Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Social > Jet Blast
Reload this Page >

UK politics - Hamsterwheel

Jet Blast Topics that don't fit the other forums. Rules of Engagement apply.

UK politics - Hamsterwheel

Old 6th Oct 2018, 05:50
  #16061 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: The Winchester
Posts: 5,574
Going to be a bit quiet around here if we are no longer going to be able to use sources who are considered to be hypocrites or working at the limits of U.K. tax legislation

Pretty much rules out the whole of the U.K. media and a fair few politicians.....
wiggy is offline  
Old 6th Oct 2018, 12:02
  #16062 (permalink)  
Thought police antagonist
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Where I always have been...firmly in the real world
Posts: 943
Now which media sources could he possibly be thinking of ??

To save the deductive reasoning skills being over stretched, lets rule out the source of the article .....

And a muted round of applause for Dave as well please......good statesman that he was when representing the nations interests.....

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...-press-freedom
Krystal n chips is offline  
Old 8th Oct 2018, 06:41
  #16063 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: In the circuit
Posts: 177
I see from the Telegraph today that Hammond intends to fund the £20Bn NHS payment by raiding higher rate Pension Tax relief. Clearly taxes have to be raised to pay for the bloated and expanding NHS, however I would prefer it if they dropped the sanctimonious "we" when talking about where this tax burden will fall. "If we want a properly funded NHS we're all going to have to pay more for it" they pipe. It's not "we" when the money will come from reducing tax relief for those on £0.40 or £0.45 tax rates who happen to be paying into a pension to fund their retirement. They constitute 13.7% of taxpayers, so the "we" is a very small slice of people who will be funding this injection of cash into an organisation that will be the equivalent of throwing a bucket of water into the Atlantic.

I have said before, and will repeat that if "we" want a properly funded health service the way to pay for it is through VAT, with tiered rates making unhealthy choices more expensive.
Groundbased is offline  
Old 8th Oct 2018, 08:31
  #16064 (permalink)  
Thought police antagonist
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Where I always have been...firmly in the real world
Posts: 943
Originally Posted by Groundbased View Post
I see from the Telegraph today that Hammond intends to fund the £20Bn NHS payment by raiding higher rate Pension Tax relief. Clearly taxes have to be raised to pay for the bloated and expanding NHS, however I would prefer it if they dropped the sanctimonious "we" when talking about where this tax burden will fall. "If we want a properly funded NHS we're all going to have to pay more for it" they pipe. It's not "we" when the money will come from reducing tax relief for those on £0.40 or £0.45 tax rates who happen to be paying into a pension to fund their retirement. They constitute 13.7% of taxpayers, so the "we" is a very small slice of people who will be funding this injection of cash into an organisation that will be the equivalent of throwing a bucket of water into the Atlantic.

I have said before, and will repeat that if "we" want a properly funded health service the way to pay for it is through VAT, with tiered rates making unhealthy choices more expensive.
The opening almost gave some hope this was a post that would be critical of the current Gov't. but then, alas, it turns out to be a carefully crafted intro for another JB lament, the one concerning those poor poverty ridden souls existing on scraps and hand outs while living under a tarpaulin, their impoverished state of affairs being the result of being higher tax rate payers......

But then comes the truly inspired solution .......raise V.A.T ! ...now that's brilliant really, because, if you raise V.A.T there's more than a passing chance this increase will adversely affect even further those who are genuinely in need of help and support, not those more worried about paying their golf club fee's or any rise in artisan food and drink costs.....however, your hopes may well materialise after next March.....funny how this month has become so prominent in next years calendar really, say if for example transport costs now require V.A.T to be added......now who do you possibly think could end up paying these costs to the organisations concerned for their products ?.......here's a helpful clue. The costs won't be coming from shareholders dividends or grossly inflated management salaries and packages, so lets narrow the demographic down and give them a name shall we ?......lets call them..... customers and consumers.

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/rates-of...s-and-services
Krystal n chips is offline  
Old 8th Oct 2018, 08:33
  #16065 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Southwold
Age: 67
Posts: 60
I have limited sympathy for the plight of higher rate tax payers, the reason is this: The economic system as a whole is heavily skewed towards the rich. If you have one million pounds capital, a sum that these days is not regarded as huge wealth any longer, it is possible to structure your life to do no work and live reasonably well.

in many parts of the country a third of your capital will buy you a very pleasant house to live in, the balance four five properties that will bring a rental income of £30k p.a. Your tenants will work long hours and devote a large proportion of their income to supporting you without the prospect of ever owning the house, a decent car, holidays etc, all of which you will have without ever having to do a stroke of work.
Effluent Man is offline  
Old 8th Oct 2018, 08:47
  #16066 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: In the circuit
Posts: 177
Originally Posted by Effluent Man View Post
I have limited sympathy for the plight of higher rate tax payers, the reason is this: The economic system as a whole is heavily skewed towards the rich. If you have one million pounds capital, a sum that these days is not regarded as huge wealth any longer, it is possible to structure your life to do no work and live reasonably well.

in many parts of the country a third of your capital will buy you a very pleasant house to live in, the balance four five properties that will bring a rental income of £30k p.a. Your tenants will work long hours and devote a large proportion of their income to supporting you without the prospect of ever owning the house, a decent car, holidays etc, all of which you will have without ever having to do a stroke of work.


The number of people with £1m liquid cash lying around is not that great. There is an assumption in your reply that most people paying higher rate tax have a number of rental properties to screw money out of impoverished tenants, again not all higher rate taxpayers are in this group either.

The point is that screwing an ever dwindling number of people who work and pay tax to fund a welfare state for a much bigger proportion of the population is unsustainable. You will note that I stated that I understood that tax had to increase to fund the NHS, just that I would like it to be more balanced across the population so that there is some truth in the "we're all in it together" mantra. Because we're not on this basis. VAT is an ideal vehicle, because it can be targeted at consumption, various items can be exempted to address KnC's concerns, whereas others can be taxed more highly. In addition higher rate tax payers will still be contributing more as the more disposable income you spend the more VAT you are paying. In too many cases tax is something that is considered to be a good idea because other people will be paying, VAT is one of the only taxes with anything like the kind of breadth and power to raise money in the kind of sums that are required to continue funding health as we do currently.

The ultimate burden on the state will be greater if the Government discourage people from saving for retirement. Governments of all hues seem to think retirement planning is a good idea, until they run out of cash and decide they need something to support a soundbite. Still when was Government anything to do with long term thinking.

Last edited by Groundbased; 8th Oct 2018 at 09:54.
Groundbased is offline  
Old 8th Oct 2018, 09:50
  #16067 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: God's Country
Posts: 115
Originally Posted by Effluent Man View Post
I have limited sympathy for the plight of higher rate tax payers, the reason is this: The economic system as a whole is heavily skewed towards the rich. If you have one million pounds capital, a sum that these days is not regarded as huge wealth any longer, it is possible to structure your life to do no work and live reasonably well.

in many parts of the country a third of your capital will buy you a very pleasant house to live in, the balance four five properties that will bring a rental income of £30k p.a. Your tenants will work long hours and devote a large proportion of their income to supporting you without the prospect of ever owning the house, a decent car, holidays etc, all of which you will have without ever having to do a stroke of work.
Maybe you could define what you mean by rich? Is it anyone who has more than you? How much does someone have to be worth to be considered rich?
Some people bought second properties because G Brown wrecked the pension pots of so many people. Interest rates are not helping those who used to save money for a 'rainy day'. So having a monthly rental income replaced interest rates for some.
Whilst I accept that there is a growing business of people owning dozens of properties, they do so as they saw a business opportunity. These people can be more directly targeted with tax.
But there are lots of people who have worked hard, invested carefully, who are now enjoying their early retirement.
The Nip is offline  
Old 8th Oct 2018, 10:11
  #16068 (permalink)  
Thought police antagonist
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Where I always have been...firmly in the real world
Posts: 943
Originally Posted by Groundbased View Post
.

The point is that screwing an ever dwindling number of people who work and pay tax to fund a welfare state for a much bigger proportion of the population is unsustainable. You will note that I stated that I understood that tax had to increase to fund the NHS, just that I would like it to be more balanced across the population so that there is some truth in the "we're all in it together" mantra. Because we're not on this basis. VAT is an ideal vehicle, because it can be targeted at consumption, various items can be exempted to address KnC's concerns, whereas others can be taxed more highly. In addition higher rate tax payers will still be contributing more as the more disposable income you spend the more VAT you are paying. In too many cases tax is something that is considered to be a good idea because other people will be paying, VAT is one of the only taxes with anything like the kind of breadth and power to raise money in the kind of sums that are required to continue funding health as we do currently.

.
Ah, on what basis do you arrive at the statement underlined above please ?
Also with regard to my concerns about increasing V.A.T, and presumably you have looked at the link as a reference here, why do you think your proposal has not yet been implemented and why should there suddenly be exemptions other than those currently in place ?
Krystal n chips is offline  
Old 8th Oct 2018, 11:16
  #16069 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,904
Point if order, KnC: providing a link to another person who happens to share your opinion doesn’t amount to a “reference”
ShotOne is online now  
Old 8th Oct 2018, 12:26
  #16070 (permalink)  
Thought police antagonist
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Where I always have been...firmly in the real world
Posts: 943
Originally Posted by ShotOne View Post
Point if order, KnC: providing a link to another person who happens to share your opinion doesn’t amount to a “reference”
Ah, well, first this is JB rather than say a wee and nasal dribble soaked armchair in a Mess ante-room thus "point of order " ain't relevant really

Secondly, I'm not actually, this may come as a shock I know, in favour of any increases in V.A.T

Thirdly, as they say in refined legal circles, I refer m'less than learned friend to #16218 and contained therein a link.....said link being the reference I mentioned as a source in response to my query.
Krystal n chips is offline  
Old 8th Oct 2018, 13:25
  #16071 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: In the circuit
Posts: 177
Originally Posted by Krystal n chips View Post
Ah, on what basis do you arrive at the statement underlined above please ?
Also with regard to my concerns about increasing V.A.T, and presumably you have looked at the link as a reference here, why do you think your proposal has not yet been implemented and why should there suddenly be exemptions other than those currently in place ?
On the basis that HMRC figures on Gov.UK show there were 30.6m Income tax payers against a population of 31.8m in 2009/10 and in 2017/18 there were 30.8m income taxpayers against a population of 65.6m That is a reduction of 2% in the number of people paying income tax as a proportion. With the population expected to rise to 70m by 2029 you can extrapolate the figures. Add to this an ageing population that will tend to pay less income tax as they age, but consume more services.

Unhappily for you, since you don't like VAT, continuing to squeeze income tax payers isn't going to work, and the Government/HMRC know this, basing their policy on the growth in indirect taxes to fill the gap. I know KPMG won't appeal to you as a reliable source but, in the land of predicting the future they're no worse than anyone else, they produced a document in 2016 projecting continued expansion in the base of indirect taxes like VAT to plug funding gaps, i.e. the scope of VAT is likely to increase in the coming years, if not the rate.

The Labour party view is that you can forget all this and just tax the companies that people work for more, but this will have patchy, if not negative, effect, especially when everyone is working a 4 day week, as Mr McDonnell suggested yesterday.
Groundbased is offline  
Old 8th Oct 2018, 14:00
  #16072 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Hampshire
Age: 72
Posts: 784
higher rate taxpayers contributing more
eh? Would that apply to landlords who have been put on alert to expect to receive big Capital Gains exemptions if they flog some of their housing stock to tenants? (And presumably go out, buy more houses, sell to tenants and get the Capital Gains exemptions as before) Rinse and repeat ad nausea.
KelvinD is online now  
Old 8th Oct 2018, 16:46
  #16073 (permalink)  
Thought police antagonist
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Where I always have been...firmly in the real world
Posts: 943
Originally Posted by Groundbased View Post
On the basis that HMRC figures on Gov.UK show there were 30.6m Income tax payers against a population of 31.8m in 2009/10 and in 2017/18 there were 30.8m income taxpayers against a population of 65.6m That is a reduction of 2% in the number of people paying income tax as a proportion. With the population expected to rise to 70m by 2029 you can extrapolate the figures. Add to this an ageing population that will tend to pay less income tax as they age, but consume more services.

Unhappily for you, since you don't like VAT, continuing to squeeze income tax payers isn't going to work, and the Government/HMRC know this, basing their policy on the growth in indirect taxes to fill the gap. I know KPMG won't appeal to you as a reliable source but, in the land of predicting the future they're no worse than anyone else, they produced a document in 2016 projecting continued expansion in the base of indirect taxes like VAT to plug funding gaps, i.e. the scope of VAT is likely to increase in the coming years, if not the rate.

The Labour party view is that you can forget all this and just tax the companies that people work for more, but this will have patchy, if not negative, effect, especially when everyone is working a 4 day week, as Mr McDonnell suggested yesterday.
Well on the surface, those figures would suggest your extrapolation would be a shade pessimistic given that (a) they come from HMRC and (b) they don't seem to include any variables and variables are always quietly overlooked when statistical analysis is offered as evidence in support of a claim.

KPMG.....now there's a rather unwise choice if you don't mind me saying so, not simply because they feature somewhat regularly in "Private Eye " for all the wrong reasons, but also in more dedicated publications such as in the link at the end. And most of the bleating about "higher taxes " seems to come from those in the higher rate band who seem to wish to ignore the fact they are as eligible for taxation as those in lower bands.

The four day week ?...fundamentally, a vote winner, possibly this is where your concern lies ? along with being beneficial to the health and productive capabilities of those working it. Or would you prefer it if the working population returned to a 5.5 day working week and the condition of the Sabbath being their day of rest ? Plus less you forget, the Gov't, apart from the devious and appalling extension to the time they are now expected to work before women can become eligible for the State pension, the age for males is also incrementally increasing to the extent many will never be alive to enjoy retirement .....

https://www.ft.com/content/b926996a-...d-3823e4384287
Krystal n chips is offline  
Old 8th Oct 2018, 17:09
  #16074 (permalink)  
Resident insomniac
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: N54 58 34 W02 01 21
Age: 75
Posts: 1,859
Originally Posted by Krystal n chips View Post
many will never be alive to enjoy retirement .....
When I first started work in 1965, my workmate used to scan the obituary pages of the monthly in-house magazine and state "Made it, didn't, made-it, didn't, didn't" to signify those who had lived long enough to draw their pensions.
G-CPTN is offline  
Old 8th Oct 2018, 17:16
  #16075 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cambridge, England, EU
Posts: 3,437
Originally Posted by Krystal n chips View Post
Plus less you forget, the Gov't, apart from the devious and appalling extension to the time they are now expected to work before women can become eligible for the State pension
You've left it a bit late to get cross with the 1993 government! - and it's not as if Labour didn't have thirteen years in which they could have changed it.
Gertrude the Wombat is offline  
Old 8th Oct 2018, 17:36
  #16076 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: inv
Posts: 284
meanwhile a government minister has said that people should be allowed to scavenge at dumps

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics...box=1538930082
scr1 is offline  
Old 8th Oct 2018, 18:16
  #16077 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: West Wiltshire, UK
Age: 67
Posts: 372
Originally Posted by scr1 View Post
meanwhile a government minister has said that people should be allowed to scavenge at dumps

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics...box=1538930082
Damned good idea. Several times I've spotted good/repairable stuff at the local "recycling" centre, only to be told that I wasn't allowed to recycle it.
VP959 is online now  
Old 8th Oct 2018, 18:59
  #16078 (permalink)  
Resident insomniac
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: N54 58 34 W02 01 21
Age: 75
Posts: 1,859
Having grown up in the immediate post-War period, I was indoctrinated with the maxim of 'make-do and mend' by my father.
As a result, nothing 'useful' gets thrown away. My children's first bikes were 'made' by me from discarded parts. I also built their Wendy house and their treehouse from reclaimed timber.
I made my workshop bench from sturdy timbers rescued from the tip on the building site - including a railway sleeper which I sawed in half to make ramps to work on the car and timbers to cover the inspection pit.
G-CPTN is offline  
Old 8th Oct 2018, 19:03
  #16079 (permalink)  
Resident insomniac
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: N54 58 34 W02 01 21
Age: 75
Posts: 1,859
Originally Posted by VP959 View Post
Several times I've spotted good/repairable stuff at the local "recycling" centre, only to be told that I wasn't allowed to recycle it.
The problem with allowing 'reclamation' is that there would be those people who would seek to sell-on whatever they have rescued - not that it would necessarily be a bad thing, but there is the question of liability (these days).
G-CPTN is offline  
Old 8th Oct 2018, 19:50
  #16080 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Southwold
Age: 67
Posts: 60
My point about having a million pounds was not about the number of people who follow this way of life per se. The point really was that the whole system is slanted in favour of the haves and against the have nots. When I started in business in 1977 I did so with a £3,500 overdraft granted by a friendly bank manager. Wind on forty years and there is no longer the prospect of this happening, bank managers however friendly just can't do that .

Even if they did, and let's gear things up x10 to allow for inflation, there is no way I could go out today with 35k and make a living. I used to waltz into companies uninvited and persuade them to sell me their surplus vehicles. I was surprised how often this chutzpah worked. Try that today and they will shout "security!"
Effluent Man is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.