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 8th Oct 2018, 09:50
  #16061 (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
  #16062 (permalink)  
Thought police antagonist
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Where I always have been...firmly in the real world
Posts: 945
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
  #16063 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,916
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
  #16064 (permalink)  
Thought police antagonist
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Where I always have been...firmly in the real world
Posts: 945
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
  #16065 (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
  #16066 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Hampshire
Age: 72
Posts: 795
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
  #16067 (permalink)  
Thought police antagonist
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Where I always have been...firmly in the real world
Posts: 945
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
  #16068 (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
  #16069 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cambridge, England, EU
Posts: 3,435
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
  #16070 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: inv
Posts: 294
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 online now  
Old 8th Oct 2018, 18:16
  #16071 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: West Wiltshire, UK
Age: 67
Posts: 378
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 offline  
Old 8th Oct 2018, 18:59
  #16072 (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
  #16073 (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
  #16074 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Southwold
Age: 68
Posts: 0
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  
Old 8th Oct 2018, 19:52
  #16075 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 4,810
In China all the refuse dumps have a little village by it were all the reclaimers live. Working with them on the streets are the equivalent of the rag 'n bone man of yesteryear. It is fairly true to say that if you want something recycled in China you just throw it out of the window. New items would come in recycled packaging where the previous contents were displayed all over the inside.
Anything has a value. When I replaced a oil sodden cooker hood in my rented flat I just shouted to one of them and negotiated how much he would buy the old one for. He gave me 20% of the new price.
Fareastdriver is offline  
Old 8th Oct 2018, 23:14
  #16076 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Hyeres, France
Posts: 1
Originally Posted by Krystal n chips View Post

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

I'm neither a statistican nor a mathematician, but I would have thought that either (a) impossible or (b) suicidal.

If you have 32 million people ' in work ' and then reducing output by 20%, it would need around 5 million additional ' in work ' people if the GDP isn't also going to reduce by 20%

So with just 1.5 million people ' out of work ' where will the other 3.5 million people come from ?

Or will all 32 million be required to actually be 25% more productive than they are now, every day and for the rest of their working lives ?

Perhaps Ms Abbott did the number crunching for this ' vote winner ' ?
Hussar 54 is offline  
Old 8th Oct 2018, 23:49
  #16077 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: cowtown
Posts: 85
The Labour inspired Three day working weeks in the seventies ,were so far ahead of their time .
Kinda like a bad episode of Dr. Who
fitliker is offline  
Old 9th Oct 2018, 01:42
  #16078 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: The Luberon
Age: 68
Posts: 909
Originally Posted by VP959 View Post
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.
You were probably intruding on the rights of the site workers to have first call on the good stuff. Perk of the job I suppose.

Last edited by sitigeltfel; 9th Oct 2018 at 05:51.
sitigeltfel is offline  
Old 9th Oct 2018, 04:12
  #16079 (permalink)  
Thought police antagonist
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Where I always have been...firmly in the real world
Posts: 945
Originally Posted by Gertrude the Wombat View Post
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.
True Gerty, but, and there's usually an inconvenient "but " cast your mind back to those happy halcyon days of the Dave and Nick, or Nick and Dave....just for balance...show . In case those days are now but a distant and rosy eyed memory, here's a helpful reminder of events.....there's a certain irony to a certain piece of legislation that was overlooked really, but, no doubt this useful legislation will be among the first to be repealed in the not too distant future. The below is a quote by the way.to save anybody wondering from whence it came.

" October 2010 - revised changes
The commitment in the Coalition Agreement fell foul of EU equality laws which allowed the government to equalise state pension ages as late as April 2020 but would not allow further discrimination between men and women during that process. So in the Spending Review of October 2010 the plans were revised. Women's state pension age would now be raised more quickly to reach 65 in 2018 and then both men and women's pension age would rise to 66 by 2020. Critics pointed out that plan breached the Coalition Agreement promise of 'no sooner than...2020 for women'.

2011 - Pensions Bill sets out the planned changes
In February 2011 the detailed timetable for change was announced in the Pensions Bill 2011. Women's state pension age would rise to 65 by November 2018 and then men and women's pension age would rise together to reach 66 by 5 April 2020. Five million men and women would face a later state pension date. But while men would have to wait at most another year, 500,000 women would have to wait longer than a year. The wait for 300,000 would be 18 months or more and 33,000 would have to wait for two years.

Widespread protests and rebellions in Parliament - which the Government defeated - led to promises by the Secretary of State Iain Duncan-Smith to introduce some 'transitional' changes to help the most severely affected women. But the Pensions Bill went through almost all its stages in Parliament with no details of what the Government would actually do "
Krystal n chips is offline  
Old 9th Oct 2018, 10:42
  #16080 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: uk
Posts: 1,645
On the question of reclaiming stuff from dumps, one of my oldest friends has an uncle who has spent his whole adult life scavenging off local tips. He is very wealthy, drives a Rolls Royce and is a great source for small quantities of building materials.

I hate going to the tip with mrs p as, left to her own devices, she would bring back more rubbish than we took down.
pulse1 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.