View From The Top Posted 18 February, 2011 Share Posted 18 February, 2011 Firstly, I dont read the mail (or any daily), my opinions are not formed by newspapers or any other media. Secondly, had I been told in 2008 that I would have to make savings, lose staff and work smarter I would have said "that's not possible", however having no choice in the matter made us take a good hard look at things and savings were made. Companies in the private sector have been making cuts for the past 3 or 4 years. Pay freezes, recruitment bans, screwing suppliers down,stopping final salary pensions. We are all in this together, including public sector workers, they should not be exempt from the realities that Labour left us with. To leave our debts for our children and grand children to pay off is just plain wrong. Of course those of us in the public sector haven't been doing that. Nope, not us. I must have imagined the recruitment freeze that we've had in place since 2009, the no pay rises since 2009, the sheding of jobs (more just gone), changing suppliers (twice) to screw down costs whilst still having to meet ever increasing targets set by funding agencies (not an issue with that). The problem with the cuts taking place now is the drive to do it all in year 1 is a HUGE mistake. Can the West Mids Police really afford to loose 1000 uniform police from frontline policing on top of the back of office staff? Can Staffordshire OB afford to close 5 stations and shed 300 uniformed frontline staff as well as back office staff? Can JCPs afford to shed staff whilst unemployment rises and the drive to get more folk into work kicks in, with no funding! A sensible (by whatever party) drive to cut over the lifetime of a parliament would have allowed savings and adjustments. Is it sensible to destroy the youth services at the same time as stopping EMA? The trouble that is going to come from that in metropolitan areas is frightening, as West Mids OB are on the record as saying. The people who attack those working in the public sector strike me to be, in the main, bitter petty people who have no real grasp of how many of us have had to go through the same "adjustment" as the private sector or what the public sector actually does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 18 February, 2011 Share Posted 18 February, 2011 Not really, I don't see why we can't tax the super rich, especially those sods who run the banks and get £2million in bonuses, to the hilt to pay for it. Don't kid yourself. There's nowhere near enough money amongst them to pay for what has been spent, and if you did raise taxes for them then they would just go somewhere else. The only way to raise large sums of money is from the working masses. There is an 'optimum' tax rate beyond which the returns start diminishing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelman Posted 18 February, 2011 Share Posted 18 February, 2011 with the cut in all these council services, are we going to see a reduction in our Council Tax? (rhetorical question). Why aren't we? I know that their pension schemes have a huge deficit. Is that the reason? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dune Posted 18 February, 2011 Share Posted 18 February, 2011 with the cut in all these council services, are we going to see a reduction in our Council Tax? (rhetorical question). Why aren't we? I know that their pension schemes have a huge deficit. Is that the reason? I've asked the question before, but no-one ansered it, did Brown raid public sector pension pots like he did private sector pension pots? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorpe-le-Saint Posted 18 February, 2011 Share Posted 18 February, 2011 I've asked the question before, but no-one ansered it, did Brown raid public sector pension pots like he did private sector pension pots? Regardless, they're doing it now so don't be so precious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonnyboy Posted 18 February, 2011 Share Posted 18 February, 2011 Don't kid yourself. There's nowhere near enough money amongst them to pay for what has been spent, and if you did raise taxes for them then they would just go somewhere else. The only way to raise large sums of money is from the working masses. There is an 'optimum' tax rate beyond which the returns start diminishing. The tax havens need to be sorted out with an international agreement and strong enforcement. THere is a f@ck load of money out there. Only then should we be looking at throwing Britains workers on the scrapheap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dune Posted 18 February, 2011 Share Posted 18 February, 2011 Regardless, they're doing it now so don't be so precious. No they're not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
View From The Top Posted 18 February, 2011 Share Posted 18 February, 2011 Regardless, they're doing it now so don't be so precious. Stanley has a point though in that Brown's dumb as f**k actions regarding raiding the pension funds was bordering on insane. I pay 8% into mine and it hurts, plenty! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 18 February, 2011 Share Posted 18 February, 2011 The tax havens need to be sorted out with an international agreement and strong enforcement. THere is a f@ck load of money out there. Only then should we be looking at throwing Britains workers on the scrapheap. There's a great big world out there with plenty of places that would welcome them. Just remember that taxation is legalised robbery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonnyboy Posted 18 February, 2011 Share Posted 18 February, 2011 There's a great big world out there with plenty of places that would welcome them. Just remember that taxation is legalised robbery. they already live in those places. I say we send in the A-team to flush em out Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
docker-p Posted 18 February, 2011 Share Posted 18 February, 2011 The tax havens need to be sorted out with an international agreement and strong enforcement. THere is a f@ck load of money out there. Only then should we be looking at throwing Britains workers on the scrapheap. Totally agree. If only the tories and their cheerleaders in the popular press would give as much time to closing tax loopholes for the super rich, many of whom are more than culpable for the financial collapse and cost the honest tax payer like you and I £billions each year; as they do trying to sack public sector workers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
View From The Top Posted 18 February, 2011 Share Posted 18 February, 2011 There's a great big world out there with plenty of places that would welcome them. Just remember that taxation is legalised robbery. Ask the bankers themselves if they'd leave and you'll get a resounding NO. London is a world city and the draw of working in London, on even smaller rewards if the tax take take went up, outweighs extra ££ in Mumbai and the like. A number of institutions found that out when they sounded staff out in 2009/2010 when the fear of paying their way loomed large. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 18 February, 2011 Share Posted 18 February, 2011 Ask the bankers themselves if they'd leave and you'll get a resounding NO. London is a world city and the draw of working in London, on even smaller rewards if the tax take take went up, outweighs extra ££ in Mumbai and the like. A number of institutions found that out when they sounded staff out in 2009/2010 when the fear of paying their way loomed large. Bankers already lose half their bonuses in tax. I repeat, there's nowhere near enough money in London's bankers to pay for the government's profligacy for more than a few months. What do we do when we've taken all their money? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonnyboy Posted 18 February, 2011 Share Posted 18 February, 2011 Bankers already lose half their bonuses in tax. I repeat, there's nowhere near enough money in London's bankers to pay for the government's profligacy for more than a few months. What do we do when we've taken all their money? go after all the billionaires with off shore accounts, no nationality excluded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintfully Posted 18 February, 2011 Share Posted 18 February, 2011 Bankers already lose half their bonuses in tax. I repeat, there's nowhere near enough money in London's bankers to pay for the government's profligacy for more than a few months. What do we do when we've taken all their money? The total private wealth of UK citizens that are worth over a million is 4000 billion sterling. A 20% tax on just those people would raise 800 billion. This equals our entire national debt. Its not just about bankers, its about inherited wealth and land. HTH. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonnyboy Posted 18 February, 2011 Share Posted 18 February, 2011 The total private wealth of UK citizens that are worth over a million is 4000 billion sterling. A 20% tax on just those people would raise 800 billion. This equals our entire national debt. Its not just about bankers, its about inherited wealth and land. HTH. One could almost speculate that any government prefers to be in debt so that it can maintain power over people through taxes/work etc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 18 February, 2011 Share Posted 18 February, 2011 One could almost speculate that any government prefers to be in debt so that it can maintain power over people through taxes/work etc Oh surely not! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pedg Posted 18 February, 2011 Share Posted 18 February, 2011 A wonderful example of how much the banks are contributing to the country. http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/feb/18/barclays-bank-113m-corporation-tax in 2009 Barclays made 11.6 Billion in profit and due to all the various tax avoidance scheme paid a paltry 113 Million in corporation tax. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 18 February, 2011 Share Posted 18 February, 2011 The total private wealth of UK citizens that are worth over a million is 4000 billion sterling. A 20% tax on just those people would raise 800 billion. This equals our entire national debt. Its not just about bankers, its about inherited wealth and land. HTH. But you can't convert that 'wealth' into money with which to pay for publice services. As soon as you start to sell it, assumingyou can find a buyer, then its value will plummet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 18 February, 2011 Share Posted 18 February, 2011 There's a great big world out there with plenty of places that would welcome them. Just remember that taxation is legalised robbery. The legalised robbery is tax avoidance loopholes - getting services but not paying for them - unless Barclays wants staff who cant read and write, have chronic untreated illnesses and their building is surrounded by a road less wasteland covered in uncollected rubbish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anothersaintinsouthsea Posted 19 February, 2011 Share Posted 19 February, 2011 Bankers already lose half their bonuses in tax. I repeat, there's nowhere near enough money in London's bankers to pay for the government's profligacy for more than a few months. What do we do when we've taken all their money? FFS my heart bleeds for those poor bankers, never mind the fact that it was the financial sector that got us into this mess. You can argue that the Govt should've saved for a rainy day but before the time of the financial crisis the UK had one of the lowests debt of any of the major industrial countries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anothersaintinsouthsea Posted 19 February, 2011 Share Posted 19 February, 2011 A wonderful example of how much the banks are contributing to the country. http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/feb/18/barclays-bank-113m-corporation-tax in 2009 Barclays made 11.6 Billion in profit and due to all the various tax avoidance scheme paid a paltry 113 Million in corporation tax. utter scumbags. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 19 February, 2011 Share Posted 19 February, 2011 utter scumbags. It gets worse. Barclays tried to get a gagging order issued against the Guardian to stop them revealing the tax avoidance 'scheme'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 19 February, 2011 Share Posted 19 February, 2011 Tax avoidance is obviously very wrong.. However, what ever bonuses barclays pay out is nothing to do with us... People should equally stamp their feet and Chelsea spending £50m on a crock!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorpe-le-Saint Posted 19 February, 2011 Share Posted 19 February, 2011 No they're not. Oh I'm sorry I forgot you worked in the public sector Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winnersaint Posted 19 February, 2011 Share Posted 19 February, 2011 Here's something which sums up, exactly what is wrong in the public sector. I am a senior member of staff in a school. To raise achievement something both Labour and the Tories want us to do we have a programme of Saturday, evening and holiday revision sessions. Staff are paid for their time. I am not going to divulge how much but this is not additional money in the budget, it is money that is already there and has been earmarked for this. A member of staff, with what I would consider an appalling absence record is currently at my school earning extra money as I type this, having been absent sick from Wednesday morning onwards for which she has been paid in full. Am I right in thinking there is something wrong in that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EastleighSoulBoy Posted 19 February, 2011 Share Posted 19 February, 2011 Here's something which sums up, exactly what is wrong in the public sector. I am a senior member of staff in a school. To raise achievement something both Labour and the Tories want us to do we have a programme of Saturday, evening and holiday revision sessions. Staff are paid for their time. I am not going to divulge how much but this is not additional money in the budget, it is money that is already there and has been earmarked for this. A member of staff, with what I would consider an appalling absence record is currently at my school earning extra money as I type this, having been absent sick from Wednesday morning onwards for which she has been paid in full. Am I right in thinking there is something wrong in that? Spot on! In industry, OK mainly unionised, you were not allowed to work overtime on the weekend if you were absent (sick) on the Friday. This rule even went further, that you could not work a weekend prior to your week of holiday (week ran Mon to Sun). Are the school aware that this member of staff is in? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 19 February, 2011 Author Share Posted 19 February, 2011 Here's something which sums up, exactly what is wrong in the public sector. I am a senior member of staff in a school. To raise achievement something both Labour and the Tories want us to do we have a programme of Saturday, evening and holiday revision sessions. Staff are paid for their time. I am not going to divulge how much but this is not additional money in the budget, it is money that is already there and has been earmarked for this. A member of staff, with what I would consider an appalling absence record is currently at my school earning extra money as I type this, having been absent sick from Wednesday morning onwards for which she has been paid in full. Am I right in thinking there is something wrong in that? This comes down to ineffective management at the end of the day, in this case the head of the school. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 19 February, 2011 Share Posted 19 February, 2011 Tax avoidance is obviously very wrong.. However, what ever bonuses barclays pay out is nothing to do with us... People should equally stamp their feet and Chelsea spending £50m on a crock!!! Tax 'avoidance' is one thing. But a British-based company paying less than 1% in corporation tax is a disgrace no matter how you cut it. To then pay roughly the equivalent amount out in bonuses mostly to their top staff is just rubbing salt into the wound. In the US, the company would be hit by an IRS audit (painful and expensive). Here? Well let's see what Cameron does... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mightysaints Posted 19 February, 2011 Share Posted 19 February, 2011 My company work on a number of projects with councils all over the UK. On the private sector there would at the most 10 of us being project managers,surveyors etc, On the council side we could easly have to deal with 50 people do the same work of 10. The quality of the council personel was also very poor and set in their ways. On any number of times i needed to speak to the council team there was always a number of them off ill etc. The problem we are seeing is that these guys and girls have got away with such an easy work atmosphere that they can' fit into the private sector work ethics. We wouldn't employ any of them as they are just not up to scratch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badgerx16 Posted 19 February, 2011 Share Posted 19 February, 2011 My company work on a number of projects with councils all over the UK. On the private sector there would at the most 10 of us being project managers,surveyors etc, On the council side we could easly have to deal with 50 people do the same work of 10. The quality of the council personel was also very poor and set in their ways. On any number of times i needed to speak to the council team there was always a number of them off ill etc. The problem we are seeing is that these guys and girls have got away with such an easy work atmosphere that they can' fit into the private sector work ethics. We wouldn't employ any of them as they are just not up to scratch And I've come across many consultants employed by private sector suppliers who get paid more than me, yet can't find their arse with both hands, and I end up fixing systems they've buggered up or don't understand. You're point is what exactly ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 19 February, 2011 Share Posted 19 February, 2011 ^ Well, I've worked on public sector construction contracts too and I can tell you that even a big metropolitan council would not have 50 people solely working on a single contract. Their project managers often have 3 or 4 projects on the go at any one time and a large Manchester council I worked with had only 3 project managers that I can remember plus about the same number of surveryors. Yes they would have had support staff, such as project accountants and clerical staff but these too would be working on a number of projects as would support staff in the private sector. When I worked on a £200m project for the NHS, we had one project manager, a shared project accountant, two project assistants and a project director who was also responsible for another £150m project at the same time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Duckhunter Posted 19 February, 2011 Share Posted 19 February, 2011 Surely it's not beyond the wit and wisdom of some of our leaders to come us with a local Govt system that makes local councils more accoutable to local people. At the moment every cut, council tax rise and almost everything else can be blamed on national Govt.Therefore local people are confussed as to who to blame and the status quo remains. If local councils could raise their own revenue and there was a direct link from the voters to the money spent, then any councils wasting money could be voted out.If the people of Windsor and Maidenhead didn't think they needed a Roller Disco coach, then they could vote the council out. Equally the council could stand for election on the back of "we've given you a roller disco coach", either way local people decide. At the moment there seems to be no local accountability for decisions made by local councils. It is the UK's taxpayers money, and not the Windsor and Maidenhead tax payers money.If locally you want money thrown around, and year on year increases in council services, then you can vote for that. If you want a tighter fiscal policy and the council doing the minimum, then vote for that. At the moment how you vote in local elections will not change Council services. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 19 February, 2011 Share Posted 19 February, 2011 Surely it's not beyond the wit and wisdom of some of our leaders to come us with a local Govt system that makes local councils more accoutable to local people. At the moment every cut, council tax rise and almost everything else can be blamed on national Govt.Therefore local people are confussed as to who to blame and the status quo remains. If local councils could raise their own revenue and there was a direct link from the voters to the money spent, then any councils wasting money could be voted out.If the people of Windsor and Maidenhead didn't think they needed a Roller Disco coach, then they could vote the council out. Equally the council could stand for election on the back of "we've given you a roller disco coach", either way local people decide. At the moment there seems to be no local accountability for decisions made by local councils. It is the UK's taxpayers money, and not the Windsor and Maidenhead tax payers money.If locally you want money thrown around, and year on year increases in council services, then you can vote for that. If you want a tighter fiscal policy and the council doing the minimum, then vote for that. At the moment how you vote in local elections will not change Council services. It does depend on the makeup of the council to some extent. My local council is Tory through and through and I don't realistically see that changing in the forseeable future (having said that, a Labour councillor was elected recently - the first one in donkey's years!) But just down the road, Oxford City Council 'changes hands' quite regularly and this shows in the policies adopted. Think too of councils like Westminster and Wandsworth where they have comparatively poor local services and relatively low council tax. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deppo Posted 19 February, 2011 Share Posted 19 February, 2011 Tax avoidance is obviously very wrong.. I call it 'tax avoision'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badgerx16 Posted 19 February, 2011 Share Posted 19 February, 2011 What you have to remember about Local Government is that most of what they do is statutory, and carried out under the direction of Westminster, which is also where most of the money comes from. The Councillors have an ability to directly affect no more than about 35% of what is done by their staff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Duckhunter Posted 19 February, 2011 Share Posted 19 February, 2011 What you have to remember about Local Government is that most of what they do is statutory, and carried out under the direction of Westminster, which is also where most of the money comes from. The Councillors have an ability to directly affect no more than about 35% of what is done by their staff. Exactly. That's why local elections dont matter that much to the people. A local income or sales tax, and real decisions made at local level would make the council accountable. The other benefit is that local councilours could then make a smooth and easy transistion to national politics. Perhaps Govt could work out a formula similar to what they do for Scotland for the basic funding, then the local council top it up how they see fit. It maybe raising local taxes by a lot , or maybe squeezing costs. At the moment even the Council tax can be blamed on national Govt. When my Lib/Dem came round during the last local elections, I told him that Council tax had gone up under his local party, but that I hadn't seen any improvement in services. He basically blamed the Govt of the day, saying that they had been given less money and had to fill the shortfall.It maybe right, but I would like to see real power devolved to them and then I'll vote on their decisions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rorski Posted 19 February, 2011 Share Posted 19 February, 2011 What local Labour and in some cases Lib/Dem councils are doing is a disgrace and I hope the local voters wake up and smell the coffee. Take Manchester, cuts will reduce their income to 2008 levels and yet in 2008 I dont recall any clamour for more "investment", they were able to run libraries and swimming pools, so there is no need to cut these types of services, they are doing it to try and paint the coalition as the bad guys and playing politics with people's lives. The Labour party were committed to cuts, with it's last chancellor admitting that cuts would be "tougher and deeper" than those implemented by Margaret Thatcher" had they won the election. Now they play politics with the issue, standing on the sideline opposing every cut in a cynical , and deeply dishonest way. I just hope that the British people are not as stupid as the Labour Party seem to think they are. I concur Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badgerx16 Posted 19 February, 2011 Share Posted 19 February, 2011 As far as I am aware, all councils have been pressured by Georgie Porgie to freeze Council Tax for the coming year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anothersaintinsouthsea Posted 19 February, 2011 Share Posted 19 February, 2011 Inflation isn't high enough to justify cuts to front line services. If everyone had to go back to 2008 wages, it would hurt, but most people would be able to manage. Inflation has been more than enough, putting 2011 spending back to 2008 levels is probably a 10% cut in real terms. You can also factor in the fact that the demand on basic services will probably have increased due to the tough economic conditions, that with greater numbers out of work council tax receipts will be down and that the contribution from central government will have been cut. Not as simple as you make out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Gotsmanov Posted 20 February, 2011 Share Posted 20 February, 2011 Ask the bankers themselves if they'd leave and you'll get a resounding NO. London is a world city and the draw of working in London, on even smaller rewards if the tax take take went up, outweighs extra ££ in Mumbai and the like. A number of institutions found that out when they sounded staff out in 2009/2010 when the fear of paying their way loomed large. Sadly I disagree, tax too hard and the bankers will go. The temptation is to demand some kind of retribution for their role in bringing the global economy to its knees but in reality we would be cutting off our nose to spite our faces. We need the revenue that the city geneerates and have to make sure that it ticks all the boxes for the city big wigs. The Germans would give their eye teeth to have Franfurt as the main European financial centre. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 20 February, 2011 Share Posted 20 February, 2011 Sadly I disagree, tax too hard and the bankers will go. The temptation is to demand some kind of retribution for their role in bringing the global economy to its knees but in reality we would be cutting off our nose to spite our faces. We need the revenue that the city geneerates and have to make sure that it ticks all the boxes for the city big wigs. The Germans would give their eye teeth to have Franfurt as the main European financial centre. So you think Barclays paying roughly 1% corporation tax is acceptable? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 20 February, 2011 Share Posted 20 February, 2011 So you think Barclays paying roughly 1% corporation tax is acceptable? It's only because of their horrendous losses over the last couple of years. Taken over a longer period the tax paid is higher. Much as it may be unpalatable, we need the banks to rebuild their balance sheets, in fact the government has insisted on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Gotsmanov Posted 20 February, 2011 Share Posted 20 February, 2011 So you think Barclays paying roughly 1% corporation tax is acceptable? Actually I thought that was pretty disgusting but they are only working under the rules. Do you expect organisations to volunteer to pay more taxes? Blame Gordon Brown for that. The point that I am making is that the city is critical to the economy and you have to tread carefully or we will lose a considerable cash cow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorpe-le-Saint Posted 20 February, 2011 Share Posted 20 February, 2011 Sadly I disagree, tax too hard and the bankers will go. The temptation is to demand some kind of retribution for their role in bringing the global economy to its knees but in reality we would be cutting off our nose to spite our faces. We need the revenue that the city geneerates and have to make sure that it ticks all the boxes for the city big wigs. The Germans would give their eye teeth to have Franfurt as the main European financial centre. So do we just let them get away with it? Posts like this always amaze me as people seem to willingly allow themselves to be shafted and accept it. I appreciate the role they play in wealth creation blah blah blah but the general public does not deserve to have been treated in the way it has. Don't do anything and it gives them a precedent to do it again and again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 20 February, 2011 Share Posted 20 February, 2011 So do we just let them get away with it? Posts like this always amaze me as people seem to willingly allow themselves to be shafted and accept it. I appreciate the role they play in wealth creation blah blah blah but the general public does not deserve to have been treated in the way it has. where in his post does it say they should get away with it..? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorpe-le-Saint Posted 20 February, 2011 Share Posted 20 February, 2011 where in his post does it say they should get away with it..? It doesn't, I was asking a question in response to a post that stated taxing too much isn't an option. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 20 February, 2011 Share Posted 20 February, 2011 It doesn't, I was asking a question in response to post them stated taxing too much isn't an option. there clearly is a fine line...as a country we clearly need the income they directly and indirectly create.....its a toughie as im sure other countries would rip the bankers arms off for one of their cities to be the financial hub that London is... lets say we tax them to submission and so many of the big banks leave these shores and leave a huge hole in wealth they once created....how do we make that up..? put petrol prices up..? raise interest rates...? put up income tax..? tax tax tax..? serious question Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorpe-le-Saint Posted 20 February, 2011 Share Posted 20 February, 2011 there clearly is a fine line...as a country we clearly need the income they directly and indirectly create.....its a toughie as im sure other countries would rip the bankers arms off for one of their cities to be the financial hub that London is... lets say we tax them to submission and so many of the big banks leave these shores and leave a huge hole in wealth they once created....how do we make that up..? put petrol prices up..? raise interest rates...? put up income tax..? tax tax tax..? serious question Using the money we would have got out of them through a 'bank tax', invest it in British industry. If Germany can have an industrial centre and a pretty well equipped banking sector (even though it isn't a continental leader), then so can we. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 20 February, 2011 Share Posted 20 February, 2011 there clearly is a fine line...as a country we clearly need the income they directly and indirectly create.....its a toughie as im sure other countries would rip the bankers arms off for one of their cities to be the financial hub that London is... lets say we tax them to submission and so many of the big banks leave these shores and leave a huge hole in wealth they once created....how do we make that up..? put petrol prices up..? raise interest rates...? put up income tax..? tax tax tax..? serious question It's not a serious question. It's a question that betrays a lack of a moment's thought. How far above 1% corporation tax does 'taxing the banks into submission' start? 1.5%? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now