Cameron scrutinised by Paxman

[TopGun]

I thought DC was very poor earlier.

 

He talks about cuts but can't say where they will occur.

 

He talks about public sector spending inefficiencies he will correct but can't specify them.

 

He uses soundbites like his new government will "inherit a mess" yet offers no detail about any solutions.

 

It will be interesting to see how GB and NC fare with Paxo however.

[Johnny Bognor]

They all talk about cuts but won't be specific - generally it is not a vote winner, although it is something that is needed.

 

As for the others, Scrambled has already been done:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/8616816.stm

 

He got an easy ride from Paxman, but this was before he stepped up on to centre stage.

[View From The Top]

They all talk about cuts but won't be specific - generally it is not a vote winner, although it is something that is needed.

 

As for the others, Scrambled has already been done:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/8616816.stm

 

He got an easy ride from Paxman, but this was before he stepped up on to centre stage.

 

I'd have to diagree there. I thought he was given a typical Paxman like grilling and look really flustered at times.

 

Cameron looked like version of Blair lite last night. All style and no substance.

[Joesaint]

This was Paxman, who is really good and I thought Cameron was also very good and very honest in his answers and explained why he could not be more specific. Anyway I thought what he said was good and stood his ground.

 

I really do think he may destroy Clegg, don't forget his own party used to call him calamity Clegg and no matter who you are Paxman will grill you although part of me would like him to do OK!!!

 

In event of a hung parliament I hope Cameron would be able to stop the national insurance rise and make the cuts sooner as the debt our country has is horrible and please don't sell the port of Dover to the French, and a lot more protection for British business.

 

Bring on Brown next week hay!

[View From The Top]

This was Paxman, who is really good and I thought Cameron was also very good and very honest in his answers and explained why he could not be more specific. Anyway I thought what he said was good and stood his ground.

 

I really do think he may destroy Clegg, don't forget his own party used to call him calamity Clegg and no matter who you are Paxman will grill you although part of me would like him to do OK!!!

 

In event of a hung parliament I hope Cameron would be able to stop the national insurance rise and make the cuts sooner as the debt our country has is horrible and please don't sell the port of Dover to the French, and a lot more protection for British business.

 

Bring on Brown next week hay!

 

Clegg was on last week.

[TopGun]

They all talk about cuts but won't be specific - generally it is not a vote winner, although it is something that is needed.

 

As for the others, Scrambled has already been done:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/8616816.stm

 

He got an easy ride from Paxman, but this was before he stepped up on to centre stage.

 

I missed that along with the rest of the nation. No doubt the LDs are happy that occurred before their ridiculous populist rise on a non realpolitik agenda...

[Ludwig]

Clegg was on last week and came out of it better than Cameron has done, the only tangible change he was shown to be promising is if he wins the election, there'll be a change of government.

[bridge too far]

I noticed he wouldn't answer the point about a potential rise in VAT.

 

The NI 'tax on jobs', whilst not a good thing, is preferable to a rise in VAT. This is because a VAT rise will affect people on low and fixed incomes and pensions disproportionally.

 

Low earners and pensioners pay far more from their disposable income on VAT on goods and services than do the better off, proportionally.

[saint lard]

[Thorpe-le-Saint]

 

that. Is. Quality!

[bridge too far]

[AndyNorthernSaints]

 

Nice one. Never trust someone who has no lips.

[Johnny Bognor]

I noticed he wouldn't answer the point about a potential rise in VAT.

 

The NI 'tax on jobs', whilst not a good thing, is preferable to a rise in VAT. This is because a VAT rise will affect people on low and fixed incomes and pensions disproportionally.

 

Low earners and pensioners pay far more from their disposable income on VAT on goods and services than do the better off, proportionally.

 

 

So vote Lib Dem then, oh...

 

OK vote Labour then, oh.....

 

So don't vote tory, because their policy on VAT is the same as the others :rolleyes::rolleyes:

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

 

Brown v Cameron

[OldNick]

 

Low earners and pensioners pay far more from their disposable income on VAT on goods and services than do the better off, proportionally.

I haven't seen the vat reduction for the wealthy. I thought everyone paid 17.5% vat.

VAT is a fair tax as if you spend you pay a tax. What it might be is that low earners have a bigger proportion who smoke aqnd drink heavily and so that is where they pay more in vat of their disposable wealth.

I dislike vat like anyone else but tax has to be raised.

The only policy I like of the libs is the no tax on earnings under 10k a year.

I wish we could chose certain ideas and vote on those but is of course impossible.A type of mix and match.

[Thedelldays]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5xUy2inkGHQ&NR=1

 

where it really matters...not in a studio

if it was clegg in place of brown, cameron would still rip him to pieces

[bridge too far]

I haven't seen the vat reduction for the wealthy. I thought everyone paid 17.5% vat.

VAT is a fair tax as if you spend you pay a tax. What it might be is that low earners have a bigger proportion who smoke aqnd drink heavily and so that is where they pay more in vat of their disposable wealth.

I dislike vat like anyone else but tax has to be raised.

The only policy I like of the libs is the no tax on earnings under 10k a year.

I wish we could chose certain ideas and vote on those but is of course impossible.A type of mix and match.

 

Nobody has suggested that there would be a VAT reduction for the wealthy.

 

Read this:

 

One of the 'Canons of taxation' developed by Adam Smith said that a tax should be linked to 'ability to pay'. VAT does not tie in with this because the amount of VAT on a particular good will be the same for everyone, however much they earn. This means that VAT is regressive. In other words, the more people earn the less the proportion of their income they pay in tax. Regressive taxes will hit less-well-off people harder than the better-off.

 

from: http://www.bized.co.uk/virtual/economy/policy/tools/vat/vatth2.htm

[Thedelldays]

I wish I never had to pay tax

[Elmore]

I wish I never had to pay tax

 

Whereas I am more than happy to pay tax.

[TopGun]

I wish I never had to pay tax

 

No Tax = No Navy

[Thedelldays]

No Tax = No Navy

I think I know

[dune]

Will anyone even bother tuning in when Paxman interviews the dour Mr Brown?

[bridge too far]

I will - I like to try to take a balanced view

[dune]

I will - I like to try to take a balanced view

 

Me too, that's why i read the Daily Express.

[bridge too far]

Me too, that's why i read the Daily Express.

 

Well done

[dune]

I'd have loved to have seen paxman interview Margaret Thatcher. It's moments like these that demonstrate why Maggie and Churchill were the greatest leaders of the 20th century.

 

[Thedelldays]

"that ship was a danger to our boys, that is why that ship was sunk"

 

I can tell you from the people I have met in my time in the RN that were in the falklands conflict (i have met shed loads) all of them. every single one of them say it was the correct thing to do and potentially saved hundreds more lives (for us)

[dune]

"that ship was a danger to our boys, that is why that ship was sunk"

 

I can tell you from the people I have met in my time in the RN that were in the falklands conflict (i have met shed loads) all of them. every single one of them say it was the correct thing to do and potentially saved hundreds more lives (for us)

 

Patriotism is a dirty politically incorrect word to the Lefties.

 

Only under a Conservative government is pride in our country encoraged.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VxmQ8eo-hfM

[Thedelldays]

Patriotism is a dirty politically incorrect word to the Lefties.

 

Only under a Conservative government is pride in our country encoraged.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VxmQ8eo-hfM

look at blairs legacy...troops come back from the middle east and get abused in the streets...and people defend that..!!!!!!

[dune]

look at blairs legacy...troops come back from the middle east and get abused in the streets...and people defend that..!!!!!!

 

When far right Islamist extremists planned to march on Wooton Bassett, and a counter demo was proposed by those outraged by the prospect, UAF planned to demonstrate against those protesting against the Islamist extremists. That pretty much sums up Left.

[benjii]

UAF are mental though Dune. You can't really say that all "the Left" are the same as them. That would be like saying that all of "the Right" are in the National Front. That's rubbish. You know it so stop being a nitwit.

[View From The Top]

look at blairs legacy...troops come back from the middle east and get abused in the streets...and people defend that..!!!!!!

 

Once, in Luton, which ended up in a riot once people saw what was happening.

 

I guess all the welcome home parades held around our country are figments of our imaginations?

 

Regardless of the rights and wrongs of the war in Iraq & Afghanistan our troops are and have always been held in the highest esteem.

[Patrick Bateman]

Nobody has suggested that there would be a VAT reduction for the wealthy.

 

Read this:

 

One of the 'Canons of taxation' developed by Adam Smith said that a tax should be linked to 'ability to pay'. VAT does not tie in with this because the amount of VAT on a particular good will be the same for everyone, however much they earn. This means that VAT is regressive. In other words, the more people earn the less the proportion of their income they pay in tax. Regressive taxes will hit less-well-off people harder than the better-off.

 

from: http://www.bized.co.uk/virtual/economy/policy/tools/vat/vatth2.htm

 

There is nothing wrong with increased VAT, it's a good thing. Correct me if I am wrong, but there is no VAT on essential items, is that right? So food, books, newspapers, sanitary items ... note the word essential. Buying a new TV is not essential. Most items aren't, 'essential'. What do you need to live? Food, water, sanitary products, papers (for info), a bed, a sofa (which you can get from charity shops and there are some goods around) etc.

 

Also, you can argue that those with a higher disposable income buy more non-essential "stuff". They'll spend more on bigger/newer TVs, cars, games consoles etc., so, are in fact paying more tax. So the "poor pay more tax" argument doesn't stack up.

[bridge too far]

There is nothing wrong with increased VAT, it's a good thing. Correct me if I am wrong, but there is no VAT on essential items, is that right? So food, books, newspapers, sanitary items ... note the word essential. Buying a new TV is not essential. Most items aren't, 'essential'. What do you need to live? Food, water, sanitary products, papers (for info), a bed, a sofa (which you can get from charity shops and there are some goods around) etc.

 

Also, you can argue that those with a higher disposable income buy more non-essential "stuff". They'll spend more on bigger/newer TVs, cars, games consoles etc., so, are in fact paying more tax. So the "poor pay more tax" argument doesn't stack up.

 

Sanitary and maternity pads are taxed at 5%.

 

Equipment for the blind is taxed at 5% as are mobility aids.

 

Power is taxed at 5% (gas, electricity etc.)

 

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/vat/forms-rates/rates/goods-services.htm

[OldNick]

Nobody has suggested that there would be a VAT reduction for the wealthy.

 

Read this:

 

One of the 'Canons of taxation' developed by Adam Smith said that a tax should be linked to 'ability to pay'. VAT does not tie in with this because the amount of VAT on a particular good will be the same for everyone, however much they earn. This means that VAT is regressive. In other words, the more people earn the less the proportion of their income they pay in tax. Regressive taxes will hit less-well-off people harder than the better-off.

 

from: http://www.bized.co.uk/virtual/economy/policy/tools/vat/vatth2.htm

but the same goes for if they buy a packet of fags or a burger. The wealthy have more disposable income as they are wealthier.

So they buy a £1m+ house they have to pay more tax (stamp duty)than someone who is buying one sub 500k. That's life, if we have more wealthy people, they are here to spend more and so business prospers, more of the umemployed have the opportunity to get jobs and the whole of society moves upwards.

Nobody can avoid paying VAT and so it is a better tax than the normal earnings related tax. I have never resented paying 40% tax, but I remember in the 70's the 98% tax and how that destroyed any people taking risks or working hard. In fact it made the black economy thrive.

Get over the fact some people are successful and so in life have a little more, as long as they contribute that is fine by me. it is the Phillip greens of this world who earn billions from our economy and then pay no tax. Sort them out, not the wealth providers who pay into the system.

[bridge too far]

Apart from the fact that, in your missive above, you have talked about taxes other than VAT, the simple fact is this.

 

If VAT goes up, people on low and fixed incomes will find that many everyday items will become more difficult to afford.

 

If you've only got £20 a week to spend on 'stuff' and VAT rises by, say, 2.5%, you'll have 2.5% less to spend on what might be essential stuff.

 

If you've got £200 a week to spend on stuff, your essential stuff will still cost you 2.5% more but you've got much more room for maneouvre.

 

The economy thrives just as much on people with low incomes buying stuff as it does on people with shedloads of money to spend. All the time we all spend, we're all wealth providers.

[dune]

Apart from the fact that, in your missive above, you have talked about taxes other than VAT, the simple fact is this.

 

If VAT goes up, people on low and fixed incomes will find that many everyday items will become more difficult to afford.

 

If you've only got £20 a week to spend on 'stuff' and VAT rises by, say, 2.5%, you'll have 2.5% less to spend on what might be essential stuff.

 

If you've got £200 a week to spend on stuff, your essential stuff will still cost you 2.5% more but you've got much more room for maneouvre.

 

The economy thrives just as much on people with low incomes buying stuff as it does on people with shedloads of money to spend. All the time we all spend, we're all wealth providers.

 

It's not a matter of IF Vat goes up, but WHEN and by HOW MUCH.

 

You can thank old mother hubbard Brown for the rise because it was Brown that spent all the money we accumulated during the good times and left the cupboard bare. If it was down to me i'd increase VAT up to 25% for the next parliament and hammer down the deficit.

[OldNick]

Apart from the fact that, in your missive above, you have talked about taxes other than VAT, the simple fact is this.

 

If VAT goes up, people on low and fixed incomes will find that many everyday items will become more difficult to afford.

 

If you've only got £20 a week to spend on 'stuff' and VAT rises by, say, 2.5%, you'll have 2.5% less to spend on what might be essential stuff.

 

If you've got £200 a week to spend on stuff, your essential stuff will still cost you 2.5% more but you've got much more room for maneouvre.

 

The economy thrives just as much on people with low incomes buying stuff as it does on people with shedloads of money to spend. All the time we all spend, we're all wealth providers.

Tax is tax,. The point is the duties on fags booze also effect the poor in the same way as Vat. It is a tax that was for luxury goods. Now many have different ideas what luxury is. I think Labour were talking about putting vat on other more essential items, but shelved that recently.

Vat is a tax on spending, that should be on non essential items. iam surprised the sanitary items you listed are not exempt but your friends have had 13 years to change that, they have not done so therefore the wealthoier in society should not be blamed for that. Campaign to gt those items changed , id be supportive.

The sad fact of life is that if you started everyone with £1000, at the end of the year, some would be in debt others rich.

[OldNick]

If it was down to me i'd increase VAT up to 25% for the next parliament and hammer down the deficit.

Dune, that would be catestrophic, 20% would not be very nice but 25% would cripple the nation IMO

[bridge too far]

The tax on sanitary pads was reduced from the full rate to 5% in 2001.

 

Strangely, there is, apparently, no tax on incontinence pads :confused:

[Patrick Bateman]

Apart from the fact that, in your missive above, you have talked about taxes other than VAT, the simple fact is this.

 

If VAT goes up, people on low and fixed incomes will find that many everyday items will become more difficult to afford.

 

If you've only got £20 a week to spend on 'stuff' and VAT rises by, say, 2.5%, you'll have 2.5% less to spend on what might be essential stuff.

 

If you've got £200 a week to spend on stuff, your essential stuff will still cost you 2.5% more but you've got much more room for maneouvre.

 

The economy thrives just as much on people with low incomes buying stuff as it does on people with shedloads of money to spend. All the time we all spend, we're all wealth providers.

 

I refer you to my post above, no they don't. Every day items?? Food, loo rolls and news papers are VAT free.

 

If someone wants to go and buy a new car or TV, then it's up to them, if they can afford it, but it's not essential, far from it.

[dune]

Dune, that would be catestrophic, 20% would not be very nice but 25% would cripple the nation IMO

 

The state of our public finances means that we have got to take strong action or we'll end up like Greece.

[Patrick Bateman]

The tax on sanitary pads was reduced from the full rate to 5% in 2001.

 

Strangely, there is, apparently, no tax on incontinence pads :confused:

 

5% is still ridiculous when it should be zero rated (as I thought it was). But then 5% of £2 a month (I'm guessing here!!) is 10p, so hardly a bank breaker.

 

I believe incontinence is VAT free only if you're registered with a relevant medical condition.

[OldNick]

The state of our public finances means that we have got to take strong action or we'll end up like Greece.

That would do the same to our economy

[benjii]

Apart from the fact that, in your missive above, you have talked about taxes other than VAT, the simple fact is this.

 

If VAT goes up, people on low and fixed incomes will find that many everyday items will become more difficult to afford.

 

If you've only got £20 a week to spend on 'stuff' and VAT rises by, say, 2.5%, you'll have 2.5% less to spend on what might be essential stuff.

 

If you've got £200 a week to spend on stuff, your essential stuff will still cost you 2.5% more but you've got much more room for maneouvre.

 

The economy thrives just as much on people with low incomes buying stuff as it does on people with shedloads of money to spend. All the time we all spend, we're all wealth providers.

 

Oh noes!

 

Right, let's increase public spending instead.

[bridge too far]

Oh noes!

 

Right, let's increase public spending instead.

 

That's a non sequitur if ever I saw one!

 

The debate was about the pros and cons of a VAT increase v NI insurance increase.

 

Increasing public spending didn't enter the debate.

[benjii]

That's a non sequitur if ever I saw one!

 

The debate was about the pros and cons of a VAT increase v NI insurance increase.

 

Increasing public spending didn't enter the debate.

 

I agree. I'm not sure what my point was.

 

I suppose I was trying to say, in a round about and forum-ish kind of way, that poor people struggling to afford stuff is a reality of a recession. By their very nature, the poorest in society will always struggle to afford stuff anyway. Otherwise they wouldn't be the poorest.

 

A VAT increase is straightforward and cannot easily be avoided.

 

Do I want to pay more VAT? No.

 

Would I rather pay more VAT than more Income Tax or National Insurance? Yes, because I am in control of that and everyone will be in the same boat.

[bridge too far]

I agree. I'm not sure what my point was.

 

I suppose I was trying to say, in a round about and forum-ish kind of way, that poor people struggling to afford stuff is a reality of a recession. By their very nature, the poorest in society will always struggle to afford stuff anyway. Otherwise they wouldn't be the poorest.

 

A VAT increase is straightforward and cannot easily be avoided.

 

Do I want to pay more VAT? No.

 

Would I rather pay more VAT than more Income Tax or National Insurance? Yes, because I am in control of that and everyone will be in the same boat.

 

Not quite. An increase in NI won't cost people on fixed incomes an extra penny. An increase in VAT will.

[benjii]

Not quite. An increase in NI won't cost people on fixed incomes an extra penny. An increase in VAT will.

 

Well, I hope I get a pay rise this year.

 

And that's what I meant by "the same boat". We will all have to pay more VAT. That is fairest IMO.

 

PS - I don't support extending the scope of VAT to food etc...

[OldNick]

Not quite. An increase in NI won't cost people on fixed incomes an extra penny. An increase in VAT will.

indirectly it will as any wage increase will be reduced as the extra costs will be factored in to what an emplyer can afford to put into the pot to pay.

Tax costs everybody whether it is direct or indirect. The NI increases to Tesco etc will be passed onto the customer whoever that may be.