mathematical illustration you would have to apply more maths skills such as statistical distribution of outcomes such as:https://www.thinkmoney.co.uk/news-advice/the-cost-of-britains-love-of-coffee-shops-0-4432-0.htm3 in 8 people treat themselves to a coffee once or twice a month
By this mathematical inference, as an example, it is clearly a lot of people could/would treat themselves once or twice a week.
One could also asks the question of how many out of ten who could NOT afford or want to buy even a cup of Starbucks/Nero etc. coffee for a whole month? And who are now caught with the 1% extra tax?


This exactly! I don't have £12 a month to spare and would begrudge paying more income tax to lose what little luxury I manage to scrape together in a month. It's already to the point where I have to date at free places, any further bills going up and I ll basically have to skip meals at the weekend. I would even go so far as to say I'm a lucky person financially because I can break even in a month just about. Others aren't so lucky.

Post a Comment

You don't need an account to leave a comment. Just enter your email address. We'll keep it private.

...OR log in with your social account

...OR comment using your social account

Thanks for your comment! Keep it up!
We just need to have a quick look and it will be live soon.
The community is happy to hear your opinion! Keep contributing!