Flat Tax

gimlet · 08-09-2005, 06:34 PM

A look at our 2005 manifesto will show that we are as a party are supportive of flat tax. So why the hell do we allow the tories to 'steal' our clothes again? And as usual nothing on our web site to sing our own praise.

mkpdavies · 08-09-2005, 06:58 PM

UKIP leadership only tells it's members it's other policies to keep them happy. The real mission is to pressure the Tories on the EU issue.

It's pretty clear that is the case.

gimlet · 08-09-2005, 07:27 PM

I am again coming around to the same conclusion. As pointed out in another thread why is the party writing to the tory party, it's labour who are holding the strings.

Aardvark · 11-09-2005, 10:44 PM

Flat tax, together with a high threshold, is an idea I have favoured for years. It's time appears to have come. It is being adopted all over the place and could arrive in Germany should Angela Merkel be elected in the next few weeks. The Tories have grabbed the idea because it places clear blue sky between them and Labour and the Lib Dems who are both INTO phpbb_micro-management of taxation.

The Shadow Chancellor has spotted that abolishing all allowances, raising the threshold so that the poor don't pay any direct tax ever and having a single rate will sweep away a large amount of bureaucracy and with it a lot of tax accountancy rules. If there are no tax breaks then there are no loopholes for accountants to slip through. Osborne is also suggesting that the basic rate is the same for corporation tax.

There is no way that the control freaks in Gordon Brown's team could countenance giving away control over the finances of the poor. No working tax credits, or whatever the latest scheme is called, means no way of knowing what the poorer people are earning if they don't have to hand over details of every penny they earn. If the tax rate applied to unearned income as well as earned income then the pensioners with a moderate amount of savings could also disappear from the taxman's purview. The taxman could lose millions of clients overnight.

The other point, that the Tories won't mention, is that this is one of the few areas where the UK government still has the power to reduce bureaucracy. EU over regulation has led to many more employees in national, regional and local government doing the bidding of Brussels. Since these people cannot be sacked because their jobs are, notionally, for life then the government can only reduce the public pay packet by cutting jobs in the revenue, defence, the NHS and education. All other departments are, in some way or other, under the spell of Brussels.

Where UKIP could emphasise the difference is that, by removing the impending full effects of the working time directive, the whole labour market could be freed up. People like myself, who want to work longer hours on occasion, would have the freedom to put in a long working week with the knowledge that they weren't stepping over the line INTO phpbb_higher taxation and that they would keep a fair share of every pound they earned.

Tony · 13-09-2005, 12:39 PM

I agree with this, a flat tax is the best way to go and has been successful in every place it has been tried. It actually brings greater fairness to all and promotes the free market motivation. The level needs to be quite low in order to help the poor but exerience of Margaret Thatcher and others shows that when you reduce and simplify taxes you get more revenue for many reasons.

Unfortunately you cannot stop another political party from adopting your policies as their own, political plagarism is the name of the game as most of them are too stupid to think originally. Pensions are in the same situation, the unqualified automatic pension is fairer, cheaper and simpler than one surrounded by civil service bureaucracy and means testing.

Tony

Tom Collier · 18-09-2005, 02:03 PM

On the issue of policy copying, the best way to "own" a policy is to boldy advocate it, not to wait until the last minute to release policy details. Flat tax has been floating around for ages though as an idea. It has only recently become an issue debated by political parties.

On the policy itself, I agree that simplicity is always important in making tax enforceable. That is why I think direct taxation is better than indirect. I would keep two rates though, to keep the idea of progressive tax (though I know high earners would pay more anyway).

Therefore I would support increasing the basic rate to 25% with a higher threshold and no 10% nonsense. I would keep a 40% top rate but again significantly increase the threshold to take many payers out. I would then reduce VAT to 15% and take it off domestic fuel, utilities and house repairs. I would reduce other indirect taxes

25% may seem alot but it would establish us firmly as progressive on tax. The way the Lib Dems trumpet a 1% increase as radical really is pathetic.

Tony · 18-09-2005, 06:13 PM

Tom,
Once again I could not agree with you more, the precise levels would need to be carefully thought out but on the whole I think 25% is about right especially if it is accompanied by large reductions in fuel tax and council tax and a wider range of exemptions for the elderly and otherwise infirm.

Yes, the only way to stamp your claim on a policy is to go public with it then the others will stay away from it on principle.

I would like to see council tax done away with altogether and income tax adjusted to compensate, say 30% basic. Local councils wouldn't like it but that can be compensated by increasing the precept. That's the money given to them by national government. I would also change the law on councils telling them what they could spend it on so they were not funding gay whales against the bomb or free condoms for the over nineties or something equally stupid. Local government needs an audit but if it works it is the key to keeping democracy close to the people.

Tony

John Carter · 18-09-2005, 07:06 PM

I'd agree with the 25%

I've long figured that 20% is acceptable for countries without armed forces, 25% for countries with.

Tony · 19-09-2005, 04:58 AM

I think council tax and fuel tax are the most unpopular taxes yet as they are both outrageously high and particularly hit the elderly, the unemployed and the low paid.

Tony

Tom Collier · 19-09-2005, 02:35 PM

I agree Council Tax is outrageously high. However, I think that independent revenue is a good way of making local government accountable.

Part of the problem is that councils have asset stripped for years, no longer receive council house rent and so on. UKIP`s policy of diverting business rates to them is sound, especially as councils have to collect them and, at present, pays it up to the Treasury, which pays it back in the precept.

Money out of central funds is more likely to be paid to one legged lesbian whales against the bomb, as it is less visable. The main problem with Council tax is that it is far too high.

C-Steam pointed out that we pay tax on tax for petrol due to the VAT and duty double whammy (to use an old Tory phrase. This could be stopped as well as the duty frozen after a slight reduction.

08-09-2005, 06:34 PM	#1 (permalink)
gimlet Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Shropshire Posts: 836	Flat Tax A look at our 2005 manifesto will show that we are as a party are supportive of flat tax. So why the hell do we allow the tories to 'steal' our clothes again? And as usual nothing on our web site to sing our own praise.

08-09-2005, 06:58 PM	#2 (permalink)
mkpdavies Uber Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Woking Posts: 31,182 Party: Libertarian Party	UKIP leadership only tells it's members it's other policies to keep them happy. The real mission is to pressure the Tories on the EU issue. It's pretty clear that is the case. __________________ http://brits4ronpaul.blogspot.com/ http://wokinglibertarians.blogspot.com/ http://lpuk.org My ignore list Labour, Blue Labour, Lib Dems

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

08-09-2005, 07:27 PM	#3 (permalink)
gimlet Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Shropshire Posts: 836	I am again coming around to the same conclusion. As pointed out in another thread why is the party writing to the tory party, it's labour who are holding the strings.

11-09-2005, 10:44 PM	#4 (permalink)
Aardvark Moderator Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Oxonia Posts: 3,987	Flat tax, together with a high threshold, is an idea I have favoured for years. It's time appears to have come. It is being adopted all over the place and could arrive in Germany should Angela Merkel be elected in the next few weeks. The Tories have grabbed the idea because it places clear blue sky between them and Labour and the Lib Dems who are both INTO phpbb_micro-management of taxation. The Shadow Chancellor has spotted that abolishing all allowances, raising the threshold so that the poor don't pay any direct tax ever and having a single rate will sweep away a large amount of bureaucracy and with it a lot of tax accountancy rules. If there are no tax breaks then there are no loopholes for accountants to slip through. Osborne is also suggesting that the basic rate is the same for corporation tax. There is no way that the control freaks in Gordon Brown's team could countenance giving away control over the finances of the poor. No working tax credits, or whatever the latest scheme is called, means no way of knowing what the poorer people are earning if they don't have to hand over details of every penny they earn. If the tax rate applied to unearned income as well as earned income then the pensioners with a moderate amount of savings could also disappear from the taxman's purview. The taxman could lose millions of clients overnight. The other point, that the Tories won't mention, is that this is one of the few areas where the UK government still has the power to reduce bureaucracy. EU over regulation has led to many more employees in national, regional and local government doing the bidding of Brussels. Since these people cannot be sacked because their jobs are, notionally, for life then the government can only reduce the public pay packet by cutting jobs in the revenue, defence, the NHS and education. All other departments are, in some way or other, under the spell of Brussels. Where UKIP could emphasise the difference is that, by removing the impending full effects of the working time directive, the whole labour market could be freed up. People like myself, who want to work longer hours on occasion, would have the freedom to put in a long working week with the knowledge that they weren't stepping over the line INTO phpbb_higher taxation and that they would keep a fair share of every pound they earned.

13-09-2005, 12:39 PM	#5 (permalink)
Tony Junior Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Reading Berks. Posts: 32	I agree with this, a flat tax is the best way to go and has been successful in every place it has been tried. It actually brings greater fairness to all and promotes the free market motivation. The level needs to be quite low in order to help the poor but exerience of Margaret Thatcher and others shows that when you reduce and simplify taxes you get more revenue for many reasons. Unfortunately you cannot stop another political party from adopting your policies as their own, political plagarism is the name of the game as most of them are too stupid to think originally. Pensions are in the same situation, the unqualified automatic pension is fairer, cheaper and simpler than one surrounded by civil service bureaucracy and means testing. Tony

18-09-2005, 02:03 PM	#6 (permalink)
Tom Collier Member Join Date: May 2005 Location: Bournemouth Posts: 359	On the issue of policy copying, the best way to "own" a policy is to boldy advocate it, not to wait until the last minute to release policy details. Flat tax has been floating around for ages though as an idea. It has only recently become an issue debated by political parties. On the policy itself, I agree that simplicity is always important in making tax enforceable. That is why I think direct taxation is better than indirect. I would keep two rates though, to keep the idea of progressive tax (though I know high earners would pay more anyway). Therefore I would support increasing the basic rate to 25% with a higher threshold and no 10% nonsense. I would keep a 40% top rate but again significantly increase the threshold to take many payers out. I would then reduce VAT to 15% and take it off domestic fuel, utilities and house repairs. I would reduce other indirect taxes 25% may seem alot but it would establish us firmly as progressive on tax. The way the Lib Dems trumpet a 1% increase as radical really is pathetic.

18-09-2005, 06:13 PM	#7 (permalink)
Tony Junior Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Reading Berks. Posts: 32	Tom, Once again I could not agree with you more, the precise levels would need to be carefully thought out but on the whole I think 25% is about right especially if it is accompanied by large reductions in fuel tax and council tax and a wider range of exemptions for the elderly and otherwise infirm. Yes, the only way to stamp your claim on a policy is to go public with it then the others will stay away from it on principle. I would like to see council tax done away with altogether and income tax adjusted to compensate, say 30% basic. Local councils wouldn't like it but that can be compensated by increasing the precept. That's the money given to them by national government. I would also change the law on councils telling them what they could spend it on so they were not funding gay whales against the bomb or free condoms for the over nineties or something equally stupid. Local government needs an audit but if it works it is the key to keeping democracy close to the people. Tony

18-09-2005, 07:06 PM	#8 (permalink)
John Carter Uber Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: On Sabbatical Posts: 5,110	I'd agree with the 25% I've long figured that 20% is acceptable for countries without armed forces, 25% for countries with.

19-09-2005, 04:58 AM	#9 (permalink)
Tony Junior Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Reading Berks. Posts: 32	I think council tax and fuel tax are the most unpopular taxes yet as they are both outrageously high and particularly hit the elderly, the unemployed and the low paid. Tony

19-09-2005, 02:35 PM	#10 (permalink)
Tom Collier Member Join Date: May 2005 Location: Bournemouth Posts: 359	I agree Council Tax is outrageously high. However, I think that independent revenue is a good way of making local government accountable. Part of the problem is that councils have asset stripped for years, no longer receive council house rent and so on. UKIP`s policy of diverting business rates to them is sound, especially as councils have to collect them and, at present, pays it up to the Treasury, which pays it back in the precept. Money out of central funds is more likely to be paid to one legged lesbian whales against the bomb, as it is less visable. The main problem with Council tax is that it is far too high. C-Steam pointed out that we pay tax on tax for petrol due to the VAT and duty double whammy (to use an old Tory phrase. This could be stopped as well as the duty frozen after a slight reduction.