mrabody

Good to see you copying UKIP policy

Millennium3

Not only costings, a recognition that a flat rate of tax of 33% will essentially benefit those on the highest rates of pay with the shortfall in tax revenue being met by a reduction in government services - which are generally for the benefit of the worse off.

Whereas I can accept that many taxpayers on earnings above £36,000 would support such a move, these will not make up a sufficiently large proportion of the voters and would not provide UKIP with enough votes to win a single seat at any GE [vital if our relationship with the EU is to change].

Most of the discussions on the result of the C&N election recognised that if UKIP want to get MP's, they must offer policies which appeal to a broad section of the electorate. This single policy will ensure that UKIP cannot progress. To put it into context, in the tax year 2004/05 the mean income in the UK was £22,800 - with around 25/26m earning less than £36,000 and less than 5m earning more.

It strikes me that once again UKIP are offering policies which appeal to the traditional Tory voter with the aim of pressuring the Tory leadership into policy changes rather than an honest attempt to build a party for government. Instead they will continue to create a honey trap for those vehemently anti EU in order to get members to give their precious time, energy and money to a cause the leadership knows cannot be won, whilst they enjoy an income of, probably, in excess of 10 times this mean income.

Independent UKIP

I don't have in front of me all the figures you apparently have from UKIP documents M3, (nor those of Bob FM for that matter) but if you think a policy which says that all who earn less than £10,000 will pay no income tax and those earning over £10,000 will pay no income tax on the first £10,000 of their income is only going to be attractive to the highest income earners then I simply say I do not believe you.

I don't believe the mean income was £22,800 despite the "facts". £15,000 at most I suspect. Presumably the £22.8 include tax credits as you have stated that is the income figure rather than earnings. Who wants to go through the massive hoops and inherent risks of getting tax credits? The flat tax would to a certain but large degree painlessly and cost effectively deal with much of that issue. A reduction in the tax credits office is a reduction in government services which would particuarly benefit those who are less well off.

Millennium3

UI: The figures I quote are for Income and are from Wikipedia. UKIP's policy is set out here:

UK Independence Party - UK Independence Party Flat Rate Tax Policy : September 2006

It is not possible to debate this issue in much detail for, as C_Steam points out, the financial package has not been costed so what services [those that generally help the worse off] will be removed is unknown - therefore only a general discussion is possible. What cannot be denied is that this is a redistribution of wealth which would mostly benefit the best off - this during a period when the gap between the very richest and poorest has widen considerably.

In simple terms, the tax burden on those paying 40% tax will be reduced to 33%. According to UKIP's figures, there will be savings for lower earners to a maximum of £20pw. The comparative figures given by UKIP only show the benefits for those earning up £50,000 - and for a very good reason - to take this comparison further demonstrates who really benefits from such a change.

The highest income group in the UKIP table shows that someone earning £50k will be better off by around £30pw. It makes no mention of the 1.68m [2004/5 quoted by Wikipedia] who earn in excess of this figure. If we take for our example the income of an MEP, who by a conservative estimate based on TW's figure of 300k, earned £235,000, if all of this were paid as taxable income [which it is not as the majority is paid as untaxed expenses] the saving would be 7% of £200k - £14k pa - £280pw [would this cover an extra decent meal with wine and a high class prostitute each week?]. For those 6,000+ who earn more than £1m - the savings is likely to be £1,400pw+.

I accept that the figures I quote can be disputed to a degree, however, there is no doubt that the flat tax proposals are specifically designed to massively advantage the highest earners. As I wrote previously, these might be widely applauded by the minority who do pay the top rate of tax, but the vast majority of voters, whose support is required if an anti EU party is to have a strong presence at Westminster, will not see this change as one aimed at helping them.

Bob FM

No Party ever discloses the detail of it's policies for good reason. That said anyone living in the real world will know that the real 'life' average income is between 15 and 20K. This was evidence by the complaints about the 10p rate of tax. I defy anyone to produce a page of 'normal' jobs that have incomes greater than 20k. It simply isn't a reality. And frankly I have never understood this perverse logic that because you earn more you should pay a higher percentage. Do you use more council services, are your street lights better, do you drive on better roads, do you get better NHS or GP services. So look at tax. At a flat rate tax of 20%. on 20k you pay 4k, on 50k you pay 10k, on 100k you pay 20k. So you are paying more. To say it hasn't been costed is simply not true. Just more negativity for it's own sake. Perhaps those who post endlessly here should get out and talk to the public and promote the party.

http://www.ukip.org/ukip/images/stor...ttaxpolicy.pdf

Bob FM

So the BNP want to bring back Grammar Schools, would not that be a little counter productive given the intellectual ability of many of their front line troops.

Millennium3

Not much point in promoting the Party if this is a fairly accurate assessment.

'It strikes me that once again UKIP are offering policies which appeal to the traditional Tory voter with the aim of pressuring the Tory leadership into policy changes rather than an honest attempt to build a party for government. Instead they will continue to create a honey trap for those vehemently anti EU in order to get members to give their precious time, energy and money to a cause the leadership knows cannot be won, whilst they enjoy an income of, probably, in excess of 10 times this mean income.'

Better to use their time and energy promoting a party whose policies are aimed at the majority of voters rather than the few. Perhaps those who produce these policies should go and live with people on low income for a month or two so they can understand the reality of that world and then come up with policies of some use to them. For without the support of these voters UKIP is just blocking the way of a potentially successful anti EU party emerging and achieving the goal of changing our relationship with the EU.

Bob FM

You are either not reading your own links or failing to understand what is written. 77% of salaries are £33k and below. Hardly as you indicate. 4.5 million would not pay tax and those that do will be £1106 better off. The 33% rate would include NI contribution, which at the current rate would reduce tax back down to 22%, but with a personal allowance of 9k, benefit really low paid. Just two examples. on 9k, no tax or NI, meaning a saving £1106 exactly the same as someone on 30K, so completely destroying the premises that the more you earn as 77% of the population the more you save. There is no argument for progressive % increases. There would be no tax credit lottery vast reductions in paper work for employers and more incentive for business to grow. The thing that stops SME's, and I'm one, from pushing for new business, is the burden then placed by extra staff and admin. That is a simple reality from the front line.

Millennium3

I did acknowledge in an earlier post that 'I accept that the figures I quote can be disputed to a degree' not least because the income statistics are from Wikipedia whose most recent information is for 2004/05. However, this is not important since only generalised statements can be made since UKIP have not indicated what government services [usually for the benefit of the most poor] will be removed and possibly need to be financed from their £20pw saving.

Perhaps if we use today's Telegraph headline to accentuate my point that the flat rate of tax UKIP is offering is primarily for the benefit of the highest earners.

City bonuses defy credit crunch and hit new record of £13bn

City bonuses defy credit crunch and hit new record of £13bn - Telegraph

Under the UKIP scheme these Bankers and financiers would save about £0.9bn in taxes - I am sure the lower earners would take the view that their £20pw saving [less an amount for services now having to be paid for] is such a boon that it is only right that those delightfully deserving Bankers and Financiers have their tax bill reduced by nearly £1bn.

Geoffrey Collier

AlexWe have stood in Crewe previously. In the , my computer ,GE of 2001 we had 746 votes. It is true that we did not contest the LAST GE, but that doesn't make your claim true.

Should anyone be the slightest bit interested, I have been away for some days. On my return, my computer is very unwell and I may have to give him the final rites. Where do computers go when they die?

I will try and keep in touch despite my vicissitudes.