Pre-election party conferences

[buctootim]

That will only put people out of work.

 

Another hoary old myth that was busted years ago. Your me me me self interest has blinded you to rational thought.

[Whitey Grandad]

Another hoary old myth that was busted years ago. Your me me me self interest has blinded you to rational thought.

 

Not me, I ought to be retired. Speak to my cleaning company if you don't believe what I say. There's nothing mythological about it.

[TopGun]

I was talking to a SPAD (special advisor) to a Cabinet minister earlier this week and he said that this is the time when all policy turns political until next May. He also said that he and other SPADs of all parties are being lobbied increasingly now by special interest groups to get their particular agendas included formally and favourably in the political party pre-election manifestos, whether its NGOs, charities, business associations or trade unions.

[buctootim]

Not me, I ought to be retired. Speak to my cleaning company if you don't believe what I say. There's nothing mythological about it.

 

Thats the trouble, your opinions are based on somebody you spoke to, something you think you heard on the radio. They arent facts. Read more, look at the evidence of what happens bvoth in the UK and overseas. You could start here. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-minimum-wage-impact-on-earnings-employment-and-hours-in-the-recession

Edited 2 October, 2014 by buctootim

[Lord Duckhunter]

Tim, only reason the minimum wage didn't cost jobs is because it is such a low level . Its a political con trick designed by labour to give the appearance of helping the poor. If you have a minimum wage, why on earth do the government top it up to ensure a living amount? Surely if you are saying that it is governments job to ensure people are paid a certain level, that level should enable them to live without being topped up. We don't have a minimum wage, we have a welfare to work programme .

 

As for tax rates. Lowering the top rate clearly can bring more money in. The most graphic example is when Lawson lowered the taste from 82% to 60% and tax take went up. ( Remember labour were so against it, the uproar caused suspension of the house). Tories believe in the Laffer curve and labour did, hence 40% top rate until Browns political elephant trap . Funny that labour called for lowering VAT to bring in more money, but don't apply the same logic to Income Tax. Deep down they know its true, but politically they are dishonest and think there's votes in squeezing the rich until the pips squeak.

[aintforever]

Raising the marginal rate above about 40% reduces the total tax-take, please see below. It's certainly not a giveaway if you're giving people their own money. Please see above under 'Gordon Brown'. You're talking as though this money that these people earn belongs to the government.

 

 

 

As the marginal rate increases (including NI) then the total tax take rises and then falls as more and more earners don't see the point in earning more money for less return. There have been many studies into the optimal rate from the government's view of maximising the tax-take but somewhere around 35% to 45% is a common figure.

 

http://www.director.co.uk/magazine/2012/05_May/Graeme_Leach_65_09.html

 

http://www.adamsmith.org/blog/tax-spending/calculating-the-optimal-progessive-income-tax/

 

Not convinced by that, certainly wouldn't trust anything in a magazine for directors. Stats will always show that a lower tax rate brings more in because governments award people with low taxes when things are going well. Sure there will be some behavioural change of the most greedy but doubt it's alot.

 

I really feel sorry for people who live a comfortable life and look at their tax bill and see it as money being stolen from them, what a sad existence. My household brings in way above the national average salary wise, I don't give tax a moment's thought - if anything I am glad I am putting something back.

[CB Saint]

The effect of Cameron's tax reduction promises. More money for the well paid and less for the poorly paid whilst the national debt grows. Who'd have thunk it?

 

A couple thoughts - most tax cuts will benefit the more well off as they are paying the lions share of it in the first place

 

Secondly, chances are the first 10 percentile a in that graph will be earning around £10k or less, there fore not paying any tax whatsoever, so it is hardly surprising that they haven't received any benefit of a tax cut

[Whitey Grandad]

Not convinced by that, certainly wouldn't trust anything in a magazine for directors. Stats will always show that a lower tax rate brings more in because governments award people with low taxes when things are going well. Sure there will be some behavioural change of the most greedy but doubt it's alot.

 

I really feel sorry for people who live a comfortable life and look at their tax bill and see it as money being stolen from them, what a sad existence. My household brings in way above the national average salary wise, I don't give tax a moment's thought - if anything I am glad I am putting something back.

 

I'm surprised that so few people knew this thing about the optimal tax rate. There's a whole department at the Treasury studying different mathematical models, just have a look for the 'Laffer Curve'. Of course economies are a lot more complicated than a simple curve and the optimal rate changes constantly with all sorts of factors. There is another debate as to whether extorting the maximum amount of tax from the economy is a good thing. Here's a couple of links:

 

http://www.cityam.com/article/maximising-tax-revenue-good-politicians-not-rest-us

 

http://learneconomicsonline.com/laffercurve.php

 

As to whether you're happy to pay a lot of tax depends upon whether you believe that the government is better qualified to spend the money that its earners. For companies a high tax rate will bleed them of funds that could otherwise be invested in new staff and products.

[trousers]

I've never understood the 'logic' that politicians are somehow better at spending our money than we are.

 

The more money we give them the more they waste.

[solentstars]

Not convinced by that, certainly wouldn't trust anything in a magazine for directors. Stats will always show that a lower tax rate brings more in because governments award people with low taxes when things are going well. Sure there will be some behavioural change of the most greedy but doubt it's alot.

 

I really feel sorry for people who live a comfortable life and look at their tax bill and see it as money being stolen from them, what a sad existence. My household brings in way above the national average salary wise, I don't give tax a moment's thought - if anything I am glad I am putting something back.

Same with me i have a comfortable life but quality of life is more important than status symbols and have found some of our poorest people are the hardest workers with little reward unlike those lazy bankers.you will always bring in more tax when the economy is booming .its a different matter in a recession.at the end of the day politicians of all partys are just mouthpieces of big businesses.

[Lord Duckhunter]

I've never understood how some people paying a higher % of their wages is somehow ' fairer' than everybody paying the same % . Wayne Rooney is far more talented than me , therefore he is worth more to his employer than I am to mine. If I pay 40% of my wages and he pays 40% of his, he'll be paying a damn sight more than me into the national coffers .

[buctootim]

Tim, only reason the minimum wage didn't cost jobs is because it is such a low level . Its a political con trick designed by labour to give the appearance of helping the poor. If you have a minimum wage, why on earth do the government top it up to ensure a living amount? Surely if you are saying that it is governments job to ensure people are paid a certain level, that level should enable them to live without being topped up. We don't have a minimum wage, we have a welfare to work programme .

 

As for tax rates. Lowering the top rate clearly can bring more money in. The most graphic example is when Lawson lowered the taste from 82% to 60% and tax take went up. ( Remember labour were so against it, the uproar caused suspension of the house). Tories believe in the Laffer curve and labour did, hence 40% top rate until Browns political elephant trap . Funny that labour called for lowering VAT to bring in more money, but don't apply the same logic to Income Tax. Deep down they know its true, but politically they are dishonest and think there's votes in squeezing the rich until the pips squeak.

 

I agree its a question of degree. The current minimum wage is a bit tokenistic but its better than the nothing which preceded it. It would be intersting to see credible research into the impact on the labour market of the minimum wage at £10 and £12ph. At those levels you would really start to create an incentive for work and decreasing both poverty and benefits claims.

 

Im not sure that anyone is proposing a return to the punitive, and to my mind slightly immoral 'supertax' rates. I'd be happy with a top income tax rate of 45 or 50% but with far fewer ways of sheltering. The problem in general is not the taxation rates, but the whole tax avoidance industry that has grown up to enable those with money to opt out of paying whilst those poor souls with no assets and on basic PAYE end up paying more. If somebody on £30,000pa puts £5,000 into their pension they will get £1,000 tax relief. If somebody on £100,000pa does the same they will get £2,000 relief - why does that make sense? Why should Starbucks or any other multiinational be able to have its directly managed subsidiaries pay a big enough 'franchise fee' to declare a loss each year and avoid paying corporation tax? Taxation shouldnt be optional

[View From The Top]

I get far more annoyed that companies and very wealthy individuals avoid paying their fair share as we mere mortals have to.

[aintforever]

I've never understood how some people paying a higher % of their wages is somehow ' fairer' than everybody paying the same % . Wayne Rooney is far more talented than me , therefore he is worth more to his employer than I am to mine. If I pay 40% of my wages and he pays 40% of his, he'll be paying a damn sight more than me into the national coffers .

 

Because he can afford it and it's nice to help people less fortunate.

 

Difficult concept to grasp I know.

[buctootim]

I've never understood the 'logic' that politicians are somehow better at spending our money than we are.

 

The more money we give them the more they waste.

 

You only have to look at the relative costs of private education and healthcare in societies where the state doesnt provide an adequate level of care to see the nonsense in that. The biggest creator of inefficiency in the NHS has been the creation of the internal market. The shortest school terms are in private schools.

[hypochondriac]

You only have to look at the relative costs of private education and healthcare in societies where the state doesnt provide an adequate level of care to see the nonsense in that. The biggest creator of inefficiency in the NHS has been the creation of the internal market. The shortest school terms are in private schools.

 

True but my day at St mary's finished half an hour later than the state schools!

[buctootim]

True but my day at St mary's finished half an hour later than the state schools!

 

Another example of inefficiency!

[sandwichsaint]

[/img]

 

What happened to Germany's 1% after 1998?

 

Nice graphic BTW, good to see that the French, German and Aussie 1% have managed to rub along on a broadly similar share of GDP for the last 40 years. Only in the UK and the USA have the bestest deemed themselves to be worth more than twice as much now as they were 40 years ago. On this graphic the remaining 99% of Brits shared about 92% of the national pie 40 years ago, nowadays the 99% get by on just over 80% of GDP. If you see Sid tell him.

[buctootim]

What happened to Germany's 1% after 1998?

 

Nice graphic BTW, good to see that the French, German and Aussie 1% have managed to rub along on a broadly similar share of GDP for the last 40 years. Only in the UK and the USA have the bestest deemed themselves to be worth more than twice as much now as they were 40 years ago. On this graphic the remaining 99% of Brits shared about 92% of the national pie 40 years ago, nowadays the 99% get by on just over 80% of GDP. If you see Sid tell him.

 

This is the one that strikes me most. Admittedly its US, I cant find the UK data, but incomes for 80% of the population have practically stagnated for 35 years whilst the small minority power ahead.

 

Edited 2 October, 2014 by buctootim

[CB Fry]

This is the one that strikes me most. Admittedly its US, I cant find the UK data, but incomes for the large majority have practically stagnated for 35 years whilst the small minority power ahead.

 

Those people are definitely working much harder than the rest of us now and much, much harder than their equivalents forty odd years ago.

 

I find it both motivating and aspirational.

[Whitey Grandad]

I agree its a question of degree. The current minimum wage is a bit tokenistic but its better than the nothing which preceded it. It would be intersting to see credible research into the impact on the labour market of the minimum wage at £10 and £12ph. At those levels you would really start to create an incentive for work and decreasing both poverty and benefits claims.

 

Im not sure that anyone is proposing a return to the punitive, and to my mind slightly immoral 'supertax' rates. I'd be happy with a top income tax rate of 45 or 50% but with far fewer ways of sheltering. The problem in general is not the taxation rates, but the whole tax avoidance industry that has grown up to enable those with money to opt out of paying whilst those poor souls with no assets and on basic PAYE end up paying more. If somebody on £30,000pa puts £5,000 into their pension they will get £1,000 tax relief. If somebody on £100,000pa does the same they will get £2,000 relief - why does that make sense? Why should Starbucks or any other multiinational be able to have its directly managed subsidiaries pay a big enough 'franchise fee' to declare a loss each year and avoid paying corporation tax? Taxation shouldnt be optional

 

The tax relief is only worth more because the marginal rate is twice as high. If there were a flat rate of 20% then the relief would be the same for both.

 

As for Starbucks and all the others I agree totally.

[Sour Mash]

I've never understood how some people paying a higher % of their wages is somehow ' fairer' than everybody paying the same % . Wayne Rooney is far more talented than me , therefore he is worth more to his employer than I am to mine. If I pay 40% of my wages and he pays 40% of his, he'll be paying a damn sight more than me into the national coffers .

Completely agree.

 

And anyway, for any of us, paying 40% of what we earn is disgusting if we stop and think about it - that's before all the tax we shell out on other stuff, it is crazy.

[Sour Mash]

What happened to Germany's 1% after 1998?

 

Nice graphic BTW, good to see that the French, German and Aussie 1% have managed to rub along on a broadly similar share of GDP for the last 40 years. Only in the UK and the USA have the bestest deemed themselves to be worth more than twice as much now as they were 40 years ago. On this graphic the remaining 99% of Brits shared about 92% of the national pie 40 years ago, nowadays the 99% get by on just over 80% of GDP. If you see Sid tell him.

Why is that a problem?

 

And the "bestest" haven't "deemed themselves" to be worth more than twice as much now as they were 40 years ago.

[sandwichsaint]

Completely agree.

 

And anyway, for any of us, paying 40% of what we earn is disgusting if we stop and think about it - that's before all the tax we shell out on other stuff, it is crazy.

 

Couldn't agree more - tax, who needs it?

 

Need a policeman? £150 call out fee and £200 per hour or part of.

 

Health service? Call the help line, only 38p a minute or join the online interactive service for just £12.99 a month. You want to see a real doctor, £100 for a 15 minute consultation, prices start at £250 for them actually doing anything. Hospital admission, £100 a day plus treatment. Maybe you could cover it all with private insurance if you could afford it? You could if you wanted to be like the USA which has the most expensive medical system in the world and the one with the most unequal outcomes.

 

Education? A place at a bog-standard state school will set you back around 5.5k per child per year, plus extras (small bonus here though as the majority of families couldn't afford this so lower class sizes yippee! Though there might be an economic downside to withdrawing universal education and only educating those who could afford it?).

 

Roads? Road pricing should do that ... Mway 75p mile, trunk roads 40p mile, urban driving 50p mile hey, no queues but an enormous add-on to the cost of anything you want to buy, sounds good to me.

 

Benefits? No benefits at all, not child benefit, not unemployment benefit, not sickness benefit, not disability benefit, no nice tax reliefs.

 

Pensions? No, none, provide your own or work till you drop.

 

Forces? None, just private security firms available to the highest bidder and those that can pay.

 

 

I think you need to stop and have a little think about what your tax actually pays for, most people in the current situation would think themselves extremely fortunate to be in a position to pay 40% tax .... you do realise that being in the 40% tax bracket puts you in the top 15% of earners and 50k puts you in the top 10% of earners?

 

(and you don't pay '40% of what we earn', you have a tax free lump first, and then a lump at 20% too before you begin to pay 40%).

[Sour Mash]

Couldn't agree more - tax, who needs it?

 

Need a policeman? £150 call out fee and £200 per hour or part of.

 

Health service? Call the help line, only 38p a minute or join the online interactive service for just £12.99 a month. You want to see a real doctor, £100 for a 15 minute consultation, prices start at £250 for them actually doing anything. Hospital admission, £100 a day plus treatment. Maybe you could cover it all with private insurance if you could afford it? You could if you wanted to be like the USA which has the most expensive medical system in the world and the one with the most unequal outcomes.

 

Education? A place at a bog-standard state school will set you back around 5.5k per child per year, plus extras (small bonus here though as the majority of families couldn't afford this so lower class sizes yippee! Though there might be an economic downside to withdrawing universal education and only educating those who could afford it?).

 

Roads? Road pricing should do that ... Mway 75p mile, trunk roads 40p mile, urban driving 50p mile hey, no queues but an enormous add-on to the cost of anything you want to buy, sounds good to me.

 

Benefits? No benefits at all, not child benefit, not unemployment benefit, not sickness benefit, not disability benefit, no nice tax reliefs.

 

Pensions? No, none, provide your own or work till you drop.

 

Forces? None, just private security firms available to the highest bidder and those that can pay.

 

 

I think you need to stop and have a little think about what your tax actually pays for, most people in the current situation would think themselves extremely fortunate to be in a position to pay 40% tax .... you do realise that being in the 40% tax bracket puts you in the top 15% of earners and 50k puts you in the top 10% of earners?

 

(and you don't pay '40% of what we earn', you have a tax free lump first, and then a lump at 20% too before you begin to pay 40%).

F*****g hell, there is no way you're being serious here.

[sandwichsaint]

Why is that a problem?

 

And the "bestest" haven't "deemed themselves" to be worth more than twice as much now as they were 40 years ago.

 

I would have thought it was self-evidently a problem that 1% of a society take nearly 20% of the output? Where would you draw the line? Would you be happy if the 1% took 30% or 40% or 75% of the available resources? There must come a point where their position in terms of any sort of civil/ democratic/ consensual society becomes untenable?

 

How do you think the 1% have doubled their share of the pie in the last 40 years if not through their own actions? They keep a firm grip on power, property, land, politicians, the media, law and big business, and all in their own narrow class interest, this hasn't happened by accident or chance. Warren Buffet, one of the richest individuals in America writing in 1995 'There's class warfare all right, but it's my class, the rich class that's making war, and we're winning'. That was written nearly 20 years ago, and they haven't stopped yet.

[sandwichsaint]

F*****g hell, there is no way you're being serious here.

 

I've never been more serious! I take it you do pay 40% tax (even thought it's not really 40%)?

 

Considering you are in the top 15% of earners how much do you think would be a reasonable amount for you to be paying?

 

Which areas of current Govt spending would you cut to pay for the shortfall?

[Lord Duckhunter]

I've never been more serious! I take it you do pay 40% tax (even thought it's not really 40%)?

 

Considering you are in the top 15% of earners how much do you think would be a reasonable amount for you to be paying?

 

Which areas of current Govt spending would you cut to pay for the shortfall?

 

Free school diners for rich kids, free TV licence for elderly rich people, winter fuel allowance for rich people, boob jobs on the nhs, child benefit for kids not in the uk, subsidised labour for multi national companies, some foreign aid, cut the number of sweaty MP's , the sovereign grant, quangos, public information stating the bleeding obvious. If you don't think we can save money you're deluded. This country takes enough of its citizens hard earned cash to look after the people who deserve it , and fund decent public services. The problem is two fold, one it's spread too thinly and two it's wasted by the clowns who take it from us.

 

It's a strange kind of "fair" that means some people have to pay a higher % of their earnings than others. To do so , and then still get critisised and vilified for being "rich" is a joke.

Edited 3 October, 2014 by Lord Duckhunter

[CB Saint]

I've never been more serious! I take it you do pay 40% tax (even thought it's not really 40%)?

 

Considering you are in the top 15% of earners how much do you think would be a reasonable amount for you to be paying?

 

Which areas of current Govt spending would you cut to pay for the shortfall?

 

i dont think any of us mind about paying 40%, it's how that 40% is then p1ssed up the wall on that gets my goat. Let's take the aircraft carriers - assuming that we do actually need them and they wern't Gordon's parting gift the the Scottish shipbuilders, you can guarantee that 50% of the cost will be waste because a) the mod have no concept of the value of money b) don't give a toss cause its not theirs c) can't negotiate worth a damn d) the politicians keep changing the spec.

 

this happens at all levels of government, both local and central.

[saintbletch]

Couldn't agree more - tax, who needs it?

 

Need a policeman? £150 call out fee and £200 per hour or part of.

 

Health service? Call the help line, only 38p a minute or join the online interactive service for just £12.99 a month. You want to see a real doctor, £100 for a 15 minute consultation, prices start at £250 for them actually doing anything. Hospital admission, £100 a day plus treatment. Maybe you could cover it all with private insurance if you could afford it? You could if you wanted to be like the USA which has the most expensive medical system in the world and the one with the most unequal outcomes.

 

Education? A place at a bog-standard state school will set you back around 5.5k per child per year, plus extras (small bonus here though as the majority of families couldn't afford this so lower class sizes yippee! Though there might be an economic downside to withdrawing universal education and only educating those who could afford it?).

 

Roads? Road pricing should do that ... Mway 75p mile, trunk roads 40p mile, urban driving 50p mile hey, no queues but an enormous add-on to the cost of anything you want to buy, sounds good to me.

 

Benefits? No benefits at all, not child benefit, not unemployment benefit, not sickness benefit, not disability benefit, no nice tax reliefs.

 

Pensions? No, none, provide your own or work till you drop.

 

Forces? None, just private security firms available to the highest bidder and those that can pay.

 

 

I think you need to stop and have a little think about what your tax actually pays for, most people in the current situation would think themselves extremely fortunate to be in a position to pay 40% tax .... you do realise that being in the 40% tax bracket puts you in the top 15% of earners and 50k puts you in the top 10% of earners?

 

(and you don't pay '40% of what we earn', you have a tax free lump first, and then a lump at 20% too before you begin to pay 40%).

 

A good post sandwichsaint.

 

A reminder for us all.

 

But you left off the bit about our obligation to reduce the deficit, and to then start to reduce our national debt caused by the profligacy of previous governments and the wrecklessness of financial institutions, in order that the rest of our non-taxed income actually retains some real value.

 

Perhaps we could each opt-in or opt-out of contributing to a separate fund for paying off the national debt; a national debt largely caused by people who fit comfortably into the 45% tax bracket?

 

We might then have the wonderful irony of seeing relatively low earners of a left persuasion happily contributing to the fund to ensure that the money in the pocket of those relatively high earners of a right persuasion retained its value.

 

Perhaps we have that already?

[Special K]

I've never understood how some people paying a higher % of their wages is somehow ' fairer' than everybody paying the same % . Wayne Rooney is far more talented than me , therefore he is worth more to his employer than I am to mine. If I pay 40% of my wages and he pays 40% of his, he'll be paying a damn sight more than me into the national coffers .

 

If "Team Rooney" doesn't include a couple of accountants and tax avoidance specialists to make damn sure he doesn't pay his 40%, i'll eat my hat. And that applies to anyone who can afford to engage such specialists too.

[pap]

A good post sandwichsaint.

 

A reminder for us all.

 

But you left off the bit about our obligation to reduce the deficit, and to then start to reduce our national debt caused by the profligacy of previous governments and the wrecklessness of financial institutions, in order that the rest of our non-taxed income actually retains some real value.

 

Perhaps we could each opt-in or opt-out of contributing to a separate fund for paying off the national debt; a national debt largely caused by people who fit comfortably into the 45% tax bracket?

 

We might then have the wonderful irony of seeing relatively low earners of a left persuasion happily contributing to the fund to ensure that the money in the pocket of those relatively high earners of a right persuasion retained its value.

 

Perhaps we have that already?

 

I remember a campaign a few years ago in which rich people were donating more to the tax take than they needed to. I'm sure it'd be on Upworthy now if the story was released today. It's quite an interesting story, but even if I were super-loaded, I don't know that I'd pay into it.

 

The problem for me is that I'd never have any confidence that it'd be going to the right things. How much money have we spent on foreign interventions in places like Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and soon-to-be Syria? Next question. Did we spend it wisely? All four places are incredibly fúcked up; Libya is now one of the most dangerous countries on Earth, sparking a migrant crisis that has killed tens of thousands.

 

I agree with Lord D to an extent. We're a big country population wise. HMRC collects a lot of revenue, but it's a black hole of debt and war thereafter. In 1992, when it looked like Labour were going to sweep the already hated Conservatives out of power, my nan told a seventeen year old me "Don't get your hopes up, son. I've seen governments change for decades. Very little changes for you and me". With twenty-odd years of my own experience in the bag, that advice doesn't look any less sound.

 

We're now at a point where we don't really have multiple horses in a political race, just different jockeys who promise they're riding the horse in a different way. Yet the horse makes the same jumps regardless. Selling off private industry, getting into more debt and more war, neighing loudly that this is the only track it can run. Stick a red rosette or a blue rosette on it. The results are the same.

[OldNick]

What happened to Germany's 1% after 1998?

 

Nice graphic BTW, good to see that the French, German and Aussie 1% have managed to rub along on a broadly similar share of GDP for the last 40 years. Only in the UK and the USA have the bestest deemed themselves to be worth more than twice as much now as they were 40 years ago. On this graphic the remaining 99% of Brits shared about 92% of the national pie 40 years ago, nowadays the 99% get by on just over 80% of GDP. If you see Sid tell him.

Very interesting graph. See how the top people gained under Blair and Brown? Blair and Brown have a lot to answer for when they took the power away (very shortly whe they came to power IIRC)from the BOE to regulate the City. Then we got the boom where the bankers took risks that we all are paying for. In an odd kind of way the Labour voters put us in this mess, not that they will accept that of course.

I am happy to pay my fair share into the kitty but I resent the politics of envy and it is stated about 'the rich get richer'

What constitutes rich???? A pound more than you can spend, having shoes, sky,washing machine,? Or is just a case of envy that somebody else has a nicer car or a bigger house?

Fair minded people want working people to be rewarded, I am all for the tax threshold to be lifted for the low paid,

[OldNick]

I remember a campaign a few years ago in which rich people were donating more to the tax take than they needed to. I'm sure it'd be on Upworthy now if the story was released today. It's quite an interesting story, but even if I were super-loaded, I don't know that I'd pay into it.

 

The problem for me is that I'd never have any confidence that it'd be going to the right things. How much money have we spent on foreign interventions in places like Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and soon-to-be Syria? Next question. Did we spend it wisely? All four places are incredibly fúcked up; Libya is now one of the most dangerous countries on Earth, sparking a migrant crisis that has killed tens of thousands.

 

I agree with Lord D to an extent. We're a big country population wise. HMRC collects a lot of revenue, but it's a black hole of debt and war thereafter. In 1992, when it looked like Labour were going to sweep the already hated Conservatives out of power, my nan told a seventeen year old me "Don't get your hopes up, son. I've seen governments change for decades. Very little changes for you and me". With twenty-odd years of my own experience in the bag, that advice doesn't look any less sound.

 

We're now at a point where we don't really have multiple horses in a political race, just different jockeys who promise they're riding the horse in a different way. Yet the horse makes the same jumps regardless. Selling off private industry, getting into more debt and more war, neighing loudly that this is the only track it can run. Stick a red rosette or a blue rosette on it. The results are the same.

MPs in the main have a job for life with wonderful pensions. I read somewhere that there were only about 100 seats that were ever likely to change.Therefore it doesnt matter if they dont get things done, they only have to talk that they will

[buctootim]

"I shouldn't pay because I don't like the choice of wars". "I shouldn't pay because I think MPs are lazy". "I shouldn't pay because I've worked hard for my high paid job - and I shouldn't have paid when I was young and low paid either". They are all variants of not wanting to pull your weight - the kind of freeloading you nod and tut about when its someone else.

 

Go live a year in a country without an effective tax system - you'll be able to live tax free, especially in rural areas. Such government as there is will be funded by corruption. Obviously you wont have an independent police force, there will be some kind of village kangaroo court or militia instead so you might have to change your values / religion / sexual orientation / politics etc to those of the majority. There will no enforceable property rights either so someone who fancies it will take your house. The roads will be dirt tracks, the electricity mostly absent and you'll be surrounded by people who have never been to school and have no hope or prospects - but Im sure you and your family will safe. Life will be so much better.

 

Yeah I know - you never meant there should be no tax system, this is a facile point and all you wanted was to cut out the waste and not spend on the things you dont like. Democracy is too cumbersome. Some kind of opt in system perhaps? everyone gets to choose where their money goes and how much to pay. What could go wrong?

 

Do you know why London, Paris, New York etc are full of rich Russians? Its not because of lower tax, tax is lower in Russia - especially if you know the right people. Rich foreigners come to the west because of a safe regulated banking system, a land registry which cant be manipulated, an effective police force, independent courts, universal education which contributes to relatively low levels of crime, good hospitals wherever they happen to be instead of just in the capital city; and a high quality public realm (that means maintained parks and not being surrounded by lots of very poor people making them feel bad).

Edited 3 October, 2014 by buctootim

[pap]

The absence of real thought is staggering. "I shouldn't pay because I don't like the choice of wars". "I shouldn't pay because I think MPs are lazy". "I shouldnt pay because Ive worked hard for my high paid job - and I shouldn't have paid when young and low paid either". They are all variants of not wanting to pull your weight - the kind of freeloading you nod and tut about when its somoene else.

 

Go live a year in a country without an effective tax system - you'll be able to live tax free, especially in rural areas. Obviously you wont have an independent police force, there will be some kind of village kangaroo court or militia instead. The roads will be dirt tracks, the electricity mostly absent and you'll be surrounded by people who have never been to school and have no hope or prospects - but Im sure you and your family will safe. Life will be so much better.

 

No-one is saying that. However, the political system is a combination of representative democracy and the occasional bit of mob rule that forces wary parties to do a u-turn.

 

When you've got 2m people marching against war and a government that is hell-bent on ignoring them anyway, then questions about where the tax take goes is extremely relevant, particularly as that action has endangered this country for decades to come, which of course, will attract further cost as we seek to insulate ourselves from the many more people that would now do this country harm.

 

To your point, maybe we could move to one of the lawless fúcking hellholes this country has created.

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

Thats the trouble, your opinions are based on somebody you spoke to, something you think you heard on the radio. They arent facts. Read more, look at the evidence of what happens bvoth in the UK and overseas. You could start here. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-minimum-wage-impact-on-earnings-employment-and-hours-in-the-recession

 

Why do you think your clothes are made in Bangladesh and you speak to an Indian if your internet is down?

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

The tax relief is only worth more because the marginal rate is twice as high. If there were a flat rate of 20% then the relief would be the same for both.

 

As for Starbucks and all the others I agree totally.

 

Yup Google, Starbucks and the like should be made to pay.

[Whitey Grandad]

"I shouldn't pay because I don't like the choice of wars". "I shouldn't pay because I think MPs are lazy". "I shouldn't pay because I've worked hard for my high paid job - and I shouldn't have paid when I was young and low paid either". They are all variants of not wanting to pull your weight - the kind of freeloading you nod and tut about when its someone else.

 

Do you know why London, Paris, New York etc are full of rich Russians? Its not because of lower tax, tax is much lower in Russia - especially if you know the right people. Rich foreigners come to the west because of a safe regulated banking system, a land registry which cant be manipulated, an effective police force, independent courts, universal education which contributes to relatively low levels of crime, good hospitals wherever they happen to be instead of just in the capital city; and a high quality public realm (that means maintained parks and not being surrounded by lots of very poor people making them feel bad).

 

I don't think anybody is saying they shouldn't pay any tax, apart from all those who choose living off benefits as a lifestyle, it's a question of the rate of tax and the amount wasted.

 

As for rich foreigners, I suspect they come here because they can have all the benifts without paying any tax. In 'rich foreigners' I include those British who have chosen to be domiciled abroad yet still spend a lot of their time here. Philip Green for a start.

 

http://liberalconspiracy.org/2010/08/20/sir-philip-green-tax-avoider-gets-job-on-the-side/

Edited 3 October, 2014 by Whitey Grandad

[buctootim]

No-one is saying that. However, the political system is a combination of representative democracy and the occasional bit of mob rule that forces wary parties to do a u-turn.

 

When you've got 2m people marching against war and a government that is hell-bent on ignoring them anyway, then questions about where the tax take goes is extremely relevant, particularly as that action has endangered this country for decades to come, which of course, will attract further cost as we seek to insulate ourselves from the many more people that would now do this country harm.

 

To your point, maybe we could move to one of the lawless fúcking hellholes this country has created.

 

But that is conflating two separate points. One is legitimate complaint about the ability of the executive to go to war without even parliamentary vote in some cases, the other is about the cost, which is very much the junior issue in the greater scheme of things.

[buctootim]

I don't think anybody is saying they shouldn't pay any tax, apart from all those who choose living off benefits as a lifestyle, it's a question of the rate of tax and the amount wasted.

 

As for rich foreigners, I suspect they come here because they can have all the benifts without paying any tax. In 'rich foreigners' I include those British who have chosen to be domiciled abroad yet still spend a lot of their time here. Philip Green for a start.

 

http://liberalconspiracy.org/2010/08/20/sir-philip-green-tax-avoider-gets-job-on-the-side/

 

I agree. Philip Green is a good example of exploiting loopholes in the tax system to avoid paying. He does it by having majority ownership of Arcadia vested in his wife who is officially resident in Monaco whilst he is just a paid employee...In such cases Revenue and Customs should be able to go to court to make a judgement on deliberate avoidance and have the court make a levy based on turnover/ income / sales generated in the UK.

 

As to waste, how much is really waste and how much is thinking you don't agree with an area of expenditure so its 'wasted'? The billions genuinely wasted on aircraft carriers, and IT systems for healthcare are primarily down to politicians constantly changing their minds and the spec - not procurement staff in public services.

Edited 3 October, 2014 by buctootim

[saint1977]

I agree. Philip Green is a good example of exploiting loopholes in the tax system to avoid paying. He does it by having majority ownership of Arcadia vested in his wife who is officially resident in Monaco whilst he is just a paid employee...In such cases Revenue and Customs should be able to go to court to make a judgement on deliberate avoidance and have the court make a levy based turnover/ income / sales generated in the UK.

 

.

 

After the usual facile Left-Right arguments for three pages, there's actually been some very sensible debate on this page of the thread. If only some of this had been mirrored at the party conferences :-(

 

From a floating voter perspective, Osborne's speech made a lot more sense than Cameron's. Osborne in his time at 11 Downing St has come to understand that you need to counter sharp public spending reductions to some extent with investment in infrastructure and the science and knowledge bases. He's not got the likeable persona of Cameron which is a pity because IMO he's a far more able politician. Compare him with Balls and Milliband and quite frankly there isn't any contest, the Unions screwed Labour big time there. They've learned nothing from Brown's disasters.

 

However, Cameron rather fudged that clarity with a idiotic speech and why there's a need for tax cuts for £50-100k earners when we've still more than 50% of the defecit to clear I'll never know other than he read in one of Friedman's books. To now backtrack and claim the lowest paid will benefit fools no-one, neither his stealing of the the Lib Dem achievement on getting the very lowest earners and PT workers out of income tax.

[trousers]

When you've got 2m people marching against war and a government that is hell-bent on ignoring them anyway, then questions about where the tax take goes is extremely relevant,.

 

Maybe the government listened instead to the 62m people who didn't march against war...?

[pap]

But that is conflating two separate points. One is legitimate complaint about the ability of the executive to go to war without even parliamentary vote in some cases, the other is about the cost, which is very much the junior issue in the greater scheme of things.

 

The cost is borne by the tax payer.

 

You'll get no argument from me that lives > money, but the general point is that the public, at best, has very little direct control over what its money is spent on.

[pap]

Maybe the government listened instead to the 62m people who didn't march against war...?

 

The apathetic don't say much. I don't remember anyone at the time saying it was the absolute, right thing to do - except the parts of government that didn't resign over it.

[buctootim]

From a floating voter perspective, Osborne's speech made a lot more sense than Cameron's. Osborne in his time at 11 Downing St has come to understand that you need to counter sharp public spending reductions to some extent with investment in infrastructure and the science and knowledge bases. He's not got the likeable persona of Cameron which is a pity because IMO he's a far more able politician. Compare him with Balls and Milliband and quite frankly there isn't any contest, the Unions screwed Labour big time there. They've learned nothing from Brown's disasters.

 

However, Cameron rather fudged that clarity with a idiotic speech and why there's a need for tax cuts for £50-100k earners when we've still more than 50% of the defecit to clear I'll never know other than he read in one of Friedman's books. To now backtrack and claim the lowest paid will benefit fools no-one, neither his stealing of the the Lib Dem achievement on getting the very lowest earners and PT workers out of income tax.

 

 

Good post and one I largely agree with. I also think Osbourne has learned and improved in his time in office. Cameron, not so much.

 

My pet idea is to build a lot of large high end detached houses across Britain for slightly less than current market price. This would have several benefits amongst them: stimulating the economy since building is labour intensive and uses primarily UK produced materials; take the heat out of house prices making housing more affordable; and would create a cascade whereby one house built would benefit several families as people traded up.

Edited 3 October, 2014 by buctootim

[buctootim]

the general point is that the public, at best, has very little direct control over what its money is spent on.

 

Of course they dont, thats why we have elections. Its an imperfect system but better than the alternatives.

[pap]

Of course they dont, thats why we have elections. Its an imperfect system but better than the alternatives.

 

Elections are there to provide the illusion of choice and give the teeniest veneer of legitimacy to whichever elected dictatorship happens to be in power.

 

I used to think that the checks and balances of the media and public opinion would prevent governments from doing anything really stupid. The Iraq war and its aftermath ruined the peace of that comfortable lullaby.

[buctootim]

Elections are there to provide the illusion of choice and give the teeniest veneer of legitimacy to whichever elected dictatorship happens to be in power.

 

I used to think that the checks and balances of the media and public opinion would prevent governments from doing anything really stupid. The Iraq war and its aftermath ruined the peace of that comfortable lullaby.

 

and your fully worked up, proven elsewhere, alternative is....

[Whitey Grandad]

Elections are there to provide the illusion of choice and give the teeniest veneer of legitimacy to whichever elected dictatorship happens to be in power.

 

I used to think that the checks and balances of the media and public opinion would prevent governments from doing anything really stupid. The Iraq war and its aftermath ruined the peace of that comfortable lullaby.

 

The media control the agenda which is why some people want to control the media. It's difficult to get up in arms when there's such a sh1t poor turn out at general elections. Local elections are even worse.