Not defending Johnson, but surely the audience will have been vetted to ensure a balance of party supporters? If so, it wouldn't matter if it was filmed in Walton or Surrey or wherever.
Current Affairs The General Election
- Thread starter summerisle
- Start date
- Status
Not defending Johnson, but surely the audience will have been vetted to ensure a balance of party supporters? If so, it wouldn't matter if it was filmed in Walton or Surrey or wherever.
tsubaki
Player Valuation: £90m
You do know it was the Tories who came up and implemented the idea of taxing dividend payments for owners of small companies, right?
roydo
in memoriam - 1965-2024
They have always been taxed, dividends that is. Whether there was a nil rate at some point, it passed me by. As it stands, there is a tax difference between divis and income. Labour will remove that. That removes an incentive to have a go.
I'm not sure there's any evidence to suggest we need people to be rich. I know many models might indicate it's a natural end and be neutral on the issue, but don't know any that would actively promote it as a necessity?
The opposite is true for the most part. We have too many people, who are too rich, and who's funds are raising too quickly for the rest of us to sustain. Thats the problem we face as a society. We cannot sustain the lavish spending on the super rich for more longer.
roydo
in memoriam - 1965-2024
But many many very rich people employ people in their business. I just dont get it. Unless you want every single employer to be owned by the state, (maybe you do, dunno, doubt it), Perhaps thats the difference. I like to see businesses thrive and employ people. If the owners get rich, who gives a fig?
You see "too many rich people".
tsubaki
Player Valuation: £90m
Not for owner-shareholders whose income was below the basic rate of tax; they got 100% of dividends (albeit after corporation tax had been paid for the company) until that was changed in the Finance Act 2016 - so they now pay 7.5% above £13000. What Labour would propose would be 20% over £13000, which would probably just result in people paying themselves a salary rather than a dividend.
I have a lot of respect for people who build businesses, particularly ones who truly innovate (which is actually quite rare). That might be a little surprising for someone who's very much on the "other side" of politics, but you are right, you want a society where people want to take risks.
However I do think life is about balance too. Maybe the balance is too far against people who start their own businesses. However we do also have a balanced society where we have decent (or even passable) public services which require investment.
What Labour are proposing to do, is have an economic agenda that moves the question from what benefits a minority of people, to what benefits the majority of us. While in a narrow sense some tax rises for small businesses will be challenging, there will be lots of other broader benefits from the programme (not least a far greater demand for people to buy said products, which has been lacking for many years now).
I don't believe that to suggest such a thing is to be disrespectful per se. It's a worthwhile political discussion. I'm sympathetic to the opposing view and I agree with a lot of it. There is never a completely simple or painless solution to any problem. My gut feeling is though, we need to go in a different direction as a country as what we've had over recent years hasn't worked.
People who run a small company carry risk and probably employ people themselves too. If they make no profits then they cant draw any dividends.
So of course dividends should be taxed more efficiently than salary. Employees don't lose their salary for the month if the employer made a loss. A ahareholder/director might lose lots and not be able to draw a dividend.
The 5k (now £2k) tax free dividend allowance and 7.5% basic rate have been great for incentivising people to start up new trades. I've seen it in practice.
These people aren't rich. And if they get rich, its cause they work enormously hard. They deserve all the support and plaudits they get. They are the cornerstones of the British economy.
I think thats a little harsh mate. When I see people who are successful, whether it's owning a business, or leading a business I have enormous respect and admiration for them. It's brilliant to see businesses, and people thriving.
The point about "too many rich people" was in response to a specific point about requiring wealthy people. I'm not sure what economic model advocates that? I'm aware that some say it's a bi product, but don't know of any that say it has to happen.
If you compare us to our European neighbours, we have more millionaires and billionaires than them. We also have crippling social problems, children who aren't eating, single mums who are having to choose between heating and feeding their kids and they get insulted and attacked by our PM (himself one of the said rich people). The two things are linked.
There is an ongoing assault on ordinary people, but the moment someone tries to question how viable it is to sustain the continued increases in wealth of said group, it's deemed unacceptable.
The UK PLC has a finite GDP. How we choose to allocate that is a political choice. I would politely suggest, when compared to our nearest neighbours who have far fewer super wealthy individuals than us, but far better pensions (amongst other things) they have a better, more productive balance.
People may disagree with that, which is their right. It's a philosophical question. None of this means you aren't happy for people when they are successful, or you don't like to see individuals, or companies thrive, or you want the state to employ everyone.
Is this really where we have come to with such a discussion? You make any comment on the demography of wealth, and trying to re-balance things and you're equated with Karl Marx haha!
I agree with all of that. However employees work hard too don't they? Teachers, Nurses, police officers, fire officers working 60+ hours a week, plus a load more unpaid or un acknowledged. Yet they are expected to pay 3/4/5 times the amount of tax. Why is one set of income viewed so differently to another?
It's very effective though.
You pay 19% corporation tax on your profit before you even begin to extract your money out of the company.
Basic rate taxpayer who runs a Ltd company:
CT 19%
Income Tax 20% on salary
Class 1 NIC 12% on salary
Income tax 7.5% on Dividends
Possibly also student loan.
Please tell me why these people should pay more.
And as I said,nowhere have i said any of those groups don't work hard. Its about risk and job creation. Business owners carry risk and generate employment.
Tell me why they should not be rewarded.
Toast
Player Valuation: £80m
He's now calling them sanitary products now though..
- Status