| Click here to go to the original topic View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
tiger_j000
Joined: 09 Jan 2006
Posts: 16
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 19, 2006 3:29 pm Post subject: To what extent Labour still and “tax and spend” party |
|
|
Well labour was a tax and spend party in the 70s, i.e high tax use was spent public services, subsidies industries, welfare benefits, redistribution of income.
But that all changed with Brown, but all i can think of is that of stealth taxes and maybe his golden rule |
|
| Back to top |
|
Lord Hargreaves
Joined: 05 Oct 2004
Posts: 7192
Location: Herefordshire
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 19, 2006 4:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The British tax burden is about to reach that of Germany. Labour has forsaw the largest increase in the state from 1997 to the present than any other in the first world. Labour not a tax-and-spend party? Laughable |
|
| Back to top |
|
Jajo
Joined: 25 Jun 2005
Posts: 152
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 20, 2006 7:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Lord Hargreaves wrote: The British tax burden is about to reach that of Germany. Labour has forsaw the largest increase in the state from 1997 to the present than any other in the first world. Labour not a tax-and-spend party? Laughable
Would you support a flat tax then? I am just curious as it is something I have often thought could be interesting to realistically consider, it just would be hard to sell to the wider public that it could in the long run provide benefits. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Lord Hargreaves
Joined: 05 Oct 2004
Posts: 7192
Location: Herefordshire
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 21, 2006 10:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jajo wrote: Lord Hargreaves wrote: The British tax burden is about to reach that of Germany. Labour has forsaw the largest increase in the state from 1997 to the present than any other in the first world. Labour not a tax-and-spend party? Laughable
Would you support a flat tax then? I am just curious as it is something I have often thought could be interesting to realistically consider, it just would be hard to sell to the wider public that it could in the long run provide benefits.
Yes I would support flat tax, with the poor taken out of income tax altogether. Aside from the economic arguments it only seems fair that everyone pay the same rate, although because of the politics of envy which are rich currently in the country I suspect flat tax wouldn't go down that well |
|
| Back to top |
|
bury
Joined: 09 Sep 2005
Posts: 58
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 22, 2006 11:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
if a flat tax rate means the rich pay less then i'm against it and not out of jealousy. the country needs money always has always will.
i think that's pretty much an accepted fact these days. (even for the Right) |
|
| Back to top |
|
Lord Hargreaves
Joined: 05 Oct 2004
Posts: 7192
Location: Herefordshire
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 22, 2006 12:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
bury wrote: if a flat tax rate means the rich pay less then i'm against it and not out of jealousy. the country needs money always has always will.
i think that's pretty much an accepted fact these days. (even for the Right)
"the country needs money"? The country already has money - you propose to take money from the country and give it to the government.
In any rate if you believe in supply-side and the laffer curve, the rich will actually end up paying more. Aside from that, the "rich" (you and I would probably draw a very different line at what wealth constitutes being rich) will only pay the same rate as everyone else. The Rich would still contribute a whole lot more than the poor because they make much more than the poor, by defintion, only with a flat tax the burden is equal. And since its the rich who are least likely to use the services they contribute the most towards - that seems only fair. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| Click here to go to the original topic |
