PDA

View Full Version : 50p tax rate


mrangryofwarlingham
26th Jan 2014, 11:28
Interesting according to Alistair Darling that HMRC figures put the actual sum raised by the higher rate tax rate as £10bn more than government figures.

putting the tax rate back up to 50p is the politics of envy.....when will this country learn to cut its cloth according to its income and wealth?

G&T ice n slice
26th Jan 2014, 11:39
50p tax rate is more like 60 p when you take into account the "national insurance" one has to pay on income as well...

perthsaint
26th Jan 2014, 11:49
No, it's more like 52p.

Wingswinger
26th Jan 2014, 11:55
Actually the highest income tax rate is to be found between £100k and about £117K when one progressively loses the personal allowance - 68% I believe. That is pure theft. There is no other word which fits.

Discorde
26th Jan 2014, 11:58
Those poor multi-millionaires! Let's hope they don't end up at the food bank.

perthsaint
26th Jan 2014, 11:59
It's 62% but it is a bizarre system. Of course the tax on Child Benefit for some is 100%.

B Fraser
26th Jan 2014, 12:01
There is no other word which fits.


I can think of two words. :mad::mad:

Capetonian
26th Jan 2014, 12:05
putting the tax rate back up to 50p is the politics of envy.That is precisely what socialism is about, penalise the wealthy and the hard workers and give their money the feckless and work-shy. The fact that it demonstrably fails time and time again, and always will, does not seem to register.

Andy_S
26th Jan 2014, 13:11
Those poor multi-millionaires! Let's hope they don't end up at the food bank.

I'm not terribly worried about the multi-millionaires ability to feed themselves.

I am, though, worried about the wider implications. I'm worried about what it says about our attitude towards people who become succesful. People who create employment for others. People who, through their earnings, are already paying much more in tax than the vast majority of the population.

I've read that the richest 1% in this country contribute 30% of income tax revenues. That worries me. That and the fact there are people who aspire to run the country who actually want to further punish that 1%.

Discorde
26th Jan 2014, 13:14
My views were aligned with the majority on this thread until I started doing voluntary work (initially as a relief driver for the local Meals on Wheels service). I quickly learned that most of those needing support from the state were not the 'feckless and work-shy' but people who through circumstances beyond their control - sometimes sheer bad luck - had sunk to the bottom of the pile. I'm sure I'm not the first to suggest that the most blatant abuse of taxpayers' money is government incompetence in spending it. The NHS IT fiasco is a prime example.

Dashing off to the air raid shelter . . .

OFSO
26th Jan 2014, 14:16
our attitude towards people who become successful.

Indeed, but there you have the Labour Party. They resent anyone who is a successful businessman and they label such people "toffs" and want to tax them to the point where it become pointless running a business in the UK.

The fact that more businesses means more people employed, and that taxing busineses causes businesses to shut down or move abroad, thus putting people out of work, escapes our socialist friends.

I was having coffee this morning with a friend and his 15 year-old son, and the son's intelligent and logical reasoning of the situation - basically, that a country should encourage and reward people who do well - made me wonder: have the leaders of the UK Labour Party deliberately renounced common sense or are they all just imbeciles ?

Andy_S
26th Jan 2014, 14:19
Dashing off to the air raid shelter . . .

Actually, I think a lot of people here would sympathise with your views.

People, by and large, accept the principle of taxation as a means of helping those genuinely less well off than ourselves and building a more cohesive society. The problem a lot of us have is that governments (of all colours) seem to feel that they should be able to help themselves to what we earn, and forget that it's our money, not theirs. My view is that the government should take only what they need, not what they feel entitled to.

When politicians start using tax as a weapon against those they disapprove of, I think we've got a problem.

Lon More
26th Jan 2014, 14:24
even if you pay the 50p tav rate what you have left over will still buy a lot of beer and pizza

sitigeltfel
26th Jan 2014, 15:34
even if you pay the 50p tav rate what you have left over will still buy a lot of beer and pizza
I fondly remember the times that me and my staff had to work until 2am while Labours Benefits Street voters lounged about eating beer and pizza, paid for out of our taxes. :rolleyes:

Seldomfitforpurpose
26th Jan 2014, 16:02
Those poor multi-millionaires! Let's hope they don't end up at the food bank.

This classically envy inspired mindset is at the heart of what's wrong in the UK :=

TURIN
26th Jan 2014, 16:39
Jeesus, there really are some twisted and bitter old buggers about.
The so called benefit street stereotype is about as likely to vote for Labour (or Con/Lib) as Zippy Farage. They take, they do not give anything back, not even a x on ballot paper.
As for socialism, I agree, it's extremes must be avoided, however, if it wasn't for the NHS, free schooling and hatfull of other policies, people like me would be uneducated, sick and living in poverty.
Please, don't worry though, I know my place!


Posted from Pprune.org App for Android

StressFree
26th Jan 2014, 16:49
'That is precisely what socialism is about, penalise the wealthy and the hard workers and give their money the feckless and work-shy. The fact that it demonstrably fails time and time again, and always will, does not seem to register. '

Perfectly said, 100% correct. Why do the left always want to penalise the successful?

Lon, perthsaint? Why?

Is it because you wish to steal from those who make a go of life to reward those who don't?

Is it?

Socialism has become a disease that pollutes a decent society.......

perthsaint
26th Jan 2014, 17:09
No idea, Stress Free, perhaps you should ask a socialist.

I rather suspect that this isn't about punishing anyone but about finding revenue to pay the interest on the £400m of bonds we issue every day.

Mick Stability
26th Jan 2014, 17:34
One half of this country thinks that you should be able to work hard and keep the fruits of your labour, so that you can give your children a leg up. In turn they will be able to start from the next rung up the ladder and help your grandchildren to be successful too.

The other half of the country thinks you should work hard and pay all your earnings in tax, so that they government can pay off the feckless lazy and workshy. that way you'll die poor and your children will start from the same cess pit as you did.

Shaggy Sheep Driver
26th Jan 2014, 17:38
Darling introduced the 50p tax rate in the dying days of the discredited economy-wrecking Labour government (yes, there was a Banking crisis, not least helped by Brown's removing effective Bank regulation) but the real cause of the deficit and the ongoing massive subsequent debt was Labou spending like a man with 20 arms, all borrowed.

Darling knew 50p was just silly as the wealthy already pay vastly more tax than the rest of us, so he knew Conservatives would reduce it. And that gave Labour the excuse to accuse Tories of 'tax cuts for the rich' which they've never stopped spouting since.

What a load of carp! Labour does NOT understand how business works, ergo does not understand how the world of finance works, hence they meddle in stuff they don't understand and cause us all massive financial problems.

For what they did when last in government (totally and utterly and recklessly and predictably shag the UK economy) they should be banned from office for at least 25 years.

treadigraph
26th Jan 2014, 17:43
"made me wonder: have the leaders of the UK Labour Party deliberately renounced common sense or are they all just imbeciles ?"




I've reached the conclusion they don't want to win the next election as they know full-well they are incapable of sorting out the UK's problems.

Shaggy Sheep Driver
26th Jan 2014, 18:02
It's worse than that.

A large proportion of voters are not too bright. If a cynical politician says "vote for me and I'll squeeze the evil rich, cut Bankers' pay, and freeze energy prices" they say "ooh, that sounds good!" and vote for them.

They are happy to believe there's a free lunch to be had, and the mess we're in is all because of greedy bankers!

Maybe there should be an IQ test before one can vote?

Mike6567
26th Jan 2014, 18:16
Posted by StaceyF (now banned for some reason) on this forum about 5 years ago - to do with tax cuts but still relevant about higher rate taxpayers.

http://www.pprune.org/jet-blast/371464-tax-cuts-pub-restaurant-analogy.html

Never seen this one before, quite interesting:

Let’s put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand. Suppose that every day, ten men go out for dinner. The bill for all ten comes to £100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

» the first four men, the poorest, would pay nothing;
» the fifth would pay £1;
» the sixth would pay £3;
» the seventh would pay £7;
» the eighth pays £12;
» the ninth would pay £18;
» and the tenth man, the richest, would pay £59

That’s what they decided to do. The ten men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement — until one day, the owner threw them a curve (in tax language, a tax cut).

“Since you are all such good customers", he said, "I am going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by £20."

So now dinner for the ten only cost £80.00.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still eat for free. But what about the other six – the paying customers? How could they divvy up the £20 windfall so that everyone would get his ‘fair share?’

The six men realized that £20 divided by six is £3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would end up being PAID to eat their meal. So the restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay:

» as before, the first four men paid nothing;
» now the fifth man also paid nothing;
» the sixth man now paid £2;
» the seventh paid £5;
» the eighth man paid £9;
» the ninth man paid £12;
» leaving the tenth man with a bill of £52 instead of his earlier £59

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to eat for free.

But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

"I only got a pound out of the £20 reduction", declared the sixth man, "but he", pointing to the tenth, "but he got £7!"

"Yeah, that’s right", exclaimed the fifth man, "I only saved a pound too; it’s unfair that he got seven times more than me!"

”That’s true", shouted the seventh man, "why should he get £7 back when I got only £2? The wealthy get all the breaks!"

"Wait a minute", yelled the first four men in unison, "we didn’t get anything at all. This crappy system exploits the poor!"

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night he didn’t show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered, a little late what was very important. They were now £52 short of paying the bill.

And that, boys and girls, journalists, and college instructors, is how the tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up at the table anymore.

Wingswinger
26th Jan 2014, 18:16
For what they did when last in government (totally and utterly and recklessly and predictably shag the UK economy) they should be banned from office for at least 25 years.

Why stop there? Why not send the Labour Party in General and G.Brown esq. in particular the bill?

Even allowing for the fact that he was addressing the Fabian Society, Balls is unbelievable. Balls by name......

The worst aspect of him is that there is not the least hint of contrition.

charliegolf
26th Jan 2014, 18:26
I've read that the richest 1% in this country contribute 30% of income tax revenues.

I'd be interested to read it. Where was it?

CG

Found it. CG

goudie
26th Jan 2014, 18:29
It's a well known adage that you don't make the poor richer by making the rich poorer.
This simple fact seems to be beyond Labour Governments. All it does is pay towards their gross mis-management of the economy.
Having said that all governments are guilty to some extent, but Labour have a very poor track record of financial mis-management.

cavortingcheetah
26th Jan 2014, 18:30
Well, here for a start,UK Budget 2012: Top 1% of earners contribute almost a third of all the income tax | This is Money (http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-2107031/UK-Budget-2012-Top-1-earners-contribute-income-tax.html)
and then here Richest pay 30% of income tax | The Sunday Times (http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/uk_news/National/article1341769.ece)

perthsaint
26th Jan 2014, 18:44
What percentage of total income do the highest-earning 1% receive?

Doors to Automatic
26th Jan 2014, 18:50
I have been incredibly fortunate in life and count my lucky stars every day. Not even in my mid-forties, I have enough investment income that I don't need to go out to work everyday.

Management of my investments takes up around 1 day per week and I do a little consultancy work for another company feeding into a software product for the aviation industry which is paying me a modest retainer. This tops up my income and as the customer base grows should push me towards the point where my personal allowance starts to get eroded away (although of course I don't have to draw it all so I can choose whether to pay less tax in a particular year).

Now I certainly have it in me (and have the time) to set up other businesses, which will provide employment, extra tax revenue and other benefits for the economy and society.

But quite frankly I can't be bothered. The taxation system in this country doesn't make the effort worthwhile and the red tape and employment regulations are completely anti-business. Not to mention the risk I would be taking and the fact that the government will give me no help in the start-up phase but want a huge slice of my profits if I make it big.

No, I might as well have long lie-ins, keep fit and enjoy lots of holidays and time off.

Hardly the sort of system that promotes free enterprise is it!!

But as long as we are soaking the rich it's ok!! :mad:

Wingswinger
26th Jan 2014, 19:09
What percentage of total income do the highest-earning 1% receive?

Methinks I detect a green-eyed monster in the room.

berliner57
26th Jan 2014, 19:13
This is normal for Labour.

I remember the seventies when as a low paid worker paying tax at 33%, with national insurance was probably near 40% being deducted.

Even before the last lot were kicked out, the basic personal allowance was set to be cut, in effect a tax increase.

To my mind they are bad for both the low paid as well as the higher earner.

perthsaint
26th Jan 2014, 19:19
You couldn't be more wrong, Wingswinger.

Got an answer to the question?

Blacksheep
26th Jan 2014, 19:24
Spot on about the seventies. Then there was the first Labour government that kept us in penury to pay for nationalisation. Of course, there were benefits like free school milk, cod liver oil and orange juice to stave off the rickets. True "Austerity" - and they had Adolf Hitler to blame it all on rather than the bankers. :rolleyes:

BenThere
26th Jan 2014, 19:41
Anyone who possesses even a modicum of wealth in a Western economy needs to figure a way to hide or protect his wealth from the ever-increasing revenue needs of our governments to pay for their social programs.

Some do it with gold, some with offshore banking, some with vaults of cash. But capital will always flee its confiscation, to the detriment of the citizens of the nations who want to plunder it.

Discorde
26th Jan 2014, 19:51
I have been incredibly fortunate in life and count my lucky stars every day

Suppose you were born without the talents to do what you have achieved? In other words 'unfortunate'? Perhaps disabled (in body, or worse still, in mind). Would you have expected help from the 'fortunates'? If so, how would that help have been funded?

Back to the shelter.

BenThere
26th Jan 2014, 20:05
In a better day, it was funded by the charitable nature of those who had resources to spare, and felt a civic duty to do what they could to help their communities.

When government, and its coercive powers, was applied to the general welfare, the general welfare declined precipitously. Good people have a natural tendency to help their families first, then their neighbors, then the public at large. Government tends to throw money at what will gain votes.

I'm afraid much of the charitable instinct has been lost; sacrificed to demagoguery, high taxation, and villification of the wealthy who once funded social programs privately with some of the efficiency with which they accumulated their wealth.

MG23
26th Jan 2014, 20:43
Those poor multi-millionaires! Let's hope they don't end up at the food bank.

Most multi-millionaires won't pay the 50% tax rate, because most of their income isn't classed as income. The tax primarily exists to prevent the middle class from becoming rich.

You pay 50% 'income tax', the company pays 12% (I think) 'National Insurance', you pay 2% NI, then you pay 20% VAT on most things you buy. I make that about 65% of every pound an employer pays in that tax bracket going to the government. Probably over 90% if you buy petrol with the money.

I stopped caring about working harder for more money when I hit the 40% tax rate and realized that more than half of any future pay rises would go to the government. If you want to become rich, the best way is to get your cronies in the government to throw billions of pounds of taxpayers' money at you, not to actually work for a living.

Meanwhile, multi-millionaires (and billionaires) just laugh at the proles demanding higher income tax to punish them.

Shaggy Sheep Driver
26th Jan 2014, 21:06
Suppose you were born without the talents to do what you have achieved? In other words 'unfortunate'? Perhaps disabled (in body, or worse still, in mind). Would you have expected help from the 'fortunates'? If so, how would that help have been funded?


How would it be funded, you ask. FUNDED - that means there must be a healthy economy in order to provide such FUNDS. That is the starting point. If the economy is shagged, there are NO FUNDS, just debt!

If Labour get back in and plunge us back into economic ruin, where will the FUNDS to provide public services come from?

There ain't no money tree out there!

Andy_S
26th Jan 2014, 21:28
Even allowing for the fact that he was addressing the Fabian Society, Balls is unbelievable. Balls by name......

The worst aspect of him is that there is not the least hint of contrition.

You know what's left me absolutely gobsmacked tonight? Balls is claiming that he'll need the extra revenue in order to reduce the "huge" deficit Labour would inherit if it won the 2015 election. Yup, read that again..... You'd almost think the budget deficit only happened after the present government came to power.....

goudie
26th Jan 2014, 21:49
The trouble is, these Labour blokes really believe the crap they're spouting, or at least they hope the gullible electorate, who vote for them do.

Capetonian
26th Jan 2014, 21:52
these Labour blokes really believe the crap they're spouting, or at least they hope the gullible electorate, who vote for them do. The sad thing is, the gullible electorate are that stupid. QED.

Krystal n chips
27th Jan 2014, 05:09
" It's worse than that.

A large proportion of voters are not too bright. If a cynical politician says "vote for me and I'll squeeze the evil rich, cut Bankers' pay, and freeze energy prices" they say "ooh, that sounds good!" and vote for them.

They are happy to believe there's a free lunch to be had, and the mess we're in is all because of greedy bankers!

Maybe there should be an IQ test before one can vote

How very perceptive. From the comments posted by some on here it would seem several would not be eligible to vote if your criteria were applied. Most of whom, strangely enough, are unlikely ever to have encountered people whose circumstances were not of their own, in the main, choice.

Your theory and suggestion is, however, clearly evidenced by the growth of U.K.I.P. so at least in this respect you are on the right track.

"Taxing the rich" is a very nice slogan but ultimately not that feasible.

Removing the many tax loopholes that allow them to flaunt the tax system on the other hand, would, in theory at least, ensure revenue collected could be used for public services to be maintained and restored after the decimation policy of the current Gov't.

And a special mention for the unfortunate soul who is under the delusion that we are still living in the Victorian era regarding philanthropy.

Metro man
27th Jan 2014, 06:19
Does anyone remember the 98% income tax rate under Labour in the 1970s ? An 83% tax band plus 15% "unearned" i.e. investment income surcharge.

A A Gruntpuddock
27th Jan 2014, 06:27
I think it was that incredibly stupid tax rate that fuelled the rise in company cars, bonuses, etc to avoid direct taxation.

Only thing worse than a Labour politician is a self-righteous one.

Wingswinger
27th Jan 2014, 06:34
PS,

You couldn't be more wrong, Wingswinger.

Got an answer to the question?

In that case I apologise. No, off the top of my head I don't have an answer but it would be interesting to know; I'll see if Google knows. It is only of slight interest because I don't believe at all that people should be taxed on their income at a higher rate if they earn above a certain figure. I'm in the flat-rate tax fan club. THAT is the only truly FAIR way to do it.

Found this

Oxfam: Richest 1% own nearly half of world's wealth (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/01/20/davos-2014-oxfam-85-richest-people-half-world/4655337/)

and this:

The Top 1 Percent Pays More in Taxes than the Bottom 90 Percent | Tax Foundation (http://taxfoundation.org/blog/top-1-percent-pays-more-taxes-bottom-90-percent)

Relates mostly to USA but it may be an indication of what is going on in Britain because the truly wealthy are international and lots of them have large houses in London and in the British countryside.

It doesn't alter anything for me. Although I've never wanted to be super-rich I do still aspire to be financially independent of the State or anyone else for that matter. That is more and more difficult for middle-class people to do in the current climate of fiscal vindictiveness.

Tankertrashnav
27th Jan 2014, 08:19
Could be worse. My son, who left the army in 2012 lives in the Netherlands and has been doing casual agency work since he left. He has now landed a regular job and his first month's salary was around 4,000 euros, of which he actually got around 2,800 euros, after tax. Many other taxes, notably their equivalent of vehicle excise duty (road tax) are also way higher - he had to downsize his car from a 2 litre turbo diesel Toyota or else pay over 100 euros a month road tax.

On the question of flat rate taxes, Im generally with wingswinger, although I can never understand why National Insurance, which is in effect a tax, is capped at a certain level of income, so that a multi millionaire pays the same NI contributions as your average Joe.

anotherthing
27th Jan 2014, 08:31
I'm all for taxation but the current system IMO is unfair. It penalises success. As tax is a percentage of earnings, those who earn more will automatically pay more. I really detest the way people lose personal allowance just because they get paid in the 100 - 117K Bracket.

It is very cynical - that wage bracket, although fairly high, is not unreasonable now for people who do responsible jobs or have worked hard to get into positions of responsibility.

The high earners are also much less likely to rely on NHS and other subsidies, plus they plough even more into the economy through spending.

A two tier system would get my vote... 15% lower band with the second tier of say 45% kicking in at £55k.

Wingswinger
27th Jan 2014, 09:04
Flat rate. Nothing else is fair.

EG:

First £10k free of tax. If a man or woman has a non-working spouse/civil partner that tax-free band transferable on a yearly basis so a married couple with one income would have £20k free of income tax.

All other income and gains taxed at 15%

To help balance the fiscal situation:

Abolish all income tax reliefs, including pension contributions, apart from the basic £10K tax-free allowance.

Abolish CGT allowance. All capital gains to be taxed at 15%

Abolish tax-free status of gains on house sales. However 15% tax only to be paid when house finally sold/passed to descendants.

Abolish inheritance tax allowance - all estates to be taxed at 15% of net value on death.

Figure of 15% is just illustrative. Actual tax rate would be adjusted on an annual basis.

Then do the same to APD, IPT, VAT, Stamp Duty on property purchase, Fuel Duty, VED etc etc.

Then and only then would we really "be all in it together". It would stop the politicians bribing us with our own money and stop them buying votes with other peoples' money.

Then there is the question of the bloated Social Security and NHS budgets. There's a job to do in this country.

pax britanica
27th Jan 2014, 10:44
There is nothing at all wrong with a 50% tax rate except the level where it is supposed to start, if entrepreneurs are so vital , and that's not to say they are not valuable, and business men drive the economy then if they want the credit for driving the economy and creating jobs they have to take the hits when they f--k it up; which there is no doubt they have done recently.

In that respect a 50% tax on income above say 250k is perfectly reasonable and probably a higher rate on any bonus payments over the same level. No one is going anywhere since Brits can seldom speak a foreign language and having screwed up things here are not that welcome or sought after in countries where our language is spoken.

It doesn't have to be 50% forever once things properly improve, ie lower unemployment and rising wages it can be removed , that is to say there is an incentive for this valuable special breed to do things properly and in a way that benefits the majority rather than a tiny minority.

In other words its just a question of fairness , in the football management sense, its your fault Mr Business /Senior manager /banker things went wrong purely because you were in charge and therefore you have to suffer. Get things right again and you can prosper again.

And by the way I was stuck in that nasty no allowance high tax trap and I deeply resent my Tax being wasted on a all sorts of things (like the Opera) as well as on cheating benefit claimants but I don't think that everyone on a low income, living in a council place, single mother , OAP etc etc is a drain on the country and should be penalised and vilified like some here appear to.

PB

Lon More
27th Jan 2014, 11:00
In a better day, it was funded by the charitable nature of those who had resources to spare, and felt a civic duty to do what they could to help their communities
The same people that organised the Highland Clearances, the Workhouses and sentenced people to transportastion for the theft of a loaf of bread and to hanging for the theft of a sheep?

TTN , Wegenbelasdting depends on a number of factors. Fuel, weight and location. I pay €357 per threee months. for the same car with a petrol engine that would be €175. For a car with a low CO2 output even less. This is somewhat compensated by the price of diesel being lower €1.485/ litre as opposed to €1.768 for Euro 95 petrol. The economic break even point is around 20000k per annum

OFSO
27th Jan 2014, 11:13
Here in Spain vehicle road tax is paid to the local town hall. My petrol Fiesta cost €56 and my diesel Mondeo cost €119 last year. And that's not per month - it's PER YEAR.

Dr Jekyll
27th Jan 2014, 11:22
What percentage of total income do the highest-earning 1% receive?

About 13%. Not that it's relevant. Tax is supposed to be to pay for services not to punish success, and they probably use < 1% of government services.

Doors to Automatic
27th Jan 2014, 11:50
There is a very simple way to ensure that the "wealthy" pay their fair share of tax but that entrepreneurs are incentivised to start businesses.

That is to differentiate the tax rate for earned income via PAYE and income earned from company dividends.

I would make the latter tax free up to say £300,000 and 10% beyond that.

That would mean that an entrepreneur who's small company made profits of £200,000 would be able to draw £160,000 without further tax to pay once corporation tax (payable on profits) of 20% had been paid. They would be on an effective tax rate of 20% up to £300k and 28% beyond that.

G-CPTN
27th Jan 2014, 12:05
Local price of fuel here is £1.309 for petrol and £1.379 for diesel. That's the lowest that it has been since Christmas.
Usually a 7p premium for diesel.

Andy_S
27th Jan 2014, 12:15
Ed Balls is at it again.

He's now denying that the last Labour government spent too much while in office. In fact in some areas he would have been happy to have spent more......

The thought of this man in charge of the treasury is truly terrifying.

BillHicksRules
27th Jan 2014, 14:04
It makes me laugh the picture presented by the right-wingers in here of the "job creators" of our society.

One only has to look at the Sunday Times Rich List to see the lie of that statement.

It is filled with crooks, oligarchs and nobility. Oh My! :cool:

Hard to find a "self-made" man/woman on the list.

These people are are not "job creators" but "wealth creators" who happen to employ.

Those who run companies that "make something" would happily hire children or animals if they thought a) it was cheaper and b) they could get away with it.

The 50p tax rate is a farce just as scrapping it was. Very few if any actually paid it.

Where I do agree with the right-wingers is that we need a simpler tax code for business and individuals. Remove the loopholes and dodges.

Companies like Starbucks being able to claim they do not know how much money they make in the UK and therefore how much tax to pay AND getting away with that, is a farce.

At the other end of the scale why do we allow people to get, what they called in my day "the broo" without making them do something for it?

I have no problem with 0% tax on those on low income since these people are actually working a job. Providing services for the rest of us in most cases. Such as cleaning the buildings of all those poor, unloved millionaires.

Andy_S
27th Jan 2014, 14:52
The 50p tax rate is a farce....

I agree with you there.

The extra revenue generated (if any) will be modest, and insignificant in the context of closing the budget deficit.

The reality is that it is an act of political calculation; a populist gesture that will appeal to the masses, box the Tories into a corner, and possibly drive a wedge between them and their coalition partners.

Shaggy Sheep Driver
27th Jan 2014, 15:23
I'd love Bill Hicks to tell us where he thinks the money will come from to run the country if businessmen and their businesses ceased to exist.

pax britanica
27th Jan 2014, 15:25
Of course the 'percentage factor ' is a big issue here. if you tax someone on 40K a year at 50% he suddenly becomes a virtual pauper.

If you tax a multi millionaire at 50% he is still a multi millionaire.

And as has been pointed out we don't want wealth creators , since they hire tax accountants to evade tax they tend to keep the wealth , we want job creators since the best way to have a less benefit dependent and responsible society is for a close to full employment situation Mind you most of the bring back slavery commentators here would decry that as bad idea since it might increase wages and make the labour market flexible in a way they don't like.

I have to say , as a real middle of the road person, and generally non voter out of contempt for our system and politicians of all hues , I am generally amazed at the almost fanatical right wing zeal that pops up so often on Pprune. Almost as amazed at the fanatical defence of the rich and the management classes who have degraded and devalued the airline pilot profession from 'master after god' , to one earning less than a tfl underground driver.

MG23
27th Jan 2014, 15:29
Isn't it, for 2012-13, 12% of earned income between £7748 and £41,444 and 2% thereafter?

Again, unless something has radically changed since I left the UK, don't forget the 12% or so stealth tax your employer has to pay before you even see any money on your pay slip. That makes NI around 24% of your salary until you hit the 14% bracket.

Lon More
27th Jan 2014, 16:41
187. It's the Same the Whole World Over (Traditional English) - YouTube

hat, coat, door

Dr Jekyll
27th Jan 2014, 17:30
Companies like Starbucks being able to claim they do not know how much money they make in the UK and therefore how much tax to pay AND getting away with that, is a farce.

Starbuck's actual position was that they knew exactly how much money they made in the UK and had paid exactly the correct amount of tax.

sitigeltfel
27th Jan 2014, 18:06
It makes me laugh the picture presented by the right-wingers in here of the "job creators" of our society.

Tell you what.......go out and start your own business. After you have spent five years (if you last that long) battling with the myriad forces of the state who are out to screw you for every ounce of flesh they can trim from you, regardless of whether you are making a profit or not, then come back and tell us what your thoughts are.

On the other hand you can probably prefer to relax in the knowledge that your employer is doing all that for you, taking all the risks and probably working twice the hours you do to provide for your existence.

Capetonian
27th Jan 2014, 18:14
If Starbucks (inter alia) are able to minimise their tax bill by using legitimate loopholes, blame the cretins who drew up the legislation, not those who see the opportunity. It may seem immoral, but illegal it is not. Once again, the green-eyed monster.

ManUtd1999
27th Jan 2014, 19:23
I quickly learned that most of those needing support from the state were not the 'feckless and work-shy' but people who through circumstances beyond their control - sometimes sheer bad luck - had sunk to the bottom of the pile.
I notice people ignored this comment. Pity because it's about the best thing that's been posted on the whole thread.

For what they did when last in government (totally and utterly and recklessly and predictably shag the UK economy) they should be banned from office for at least 25 years.
By that logic surely the Tories would still be serving their ban from 1990?

The reality is that it is an act of political calculation; a populist gesture that will appeal to the masses, box the Tories into a corner, and possibly drive a wedge between them and their coalition partners.
Probably, but then again Osborne and co are well used to playing political games.

If a man or woman has a non-working spouse/civil partner that tax-free band transferable on a yearly basis so a married couple with one income would have £20k free of income tax.
A similar sort of idea on a smaller scale is being implemented. Unrelated point, but this is a shambles of a policy, possibly the worst thing the Tories have done/planned to do whilst in office IMO. Labour could hammer them on it if they woke up.

Back to the 50p rate, and maybe we should keep in mind that it is temporary. We need to deal with the deficit, that is obvious and everyone is going to have to contribute. Families have lost child benefit, the unemployed have seen benefits frozen/cut, public sector workers have had years of frozen pay, everyone has seen public services cut, VAT has gone up (which effects the poor the hardest). Why is it so grossly unfair that we ask the richest (who can, frankly, afford it), to pay 5% more for a few years?

OFSO
27th Jan 2014, 19:50
it is temporary.

I seem to recollect the same phrase was used at the introduction of Income Tax, introduced in 1799, to pay for weapons and equipment in preparation for the Napoleonic wars.

Anyone who believes that any new form or level of taxation that is introduced "on a temporary basis" will in fact only be for a finite period may be interested in investing in my own project for sending pensioned-off Concordes to the moon to bring back the green cheese of which our satellite is reputedly made. I also have a good second-hand Eiffel Tower for sale.

dead_pan
27th Jan 2014, 20:02
If Starbucks (inter alia) are able to minimise their tax bill by using legitimate loopholes, blame the cretins who drew up the legislation, not those who see the opportunity.

Wasn't there a big to-do about secondees from the Big Four helping HMRC devise tax legislation, and then helping their commercial clients avoid these taxes?

Tricky issue this. I think what it boils down to is its all well and good doing the best for your shareholders, but that's little consolation if you end up weakening the societies in which your customers live by depriving them of a fair taxation 'rent'. It will eventually hit your bottom line one way or the other.

Shaggy Sheep Driver
27th Jan 2014, 20:10
Quote:
For what they did when last in government (totally and utterly and recklessly and predictably shag the UK economy) they should be banned from office for at least 25 years.

By that logic surely the Tories would still be serving their ban from 1990?

Not too hot on logic, then, man u?

a) When the Tories left office last time, Ken Clark handed Gordon Brown an economy in absolutely excellent order.

b) When Labour left office last time (and, come to mention it, the time before as well), the economy was shagged.

Remind me, what year did the Tories walk away from a complete financial melt down for the next lot to sort out? Labour did it after Sunny Jim, which Margaret sorted. Brown did it last time to a much greater degree, which the Tories are once again sorting out.

You Labourites have a bluddy cheek, I'll give you that.

dead_pan
27th Jan 2014, 20:11
I see Labour are frantically back-peddling on their 50p pledge. Looks like yet another Balls-up.

dead_pan
27th Jan 2014, 20:16
Brown did it last time to a much greater degree, which the Tories are once again sorting out.

Revisionism ain't what it used to be...

I thought it was the banks that shagged us all? I'm no fan of Labour, but I am man enough to admit that Brown and Darling did pretty well during the crisis. Much of the financial carnage was a consequence of us having to bail out the banks not to mention the post-crisis stimulus measures to try and kick-start the economy.

ManUtd1999
27th Jan 2014, 20:32
I thought it was the banks that shagged us all? I'm no fan of Labour, but I am man enough to admit that Brown and Darling did pretty well during the crisis. Much of the financial carnage was a consequence of us having to bail out the banks not to mention the post-crisis stimulus measures to try and kick-start the economy.

Come on, you won't get far on here with attitudes like that. Everyone knows that it was all Labours fault, the fact that there was a recession in every other major country at the same time is complete coincidence. Brown and Darling did nothing but make the situation worse. In fact, Osborne calling for less bank regulation pre-2008 and no bailing out of the banks during the crisis was the only sensible answer.

Wingswinger
27th Jan 2014, 20:34
No, it wasn't the banks who were really responsible. They did what they were allowed to get away with. Brown & Co adopted a laissez-faire attitude to the banks so they could tax the vast profits being made without a thought to how the profits were being made or even if they were really profits at all. The Government through the Bank of England is supposed to keep an eye on what's going on and stop it if it's too risky or excessive. It didn't.

Shaggy Sheep Driver
27th Jan 2014, 20:47
As me, Wingswinger, and others have already said, there was indeed a banking crisis not least because one Gordon Brown effectively removed bank regulation. That was because he was stupid, really believed "THERE WILL BE NO MORE BOOM AND BUST" (yeah, and no more disaster and disease etc :rolleyes: ).

Because he was enjoying the free ride of credit bank deregulation gave, and because he was too stupid to see it just wasn't sustainable, he borrowed and spent, borrowed and spent, borrowed and spent, borrowed and spent, borrowed and spent, borrowed and spent, borrowed and spent, borrowed and spent, borrowed and spent... well, you get the message. He just kept on borrowing and spending and when the bubble burst (inevitably to anyone with at least a bit of sense, the 'BUST' he had denied would happen) the UK economy was deep, deep, deep... deeper that it'd ever been since WW2, in the SH 1 T.

The banking crisis was not the cause of our present deficit (which continues largely because of one Gordon Brown's vast inflation of the public sector to entirely disproportionate size) and resultant debt. IT WAS BLUDDY LABOUR!

They have shown themselves, time and again, incapable of running the country.

dead_pan
27th Jan 2014, 20:51
Christ, here we go again...

So who was to blame for the banking crisis in the US, Iceland, France, Germany [insert country] etc etc? Ah yes, it was some global left-wing conspiracy, except that wasn't a certain right-wing president in office in the US at the time (but no, you shout, he was Frank 'n' Dodd's stooge!)

Shaggy Sheep Driver
27th Jan 2014, 20:57
Fer ****'s sake... the banking crisis was not the BIG problem we are saddled with now. Why doesn't Germany have our deficit, our debt? Because they didn't have bluddy GORDON BROWN borrowing and spending at phenomenal rates!

You don't get an ongoing deficit and build up a debt like we haven't seen since WW2, on the back of an excellent economy handed from the Tories, through a now-fixed banking crisis. You get it though irresponsibly ludicrous levels of borrow / spend!

perthsaint
27th Jan 2014, 21:02
Gideon is currently borrowing and spending £400,000,000 every single day.

By the time it leaves office the current government will have increased the national debt by more in 5 years than the previous one did in 13.

Carry on.

Shaggy Sheep Driver
27th Jan 2014, 21:14
And the one before that (Tory) paid off the war debt, and didn't need to sell our gold (at the bottom of the market :rolleyes: )to hand Gordon a stable and very healthy economy.

It went downhill like an upside-down Harrier when Labour took the controls.

Not easy for anyone to recover from that.

Miserlou
27th Jan 2014, 21:15
Do you all really think that the current crisis is the fault of only one recent government?

The problems have been coming since the rise of free market capitalist policy, mostly in the developed world.
No such thing as a free market.

A certain level of inequality is desirable however, but we are way over that level.

Please anybody, justify why top level managers are now paid massively more than their predecessors who steered so many companies into higher growth rates than the present day.

The board of my previous employer were still paying themselves bonuses exceeding my (and their) annual salaries right up to the day the company went bust.

Furthermore, much research has shown that bonus-rewarded groups perform LESS well than others without additional incentive.

My policy is a maximum wage DIFFERENCE within a company.

Shaggy Sheep Driver
27th Jan 2014, 21:18
Sorry, that doesn't wash though it's not devoid of truths re widening wealth gap. Otherwise, why the step change from Clark to Brown in the health of the economy? And Sunny Jim last time? No gradual decline.... from good health to disaster in ONE government (2 if you include Sunny Jim's, sorted by Maggie)!

perthsaint
27th Jan 2014, 21:22
You're a trier, Shaggy, I'll give you that.

Why events prior to 1997 are currently relevant is beyond me.

The current government is responsible for the current government's actions, no-one else is.

dead_pan
27th Jan 2014, 21:28
I do wonder what the Tories would have done different had they remained in power in 1996. More bank regulation, less public spending? I think not. Would have been a car crash either way IMO.

Shaggy Sheep Driver
27th Jan 2014, 21:30
The current government is responsible for the current government's actions, no-one else is

I don't think anyone's disputing that.

But if the last lot left you in a terminal dive when they quit the cockpit, you aren't starting from a nice place.

Dead Pan - same bank regulation (i.e. not reduced) controlled public spending, sustainable borrowing. Very much better outcome.

dead_pan
27th Jan 2014, 21:31
Why events prior to 1997 are currently relevant is beyond me

'cos those were the good old days when we had a proper unfettered Tory government! Of course, we can quietly forget the disaster that was the Major government at the end of their term in office.

perthsaint
27th Jan 2014, 21:32
Indeed, dead pan, the reality of British politics for the last 20 years is that the main parties have had virtually identical policies.

Of course, you won't read that in the Daily Heil and therefore it won't reach JB.

vulcanised
27th Jan 2014, 21:35
The trigger for a lot of today's problems was a bunch of crooks in the US and their sub-prime mortgages and the worldwide marketing thereof.

AFAIK no-one was jailed, and many of those involved remain in top jobs and were even promoted.

redsnail
27th Jan 2014, 21:58
Sorry, really not a fan of the 50p tax rate. At the moment I salary sacrifice a heck of a lot of money into my pension to get below £100,000. As I'm PAYE I can't do a lot of clever things that corporations and high net worth individuals can do.

BenThere
27th Jan 2014, 21:59
So who was to blame for the banking crisis in the US, Iceland, France, Germany [insert country] etc etc? Ah yes, it was some global left-wing conspiracy, except that wasn't a certain right-wing president in office in the US at the time (but no, you shout, he was Frank 'n' Dodd's stooge!)

Actually, Frank and Dodge were put in charge of US financial policy as chairmen of their respective committees in Congress by the election of 2006. Frank's boyfriend, in fact, was at the highest level of Fannie Mae. The Democrats had long championed sub-prime mortgages as a means to place minorities in home ownership.

The president, while extremely powerful, has no fiscal authority. All spending bills originate in the House of Representatives under the Constitution. Bush was powerless after losing the House and Senate in 2006. In 2008, when the Democrats held all three branches, all hell broke loose, spending accelerated, and now we have ObamaCare and a doubling of the national debt, $7 trillion and counting added.

And your point was ...?

Miserlou
27th Jan 2014, 22:15
Perthsaint.
Events prior to 1997 are very relevant.

Although I couldn't see it at the time, because capitalism is a reasonably sound system, I did not see that top level earners would be increasing their wages manifold. Whereas once the director would get 10-25 times the average wage, they are now, ca 30 years later, paying themselves 150-400 times the average wage. But they are no better than in former times.

It's your freemarket capitalism which is at fault. I think you'll find Thatcher's government was at the helm at the time.

dead_pan
27th Jan 2014, 22:28
And your point was ...?

...that it wasn't Gordon's fault. Christ, you're killing me...



Posted from Pprune.org App for Android

dead_pan
27th Jan 2014, 22:33
Dead Pan - same bank regulation (i.e. not reduced) controlled public spending, sustainable borrowing. Very much better outcome.

Pish- they would have partied just as hard, if not more. After all, the good times were rolling for ever- remember that?



Posted from Pprune.org App for Android

BenThere
27th Jan 2014, 22:35
I remember Gordon claiming to have suspended the business cycle.

ManUtd1999
28th Jan 2014, 03:37
I do wonder what the Tories would have done different had they remained in power in 1996. More bank regulation, less public spending? I think not. Would have been a car crash either way IMO.

same bank regulation (i.e. not reduced) controlled public spending, sustainable borrowing. Very much better outcome.

Once again, hypocritical, deregulation-loving Osborne attacks Labour over bank regulation | Left Foot Forward (http://www.leftfootforward.org/2012/07/george-osborne-banking-regulation-hypocrisy/)

BBC NEWS | UK | UK Politics | Tories 'to match Labour spending' (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/6975536.stm)

I've made this point a few times. Blame Labour all you like, I agree that they made mistakes and, as the government of the time, are solely responsible for those errors. However, the Tories called for less regulation and pledged to match Labours spending plans in 2007-9. Criticism of such policies now is pure hypocrisy with the huge benefit of hindsight. Cameron likes to re-write history with him as the passenger shouting for Brown to slow the car down and turn-around, in reality he was suggesting he could/should go a bit faster.

BillHicksRules
28th Jan 2014, 07:05
SSD,

I'd love Bill Hicks to tell us where he thinks the money will come from to run the country if businessmen and their businesses ceased to exist.

I would love you to tell me where I said that?

Andy_S
28th Jan 2014, 07:31
Gideon is currently borrowing and spending £400,000,000 every single day.

Because he HAS to! The Tories never pretended, for one moment, that they were going to balance the books overnight; it says a great deal about just how far up s*** creek Gordo and Balls had paddled us that reducing the deficit (in an orderly manner) was an exercise that was going to take several years.

Those who complain about austerity and "harsh" cuts might want to reflect on just how bad things would have been if the coalition had tried to eliminate the deficit from Day 1.

BenThere
28th Jan 2014, 08:00
In general terms, it's a fair premise to say that conservatives (Tories) will be pro-business while liberals (Labour) will be pro-worker.

The irony is that pro-business policy tends to grow the economy, which ultimately benefits the worker more than pro-worker policies that tend to hobble business.

Our respective economies under Reagan and Thatcher prospered to a degree I would challenge any lefty to refute. They had to overcome the devastated, inflation-wracked economies they were handed, and they did through sound economic policy.

If the people truly wanted to do better for themselves, today and into the future, they would run headlong toward conservative government. That they don't is a victory for left wing demagoguery, envy, and sloth.

dead_pan
28th Jan 2014, 08:33
As one poster pointed out above, here in the UK there is only a shade of grey or two between the mainstream political parties in terms of their general thrust. Labour did all right during the early part of their last administration, although the adage about a turkey flying in a tornado comes to mind. They certainly weren't anti-business, far from it.

The fact of the matter is that governments of all shades around the globe were caught out by the 2008 crisis. They may well have had a degree of culpability in terms of not keeping their eye on the ball or spotting the warning signs. The bulk of the blame lies with the banking industry who clearly knew what pressures were building but did b*gger all about it, happy instead to carry on trousering their bonuses.

On a related topic, it'll be interesting to see what happens in China when their shadow banking sector eventually croaks. You can be sure their bankers won't be quietly paid off and put out to grass...

mrangryofwarlingham
28th Jan 2014, 08:41
UK would still have had a banking crisis under the tories.
Not so much to do with sub-prime problem spreading from the USA but due to reckless lending by certain banks in the UK. Northern Rock was giving 125% mortgages, Halifax was lending to all and sundry.
so when liquidity dried up.....and property prices came down...banks were left with loans greater than the value of secured assets. So they needed to be bailed out in terms of liquidity and also in terms of equity.

Tories and Labour were both advocating less regulation, and bank shareholders were pushing for more leverage.

Music stopped, punch bowl ran dry, and headache ensued.

Why did the crisis impact UK so much? 'cos UK has some of the world's biggest banks.
Why is the problem so big now? In part because of Labour's tax and spend, but Tories would only have been marginally better; this country is after all socialist at heart. The policies of the two are very similar. The real reason is because >50% of government spending is on pensions, health and welfare state. If you want to make big inroads into spending, and thus be able to reduce taxation, you need to reduce these 3. Well health is off limits....and to reduce the pensions of a growing OAP population would be political suicide. So it falls to IDS to cut welfare.

The simple choice is this....cut back UK spending, or eventually we will have >10% interest rates, >50% taxation for everyone, and an economy on its knees.

Capetonian
28th Jan 2014, 08:51
What is interesting about 'flat', rather than progressive, tax rates, is not only the inherent fairness of such a system, but the fact that they have been adopted in some ex-communist countries. Those who suffered under communism are now moving the opposite way and encouraging a business and work friendly environment.

I had this email the other day from a friend who has been working in the sinking ship of France for a few years and is leaving, like so many others :

Many of my colleagues live in the Czech Republic which has a very dynamic economy, it is business friendly and fairly low on taxation...Ironically given its past. I hear the same applies to Latvia, also doing pretty well with a standard rate of tax, 17% I am told.

I was thinking of Belgium. Someone told me the other day that even though the country is way smaller than France they have way more civil servants, probably three times as they have three languages not to mention the EU to support, and taxes are through the roof in that country. And the place still looks rather bedraggled and grim.

Shaggy Sheep Driver
28th Jan 2014, 09:02
mrangryofwarlingham, I have to disagree with you forcefully that the Tories would have pursued a similar 'tax & spend' as Labour. Labour actually pursued a policy of 'borrow & spend' to a degree that lead us so deep into debt that even the finest financial management will take decades to sort out.

You can't tell me Tories would have done that - it isn't in their blood! Amply illustrated by the state of the economy on handing it over to the wreckers (Labour, just so there's no doubt). Twice!

Andy_S
28th Jan 2014, 09:05
Labour did all right during the early part of their last administration, although the adage about a turkey flying in a tornado comes to mind. They certainly weren't anti-business, far from it.

Would generally agree, although it's worth noting that in the early part of the last Labour administration, a) they had inherited an economy in reasonable shape, and b) they stuck to the Conservatives spending plans. Unfortunately Blair, with his pretty little head full of fantasies of world leadership, took his eye off the ball and pretty much delegated the economy to the psychologically flawed Gordo, with his own fantasies of having abolished boom and bust forever.....

I think most objective people would agree that there would have been a banking crisis under the Tories; some of us are even willing to consider the possibility that Gordo handled the crisis better than the Tories would have done. Nevertheless, Brown & Balls’ grotesque mishandling of the economy made the banking crisis much more difficult to absorb.

Cameron’s comments about failing to fix the roof while the sun is shining are quite pertinent.

Lon More
28th Jan 2014, 09:11
Cameron’s comments about failing to fix the roof while the sun is shining are quite pertinent.

Unfortunately Camerloon is set to sell it off to the highest bidder.

mrangryofwarlingham
28th Jan 2014, 09:22
Shaggy

look at the numbers. Overall coalition taxation and spending has not changed very much. We are STILL getting further and further into debt under this government. The thing that has slowed down is how fast the amount of our debt is accelerating...........

overall very similar social and economic policy. Of course that is to some extent dictated by being member of the EU.

dead_pan
28th Jan 2014, 09:27
Well health is off limits....and to reduce the pensions of a growing OAP population would be political suicide. So it falls to IDS to cut welfare.

I thought health was back on the table, given recent comments? Of course, a large proportion of welfare is spent on OAPs, although here is not the place to discuss cutting these, as I've recently discovered. Must be something to do with the demographic of yer average ppruner - they're very possessive about their free bus passes and winter fuel allowances :ok:

The simple choice is this....cut back UK spending, or eventually we will have >10% interest rates, >50% taxation for everyone, and an economy on its knees.

Spot on, but no party would ever be elected on this mandate. So the alternative is... a slow and lingering descent to oblivion? We may as well give Nige a crack at governing the country - at least we'd all have a laugh as the walls came crashing down.:(

Shaggy Sheep Driver
28th Jan 2014, 09:31
mrangryofwarlingham, it's not only dictated by EU, but more so by Cameron's need to remain electable if he is to finish the job. If the coalition had immediately reversed Gordon's massive increase of the public spending on first entering office, it would have been terrible for a lot of people and not a good way to turn around the economy.

It takes time.... decades to undo the sort of harm Gordon left. So he has to continue silly borrowing levels for now, but slowly, slowly the ship is turning, confidence is growing, and things are starting to look a tad less bleak than at the end of Gordon's disastrous reign. But there's a long way to go yet, and so borrowing will remain high for a while.

mrangryofwarlingham
28th Jan 2014, 09:59
which is sadly all a bit futile.
because by the time the government has brought the rate of growth of the debt under control, the country will have lost patience with the austerity (they think rampant over spending is the norm now) and will vote Labour back in.

Always easier to accumulate debt faster than it is to pay it back. (well in my experience anyway.)

BillHicksRules
28th Jan 2014, 10:17
Does anyone actually trust either the Tories or Labour to be able to actually turn this around?

Does anyone actually believe that the Tories would have actually prevented the fix we are in had they been in power post-1997?

Andy_S
28th Jan 2014, 11:07
Does anyone actually trust either the Tories or Labour to be able to actually turn this around?

Yes. I trust the Tories to turn it round. They’ve done it before and they appear to be doing it again.

Does anyone actually believe that the Tories would have actually prevented the fix we are in had they been in power post-1997?

As far as the banking crisis is concerned, no, I don’t think the Tories would have prevented it. But I think, in running the economy more competently, they’d have found it easier to deal with the aftermath.

Shaggy Sheep Driver
28th Jan 2014, 11:45
Exactly what Andy S said. So 'YES' and 'YES', emphatically.

BillHicksRules
28th Jan 2014, 12:31
Well that is two for the blindly-deluded list.

On both counts.

Andy_S
28th Jan 2014, 13:18
Bill,

Are you suggesting that there's no economic recovery taking place?

SARF
28th Jan 2014, 14:06
The economy will probably follow its usual path. The Tories will slowly get the country's finance on an even keel .. As the feel good factor comes back they will fall apart over Europe or Scotland or scandals.. Some blue eyed labour frontman will get elected and then proceed to fk it all up again. See you all here in 20 years again

dead_pan
28th Jan 2014, 14:20
1.9% is hardly stellar growth, and most of this seems to be coming from London which is slightly troubling (begs the question what short-term play have the City dreamt up that will come back to bite us - ETFs, the fracking/ graphene/Bitcoin crazes??). Exports aren't doing so well, which is a better bell-weather IMO.

sitigeltfel
28th Jan 2014, 14:58
Treasury questions in Parliament today...


Balls talking........well, balls!

A5bDHL_e-iA

;)

Andy_S
28th Jan 2014, 15:08
1.9% is hardly stellar growth, and most of this seems to be coming from London which is slightly troubling

This is true, and only the most stubborn optimist would pretend that it's a perfect recovery.

Nevertheless, it is a recovery. 1.9% may not be "stellar" growth but it is better than most other Western economies, and is forecast to accelerate. Unemployment is falling, as is inflation, and business confidence is on the rise. And this despite the naysayers assuring us that "austerity" would kill recovery stone dead. A point which seems to have been lost on Ed Balls.

charliegolf
28th Jan 2014, 15:13
As a result of some of the arguments in this thread.

But having read the whole thread, there seem to be very few Ppruners equipped to see the other side of the argument- save to pick it off with theirs. Einstein had a great quote about early prejudices being hard to crack- must dig it out.

CG

Shaggy Sheep Driver
28th Jan 2014, 15:44
There isn't another side to this argument. How could there be?

Labour F.U. the economy.

Tories fix it, hand it to Labour.

Who F. it U. to an even more spectacular extent.

Tories have a bigger job this time, but the evidence is definitely there that they look to be succeeding in getting it sorted out (again). Long way to go yet, though.

Is anyone disputing that that happened?

Of course not, unless they live in La La Land, because those are not 'opinions' but are indisputable facts.

So what is this 'other side of the argument' of which you speak?

dead_pan
28th Jan 2014, 16:02
There isn't another side to this argument. How could there be?

I think you just proved CGs/Einstein's point.

Of course there is another side to an argument i.e. the wrong one :ok:

Krystal n chips
28th Jan 2014, 17:05
A more, realistic view and comment, albeit unpalatable to those who casually dismiss the Tories policies of revitalising the economy by virtue of inflicting financial hardship on people who, through a combination of circumstances, are unlikely to offer any real resistance...... known as bullying.


Ed Balls's 50p tax rate won't harm business ? but these kleptocrats will | Polly Toynbee | Comment is free | The Guardian (http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/28/50p-tax-kill-business-kleptocracy-inequality-captains-of-industry)

ManUtd1999
28th Jan 2014, 17:30
The Tories never pretended, for one moment, that they were going to balance the books overnight

They did originally say they'd do it in 5 years (a ridiculous idea). That target is now 8 and counting..

Nevertheless, it is a recovery. 1.9% may not be "stellar" growth but it is better than most other Western economies, and is forecast to accelerate. Unemployment is falling, as is inflation, and business confidence is on the rise. And this despite the naysayers assuring us that "austerity" would kill recovery stone dead.
Recovery (if only in London), is undoubtedly good. Austerity did essentially put the entire economy on pause though. Remember we had had 2/3 quarters of growth at the end of Labours time that turned into 3 years of flatlining after austerity was introduced. Whether Balls was right and that a lower pace of deficit reduction could have kept growth whilst keeping the markets happy we'll never know.

There isn't another side to this argument. How could there be?
Seriously, you couldn't make these quotes up

ManUtd1999
28th Jan 2014, 17:35
Ed Balls's 50p tax rate won't harm business ? but these kleptocrats will | Polly Toynbee | Comment is free | The Guardian (http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/28/50p-tax-kill-business-kleptocracy-inequality-captains-of-industry)

:ok::D

Andy_S
28th Jan 2014, 18:03
A more, realistic view and comment

From Polly Toynbee???

Shaggy Sheep Driver
28th Jan 2014, 18:06
I didn't even bother to reply to that Gruniad piece posted from Toynbee. It was well down to her usual La La Land standards!

It was Toynbee's ludicrous rantings that finally persuaded me to give up taking the Gruniad some years ago.

perthsaint
28th Jan 2014, 18:12
The global economy's recovering (although China's rate of growth is slowing) and Gideon's printing £400,000,000 of new money every day. It would be worrying if there wasn't growth.

Won't it be fun when interest rates go up?

Capetonian
28th Jan 2014, 18:19
Surely nobody other than sandal wearers and tree huggers takes Polly Toynbee seriously, or indeed anything in the Grauniad. I thought she was a failed comedian.

pax britanica
28th Jan 2014, 21:44
Looking back across this whole thread one gets a pretty good idea of what is really wrong with the Uk-ie a very polarised set of opinions which politicians have to pander to in order to get elected.
Until this government we seem to have had a choice between
Tories, competent but corrupt and uncaring
Labour well intentioned but not very good looking after the pennies.

Take two long serving PMs-Maggie Thatcher- very capable until she went a bit batty but also a wicked cruel uncaring woman who destroyed the essential social balances especially necessary in a small county with a lot of people.
Tony B, started out trying to make a difference but power went to his head and he lost focus while trying o become an American hero while not reigning in people like Brown and Balls who (according o most business men and the City ran things very well for a while but then along with the bankers went completely off the reality rails

Over time we have seen our economy get wildly unbalanced to the point where Financial services , which really boils down to gambling with or stealing other peoples money and very few jobs or companies that actually produce anything of real value.

So will we ever get a sensible middle of the road government (like Germany) representing ideas and policies than probably 75% of the population can go along with or struggle onwards and downwards with our antagonistic system that sees us lurch left or right every seven or eight years.

Dismal prospect unless we can find a government that addresses a wide cross section of British interests rather than waste their years in office with petty arguments

ManUtd1999
28th Jan 2014, 21:58
Excellent post. People who try and paint Thatcher as a god who did no wrong and Blair/Brown as the opposite lose credibility. Thatcher made undoubtedly good reforms, but at a huge cost with the breakdown of "society", and some areas still haven't recovered today. Blair and Brown in turn made mistakes, but people forget the huge improvements in public services, minimum wage, devolution etc.

I decided to read Blair's autobiography the other month and I was pleasantly surprised. Just in the introduction he spoke more sense than most politicians ever do. He talks of a need to get away from right v left thinking and accept that both sides have good ideas, how our current NHS/pensions/way of life is unsustainable as we live longer. If only he'd actually acted about any of it Britain might be doing a lot better today.

Krystal n chips
29th Jan 2014, 04:45
UK growth ......

Steve Bell on food banks ? cartoon | Comment is free | The Guardian (http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/cartoon/2014/jan/29/food-banks-europe-growth-cartoon-bell)

Reminds me of last Christmas, in Waitrose, when "madam" had a truly theatrical "Oh my God !! " moment as she lamented to the fact that, the store had run out of..gravlax !....words along the lines of "utterly appalling! atrocious ! how could they !" etc duly followed....."madam", like so many on here it seems, being happily unaware of the realities of life and that just down the road was.....a food bank.

Yes, I shop at Waitrose, and Aldi and Asda and Morrisons .....but Waitrose will attract some facile comments, hence a simple explanation for the simple minds.

Waitrose have a very ethical policy of selling food, at a considerably reduced cost, but with the same quality, when the fabled "sell by date approaches.

All it takes is a bit of very basic prudence and you can make considerable savings.

mrangryofwarlingham
29th Jan 2014, 08:16
Austerity ? The UK is still on a spending spree.......

reduce the pace of deficit reduction ?
UK deficit falls to £96bn after drop in unemployment and higher tax receipts | Business | theguardian.com (http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/jan/22/uk-deficit-falls-lower-unemployment-higher-tax)

UK government is currently pursuing a tax, borrow and spend policy.
In fact they will borrow >£100bn this year. Pretty much same as Labour, just that Tories want to reduce all three....reduce tax, reduce borrowing, reduce spending. However, spending next year in absolute terms will go up.....it pretty much always has done under UK governments. So at some point either the tax receipts go up, or borrowing does.

Not a good UK outlook.

dead_pan
29th Jan 2014, 08:28
So will we ever get a sensible middle of the road government (like Germany)

I holidayed in northern Germany last summer and was deeply impressed - the nation is uber-confident and seemingly going from strength to strength. I was also taken by the 3 months of negotiation following Frau Merkel's electoral victory resulting in the formation of the grand coalition of the main parties (CDU/CSU and SPD). This sort of consensus building just wouldn't happen here in the UK.

Discorde
29th Jan 2014, 09:26
Apologies for airing this one again:

Scene: a Gentlemen's Club in London, early 1975. In the reading room, sampling brandy and cigars after an ample dinner, sit three senior members of the club: Sir John Hyphen-Smith, Lord Niemand and Denis Thatcher. All three are directors of Burmah Oil. The conversation has turned to the future of the Conservative Party, still reeling from the shock of two election defeats the previous year.

JHS: Heath's got to go. Utterly useless, grammar school twit. Said so years ago.

LN: Quite. Incredible that he actually managed to win in 1970. I suppose everyone was just pissed off with Wilson.

DT: He was on the right lines then. Shame he went native afterwards. Problem is, who are we going to replace him with? The senior sorts are all lightweights apart from Willie Whitelaw, and he's a bit soft. All the best people are in business, not politics.

LN: If only we could bring that actor chappie over from the States. You know, he was the Governor of California.

JHS: Yes, what's his name? Richard Regan? Something like that.

DT: Know who you mean. Sound fellow. Did well, cutting dole payments to the idle oiks too lazy to work. Facing down student pinkos.

LN (grinning): Just had a brainwave!

JHS: Go on.

LN: It's obvious. Your missus, Denis!

DT: What?!

LN: Margaret! She's pretty sound on most things. Thinks like we do. We make her the leader then when we get elected we use her to get what we need. Cut taxes, castrate the unions, cut public spending and so on. She's ambitious, Denis, you've told us that yourself.

DT: Do you know, it could work. A bit of a shove from me and away we go.

JHS: The party will never accept a woman leader. Never!

LN: But she thinks like a man! That's a compliment, not an insult, Denis! I bet she could beat Heath in a leadership election. Most people can't wait to see the back of him.

DT: Leave it with me, old boy. I'll have a quiet word in her shell-like and if she's game we'll set up an organisation. Airey Neave would run it if we asked him. Gentlemen, raise your glasses. To Margaret Thatcher, Prime Minister!

LN and JHS: Hear, hear!

Wingswinger
29th Jan 2014, 09:38
And the point of that fantasy is?

Shaggy Sheep Driver
29th Jan 2014, 09:44
Where did you find that load of carp, Discorde?

Whatever you think of Maggie she was her own woman! She wasn't doing anyone else's bidding, especially that of old duffers like Dennis!

And Pax - Conservatives corrupt? I think they pail into insignificance in that department compared to Labour!

Wingswinger
29th Jan 2014, 09:52
It's the sort of thing that belongs in the R4 lefty unComedy half-hour at 1830.

dead_pan
29th Jan 2014, 09:53
And the point of that fantasy is?

To waste another few precious moments of our lives?

Where did you find that load of carp, Discorde?

Don't mince your words Shaggy - tell him what you really think :ok:

sitigeltfel
29th Jan 2014, 10:20
A tongue in cheek riposte to Discordes post…

Kinnock “What’s this big idea of yours Arthur?”

Scargill “I’ll bring the miners out on strike and bring down the Tory government.”

Kinnock “But if you cut off power supplies, the weakest in society whom the Labour movement is supposed to protect, will suffer the worst.”

Scargill “But comrade, the struggle for workers rights has always had its casualties.”

Kinnock “How will you fund all this and keep the NUM afloat?”

Scargill “Well, that nice Mr Gaddafi has promised to send us some cash, but keep it quiet.”

Kinnock “Not sure about that, is it legal?”

Scargill “Who cares.”

Six months later…

Kinnock “What the hell have you done. You lost the strike, set back the Labour movement for a decade, lost the miners their jobs and ensured no one will ever employ them again!”

Scargill “Who gives a shit; I’ve still got my fat NUM pension and the use of a London apartment for life.”

(The strains of the “Red Flag” fade gently into the background……..)


;)

BillHicksRules
29th Jan 2014, 10:51
SSD,

As someone with no allegiance to any party anymore, I can say that in all honesty over the past 40 years the Tories are professionally corrupt whereas the other parties are barely enthusiastic amatuers.

p.s. I did like that you did not dispute uncaring

Andy_S
29th Jan 2014, 11:00
As someone with no allegiance to any party anymore, I can say that in all honesty over the past 40 years the Tories are professionally corrupt whereas the other parties are barely enthusiastic amatuers.

And yet it's only Labour MP's, not Tories, who have been sent to jail in recent years......:E

The reality is that greed in all it's manifestations, from cushy employment conditions through inflated expenses to systematic calculated corruption is not unique to any one party.

Wingswinger
29th Jan 2014, 11:09
To be fair there was this chap:

Lord Hanningfield defends 'clocking in' to claim expenses | Politics | theguardian.com (http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/dec/17/lord-hanningfield-clocking-in-expenses)

Andy_S
29th Jan 2014, 12:03
And this one:

BBC News - Denis MacShane jailed for MP expenses fraud (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-25492017)

BillHicksRules
29th Jan 2014, 12:10
Archer, Hamiltons, Aiken, Clark, Mellor, Major, Currie, McLetchie, Conway, Fox, Hunt ........

Yeah the Tories are squeaky clean.


p.s. Those are just off the top of my head. I am sure a Google-Whack would bring up many more.

The Tories are corrupt not only politically but morally, sexually, financially and spiritually!

Andy_S
29th Jan 2014, 12:41
OK, how about David Chaytor, Elliot Morley, Eric Illsley, Jim Devine, Margaret Moran?

If you add Denis MacShane to that list, that's 6 Labour MP's, 4 of whom went to jail, and one who probably only got away with it because she claimed mental health issues.

Are the Tories squeaky clean? Of course not. But Labour are every bit as bad - morally, sexually, financially and spiritually. And BTW - aren't the Lib Dems in all sorts of problems at the moment regarding the personal conduct of a number of their representatives and officials?

Like I say, it's not unique to any one party.

Shaggy Sheep Driver
29th Jan 2014, 12:44
p.s. I did like that you did not dispute uncaring

Well, Bill, that's because if anyone really thinks Labour politicians 'care' more than Conservative (or any other) then are truly in La La Land, with the exception of Thatch, who cared deeply otherwise she wouldn't be so unpopular with the feckless and those who always look to others to blame for their failures in life.

And I didn't wish to insult you. :E

Oh, there was one other who obviously 'cared'. Tony Blair - cared an awful lot about his own post PM career success. With some obvious success (for him!).

MagnusP
29th Jan 2014, 13:47
Tony Blair - cared an awful lot about his own post PM career success

Wonder if he's paying full tax on his not inconsiderable earnings. (See Private Eye issues passim ad nauseam).

G&T ice n slice
29th Jan 2014, 13:54
Poulson?, Poulson?, never heard of him.

T.Dan Smith - must be a made-up name.

Nothing to do with anything involving the Labour Party!

sitigeltfel
29th Jan 2014, 15:54
A new word to remember...."Hollibandism"!

The economic numbers coming out of France are horrific, the Wall Street Journal (http://on.wsj.com/1cpUazl) is reporting that new investments by foreign businesses in France fell sharply in 2013 by 77%. By contrast, foreign investment in Angela Merkel’s Germany almost quadrupled, even in Spain, Italy and Ireland foreign investment rose. The explanation is that France has a left-wing socialist government. Hollande’s great admirer Ed Miliband is likewise promising to bring back socialism to Britain: “What President Hollande is seeking to do in France and what he is seeking to do in leading the debate in Europe is find that different way forward. We are in agreement in seeking that new way that needs to be found and I think can be found.”Hollibandism Sees Foreign Direct Investment Fall 77% - Guy Fawkes' blog (http://order-order.com/2014/01/29/socialism-hollibandism-sees-foreign-direct-investment-fall-77/)

That's what big tax hikes do......but they never learn.

mrangryofwarlingham
29th Jan 2014, 16:04
When Tony B won in 97, and effectively continued with Tory politics for a couple of years, I thought he actually did quite well in those two years.

I can recall thinking that Tony Blair might have made a good Tory prime minister......
He was the one that most steered Labour ("New Labour") towards the right or more the centre if you prefer, or less to the left....was shameless in stealing good policies.

Now this brother of Dave Milliband....he wants to veer towards the left.
very populist that. might even get himself elected as prime minister.
unfortunately once voted in the 5 years, the public that put him there will realise it is not all cake with the smooth and slick promises. putting tax up to 50% for high earners doesn't actually achieve very much to reduce the deficit.

sitigeltfel
1st Feb 2014, 11:17
Compelling evidence that socialists only want to punish the wealthy and are not interested in raising any extra tax...

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/files/2014/01/BfFxhYJCYAAc_JC.jpg

Labour supporters admit it: taxes are to punish the rich, not to raise revenue ? Telegraph Blogs (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100257586/labour-supporters-admit-it-taxes-are-to-punish-the-rich-not-to-raise-revenue/bffxhyjcyaac_jc/)


http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100257586/labour-supporters-admit-it-taxes-are-to-punish-the-rich-not-to-raise-revenue/bffxhyjcyaac_jc/

Seldomfitforpurpose
1st Feb 2014, 11:28
Politics of Envy, always has been and always will be. But what brings the most giggles is that under Liabour the poor never actually get richer and the rich never actually get poorer but folk fall for it every time.

Just a thought but I often wonder just how much Millipede, Balls and the rest of the opposition front bench are actually worth......or if any of them ever lived 'the life' of any of those they actually represent.