UKIP's tax focus is on helping low paid, says Farage

[Chippiewill]

UKIP is rethinking its economic policies and no longer backs a single rate of income tax, its leader Nigel Farage has said.

In 2010, the party backed a so-called "flat tax", which it said would be set at 31% and would be achieved by merging income tax and national insurance.

But Mr Farage said he now believed an appropriate top rate of tax was 40%.

He also said he believed no-one earning the minimum wage or below should pay any tax on their earnings.

UKIP, which topped the polls in European elections last week, will set out its economic priorities at its party conference in September, when it will launch a domestic policy manifesto.

It hopes to make a breakthrough by winning its first seats in Westminster next year.

Mr Farage promised to "throw the kitchen sink" at between 20 and 40 seats where he thinks it has a realistic chance of success, including South Thanet in Kent where he said there was a "distinct possibility" he would stand.

Mr Farage also told BBC One's Andrew Marr Show that UKIP was reappraising its tax policies under new economic spokesman Stephen Woolfe.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-27654958

Not too sure Dan will be best pleased about this development, however I suspect that if UKIP attempted to stay the course with their previous policy they would quickly find themselves losing a significant portion of their vote.

[Kardan]

So UKIP and the Conservatives want to lower it to 40%, the Lib Dems want to keep it at 45% and Labour want to up it to 50%.

Personally I would've thought UKIP would have upped it.

[FlyingJesus]

Oooooooops didn't quite get as big a share of the poor uneducated vote as we were wanting so let's change our policies to reel a few more stragglers in. It's a joke really

[-:Undertaker:-]

"I am in favor of cutting taxes under any circumstances and for any excuse, for any reason, whenever it’s possible." - Milton Friedman

My position too. Be as radical in tax cuts as electorally possible.

[Ardemax]

Be as radical in tax cuts as electorally possible.

And then you realise you have a country to sustain.

[-:Undertaker:-]

And then you realise you have a country to sustain.

Taxtion doesn't sustain a country, it damages it.

Economic activity is best left to private companies and individuals where possible, not the state which is incredibly bad at spending money.

[Chippiewill]

Privatise the army!

[lRhyss]

Taxtion doesn't sustain a country, it damages it.

Economic activity is best left to private companies and individuals where possible, not the state which is incredibly bad at spending money.

I'm no expert in this, but I have to agree... Look at Jersey (The small island below England) Tax isn't added to most things there and it's rich as ****

[Kardan]

So can someone explain where we would get all the money from if we no longer tax people on their income?

[dbgtz]

Taxtion doesn't sustain a country, it damages it.

Economic activity is best left to private companies and individuals where possible, not the state which is incredibly bad at spending money.

You're looking at it purely from one perspective.


I'm no expert in this, but I have to agree... Look at Jersey (The small island below England) Tax isn't added to most things there and it's rich as ****

Isn't Jersey a tax haven?

[-:Undertaker:-]

So can someone explain where we would get all the money from if we no longer tax people on their income?

Well your question assumes one would want to keep government spending at the same absurdly high level.

In any case, even if you did want to retain government spending at the same level then there's two ways that government tax intake can actually increase from tax cuts. Either stealth taxes can be increased, or, tax intake increases following tax cuts due to increased economic activity which leads to larger profits & more companies being set up which in turn means a de facto higher tax intake for the government.


You're looking at it purely from one perspective.

And that is what?

[Chippiewill]

So can someone explain where we would get all the money from if we no longer tax people on their income?

I think the idea is that the Government doesn't provide any services and companies do it all instead. This is dumb because companies aren't moral agents.

[-:Undertaker:-]

I think the idea is that the Government doesn't provide any services and companies do it all instead. This is dumb because companies aren't moral agents.

And the state is a moral agent!?

[Chippiewill]

And the state is a moral agent!?

Well, the democratic process goes further than a company would.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Well, the democratic process goes further than a company would.

Does it? A democracy after all operates on the basis that 51% (or even less under FPTP) can dictate to the other 49% by voting in a small group of usually corrupt politicians which will run monopolies. The free market operates on the basis of voluntary contracts between individuals.

I know which I find more trustworthy, moral and qualified to allocate and manage economic resources and capital. And it ain't the politicians (state).

[Sian]

I'm no expert in this, but I have to agree... Look at Jersey (The small island below England) Tax isn't added to most things there and it's rich as ****

It's because the only way for the channel islands to sustain an economy is to give finance business' some free reign. Or so to speak.

Also makes our cost of living much higher then the UK.

And actually quite like that policy, but doubt it would ever happen.

[dbgtz]

Well your question assumes one would want to keep government spending at the same absurdly high level.

In any case, even if you did want to retain government spending at the same level then there's two ways that government tax intake can actually increase from tax cuts. Either stealth taxes can be increased, or, tax intake increases following tax cuts due to increased economic activity which leads to larger profits & more companies being set up which in turn means a de facto higher tax intake for the government.



And that is what?

Well you're purely looking at numbers and not taking into account the benefits of having (some of) the state owned/subsidised services that we do. I'm not saying I agree with certain things being involved with the state, but I'm not blind enough to ignore why they are in the first place.

[Ardemax]

Taxtion doesn't sustain a country, it damages it.

Economic activity is best left to private companies and individuals where possible, not the state which is incredibly bad at spending money.

Unless you plan on privatising everything, reducing taxes dramatically would be a horrendous thing to do.

[God]

Taxtion doesn't sustain a country, it damages it.

Economic activity is best left to private companies and individuals where possible, not the state which is incredibly bad at spending money.

Look at Norway, Sweden, and Denmark. Few of the highest taxes a here. They are living a prosperous and wonderful life.

Norway alone has a Sovereign Wealth Fund from taxing oil companies alone (78%) which last time I checked was US$130,000/Citizen of 5million citizens (total of 656 Billion US$)

Taxation of the rich is the only way. Stop corporate subsidies (because if theirs money to be made, theyre still gonna come and do ****) Everyone should pay their fair share. Those who have just a living wage or below dont need to pay taxes. It's up to those who are much more fortunate to do so.

Noone ever "Earns" $20 million, $3 milnlion, 600 Millio. Heck! Even 1 Billion.

The reason I believe there must be a better system than what we got.


Also on your stance about places with little to no taxation, are richer as if you have lots of money, your not gonna want to pay the most amount of money. The rich go to these areas for a reason.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Also heard you like the idea of Privatization. Now where does that get us?
Removes it from the hands of the public, to a private company.
Costs us MUCH MUCH ******* MORE.
Do you honestly want to be like the Amurikans?



http://snag.gy/WMG3P.jpg