PDA

View Full Version : Families face £1,250 bill to plug black hole


quant
6th Apr 2009, 12:56
I was disgusted when i read the following article:

British families are facing tax increases of £1,250 a year to plug the growing multibillion pound black hole in the country’s finances, an economic think-tank said this morning.

Families face £1,250 bill to plug black hole - Times Online (http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/economics/article6043637.ece)

I'm sick of GB & Labour it's time for a change :yuk:

Metro man
6th Apr 2009, 15:04
Private pension schemes have already been raided, now it's the public sectors turn. Slash MPs and civil servants pensions by the same % that private ones were reduced by. Next get rid of a few thousand useless paper pushers. Problem solved. :ok:

fireflybob
6th Apr 2009, 15:29
Just reduce public (government) spending!

anotherthing
6th Apr 2009, 16:39
Labour has historically been a Spend and Tax party.

Although not happy with what is going to result from their latest debacle - I don't just mean the economic crisis, they wasted millions on made up quangoes before then - it really should be no surprise given their track record.

Coupled with the report linked in this thread, Labour have admitted that the deficit will be more than predicted i.e. things are worse than they thought - though they have said that several times now and keep saying it :eek:

I'm no money expert - just ask my bank manager - but I'm slightly concerned that although jobs are being cut left right and centre with lots of businesses feeling the pinch and the fact that we are in a recession, prices keep rising - Council Tax, Staple food prices, Fuel etc

Surely this cannot be a good thing - rising prices but less money to spend in the first place... I think we have a long way to go before we bottom out yet. £1250 per family per year will be chicken feed by the time Noo Labour have finished with us.

Roger Sofarover
6th Apr 2009, 16:47
I'm sick of GB & Labour it's time for a change

I agree. But a change to what/whom:(

frostbite
6th Apr 2009, 16:58
I know they have no experience in government (but maybe that's a good thing) but my vote will go to UKIP at the next election.

They stand for many things I agree with, and they weren't responsible for our involvement in Iraq.

CathayBrat
6th Apr 2009, 18:10
When the revolution comes, who shall we shoot first? Bank exc's and public figures who think tax money is just their own private piggy bank to be used and abused as they please.
We have our mini budget tomorrow, taxes going up, including a tax on your tax(wtf!?), health care and pensions down!
Now where did i put my gun.......

corsair
6th Apr 2009, 19:28
They were decommissioned, remember?

skiingman
6th Apr 2009, 19:43
I'm just LOLing at the idea that any British political party is, or even possibly could be, responsible for a global financial crisis. You folks sure do have an overinflated sense of importance in this world...

hellsbrink
6th Apr 2009, 19:51
Who said that was the point, skiingman, this extra tax money needed is for the money Gordon Broon has wasted in Britain, and will be happily wasting more of the UK taxpayer's money after this since the announcement of spending £100million on upgrading the transportation network in southern Africa whilst he sits back and watches the UK transportation network creak, groan and collapse.

After all, this "black hole" has been known about since before the economic crisis but has always been denied by ZaNuLabour. I guess even Broon's magical way of counting doesn't work any more, and since he's been caught only his lot have been blaming everything on the "crisis". Most people have known diferently for years....

skiingman
6th Apr 2009, 20:16
Yes, all of your comments also apply to the finances of the United States government, which was legislated from 1996-2006 or 2008 depending on branch by a party that claims fiscal responsibility is Job Number One and shares little ideology with the groups you are complaining about.

Governments everywhere are in a financial mess with few exceptions, and while I expect political hacks to blame it on one party or another, I don't expect sensible people to believe it. Our ideology is vastly different than yours; same mess. Blaming particular politicians is reactionary and a bit pointless.

Michael SWS
6th Apr 2009, 21:05
I'm just LOLing at the idea that any British political party is, or even possibly could be, responsible for a global financial crisis. You folks sure do have an overinflated sense of importance in this world...The majority of regular contributors to blogs and forums in the UK - including this one - are right-wing reactionaries who will attempt to pin the blame for any and everything on the current Labour administration even though, as you say, this global crisis cannot be attributed to any national government. If it is Labour's fault, why is almost every other developed nation in the world, from Australia to Ireland, Latvia to Japan, also suffering?

I guess even Broon's magical way of counting doesn't work any more, and since he's been caught only his lot have been blaming everything on the "crisis". Most people have known diferently for years....Most people?

Even in the depths of a severe economic downturn, the official opposition cannot muster more than about 40% public support in the UK. What does that say about the electorate's confidence in David Cameron to lead the country?

Noah Zark.
6th Apr 2009, 21:47
I'm just LOLing at the idea that any British political party is, or even possibly could be, responsible for a global financial crisis. You folks sure do have an overinflated sense of importance in this world...
Gee, I wish I knew what I thought I knew when I was your age, Skiingman.
What you don't know (obviously) is that, historically, Labour governments have always driven the U.K. into great debt, even without help from Uncle Sam. What is being said in this thread is -Yep, they've done it again. :ugh:

Metro man
6th Apr 2009, 23:30
Anyone remember the 83% tax bracket, plus 15% investment income surcharge which applied back in the late 1970s. I don't think even the Scandanavians managed a 98% tax rate.

hellsbrink
7th Apr 2009, 05:09
Michael, it says a lot about the sheep who vote. And, if my memory serves me correctly, didn't Spitting Image do a sketch about the Tories a few years back when people facing unemployment, repos, etc said they would still vote Tory?

Also, remember that Davey the Kid hasn't had a chance to fight an election against Gordon, or fight an election against Blair whilst leader, so how can you say that he cannot muster the support? Now, considering the small matter of how the public have turned against ZaNuLabour, with almost 60% saying that Davey the Kid is doing a good job and the same amount saying the one-eyed scottish idiot is doing a bad job then I would say the tide has turned, despite it only being a 41% "we want change" as far as the parties go. As things get worse (wait until your taxes go up in the budget), that will be likely to change. After all, it has changed since Goggsy took over, and since nobody exactly knows what is going to happen in this crisis, some people are sitting on the fence at this moment.

One last thing. Exactly what was Labour's popularity at the last election? Oh yes, they won an election with 35.2% of the popular vote, where 61% of the electorate turned out. So that means, in reality, that an even smaller amount of people actually wanted ZaNuLabour back in power (21% of the electorate) than are willing to vote Tory, despite all the vote rigging and gerrymandering that had been going on. Some of the results were expected when there are so many areas where you could put a pile of dog manure up as a Labour candidate and it would still win (although, since the last General Election, they have lost some of these "safe" seats), but that doesn't alter the fact that just over a third of less than two-thirds of the electorate actually wanted Labour in power.

Look at that figure again, Michael, TWENTY ONE PERCENT of the electorate voted Labour. What does that say about the confidence the country had in Tory Bliar in 2005?

Oh, we ain't all right wing reactionaries, and if you had actually read the thread you would see that nobody was pinning the blame for the current worldwide economic meltdown on the one-eyed scottish idiot and his ilk. But there is no escaping the fact that it has been under his watch, and because of his decisions since 1997, the UK is in a worse state to weather the economic storm than most countries in the EU. And it has been stated by many respected organisations for years that the black hole in the country's finances was growing because of his "Borrow and Spend" policies. It's pretty sad that chances are 82% of the UK GDP is likely to be needed to pay for his borrowing, the country is effectively bankrupt, and only one person can be blamed for that.

quant
7th Apr 2009, 06:14
Speculation is mounting that Alistair Darling could tap MIddle England for large amounts of cash (http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/economics/article6043637.ece) to close the £100 billion-plus hole in the public finances when he delivers his Budget on April 22. Here Stephen Herring, of BDO Stoy Hayward, the accountants, outlines his five biggest fears:
1) A cut in higher rate pensions relief
Mr Herring fears the Chancellor will reduce the reliefs on pension contributions currently enjoyed by higher-rate taxpayers. Mr Herrring thinks the current 40 per cent tax relief for higher earners will be cut to the 20 per cent which applies to basic rate taxpayers.
2) An increase in pensions contributions for higher earners in the public sector.
This would be an attempt to spread the pensions pain across the public, as well the private sector. It would affect groups such as judges, doctors, senior civil servatns and senior police officers
3) The abolition of personal allowances for higher earners
Another measure that would hit MIddle England. Mr Herring says: "The size of the tax burden is going to grow massively and the Chancellor may well feel he has to ensure that the wealthier shoulder a greater part of it."
4) An increase in employees' National Insurance contributions
The Chancellor could be tempted to try this because it is an easy tax to collect and could raise suibstantial sums for the Exchequer
5) A rise in VAT
Another tempting target because it can raise large amounts of money.
Mr Herring says: "All of these measures would produce a lot of pain for the inhabitants of MIddle England, but the Chancellor has got to raise a huge amount of monery to finance his spending plans."


Money Central - Times Online - WBLG: Five things to fear from the Budget (http://timesbusiness.typepad.com/money_weblog/2009/04/five-things-to-fear-in-the-budget.html)

:yuk:

Bob Viking
7th Apr 2009, 07:50
I'll admit to not having a fully developed sense of how to run a country's finances but could somebody please explain one thing.

Why the f#ck did the government cut VAT?!

It seems to me that this latest shortfall of about £36 Billion is not far off the amount they threw away by cutting VAT!
Anyone?!
BV:O:bored:

Storminnorm
7th Apr 2009, 07:57
A mass resignation of all MP's should save quite a lot.

More fiddles than Mantovani's orchestra!

hellsbrink
7th Apr 2009, 08:12
Naah, Bob, the VAT cut is around a third of that £36billion shortfall

Bob Viking
7th Apr 2009, 08:22
Not really. They were brieifing it as a £12 Billion shortfall back in January. Surely it's increased since then.
Even if it hasn't increased (due to them using some financial wizardry that I clearly don't understand) it's still a hell of a lot of money that I don't think has done anything to help anyone. Unless I'm missing something!
BV:confused:

hellsbrink
7th Apr 2009, 08:43
If anything, I would say the chances are that the actual cost of the reduction in VAT has dropped, as people are spending less. Less spending equals less VAT being charged so the cost would drop as they are not losing so much on the reduction in VAT (especially bearing in mind how so many "essential" products are zero or reduced VAT rated).

Of course, this will be countered by the reduction in VAT received due to less money being spent, so I guess it will still work out around the same.

Metro man
7th Apr 2009, 14:53
Unfortunately things are past the point of no return. With so many people now living off the state, from civil servants to politicians, unemployed to employed but heavy welfare recipients. No party can do what needs doing to sort things out without disturbing alot of vested interests.

A political party promising to cut welfare, reduce the size of the civil service, cut spending and trim public sector retirement benefits has NO CHANCE of getting elected. The number of productive people left is far to small to change things.

hellsbrink
7th Apr 2009, 16:27
And on the flip side, Metro Man, a party which refuses to cut welfare/public spending will lose because people now realise that they have to pay the extra money they get in the form of extra taxes so they are no better off. Anyone saying that they will put more money in people's pockets, without the added state money, will have a better chance of winning.