View Full Version : Labour party
The Scottish Labour party ABSTAINED from a vote in the Scottish parliament against the reduction in the 50p tax rates. This is despite Ed Balls saying that Labour would oppose the tax cut. Apparently, leaked emails suggest it was a complete mess up. I am hanging and shaking my head. It saddens me that a party which I was once a member of is so incompetent and disorganised. John Smith and Donald Dewar must be turning in their graves. http://m.scotsman.com/news/labour-red-faced-over-e-mails-leak-1-2199643
John Little
28-Mar-12, 08:12
Oh who do I vote for now?
I think I'll just go for a walk next time there's an election.
weezer 316
28-Mar-12, 13:17
The Scottish Labour party ABSTAINED from a vote in the Scottish parliament against the reduction in the 50p tax rates. This is despite Ed Balls saying that Labour would oppose the tax cut. Apparently, leaked emails suggest it was a complete mess up. I am hanging and shaking my head. It saddens me that a party which I was once a member of is so incompetent and disorganised. John Smith and Donald Dewar must be turning in their graves. http://m.scotsman.com/news/labour-red-faced-over-e-mails-leak-1-2199643
Why oh why are you against it being lowered? You do realise the treasury thinks its cost the country money? Surely you can appreciate that!?!
I would get on your horse about Brown abandoning the 10p rate and campaign to have that back if I was you. Good old labour screwed every low earner in the country there, yet The coalition have raised the tax allowance twice, and will again next year, and are slaughtered.
tonkatojo
28-Mar-12, 14:13
Why oh why are you against it being lowered? You do realise the treasury thinks its cost the country money? Surely you can appreciate that!?!
I would get on your horse about Brown abandoning the 10p rate and campaign to have that back if I was you. Good old labour screwed every low earner in the country there, yet The coalition have raised the tax allowance twice, and will again next year, and are slaughtered.
That's the trouble weezer, "the treasury thinks" !! only you and the tory's believe it. Simple maths do not and if the sums don't add up who is wrong. Now if what your saying is out of spite there is tax evasion then they should be persecuted and prosecuted.
Wood for the trees!
All you want to hear is a 90% tax attack on 'the rich' and your happy, even if it actually brings in rockall which means more taxes on the poorer end of society.
Crumbs Phill and Weezer you only ever see what you want to see.
I do not and never have wanted to see a tax on the highest earners of 90 percent. Where I have advocated tax rises, I have advocated them across the board. I did object to the 10 pence tax rate being removed although that was mitigated by a rise in tax credits and allowances for pensioners at the time. This meant that many people were actually better off. There were some losers, part time workers without children were worse off but the overall effect was to target support to those who needed it.
The reason the treasury were able to say that the 50% tax was not viable is because many wealthy people who would have paid it were able to enlist the services of people whose job it is to help them avoid tax by using loopholes in the tax law until recently largely ignored by successive governments. If they had closed the avoidance loopholes and left the tax rate at 50 p they would have collected far more. but that would have meant putting people before money and that doesnt fit the Tory ethos.
Badoom ching.
Thats it.
So they commit to closing the loopholes which is great but they drop the tax rate for the highest paid in society whilst removing thousands of part time workers from the tax credit system. Very high earners SHOULD pay tax if it is due - they MUST pay it - not avoid it. You and I cant avoid tax if we are on PAYE. Do you think tesco will employ people as cashiers and shelf fillers and drivers and allow their salary to be paid through a limited company so they can avoid their tax liability??? Objecting to the cut int he 50 p tax rate is not about penalising people for earning more it is about fairness - about people paying what they should be paying to support society. High earners pay less of a proportion of their salary in VAT, council tax and the like because their earnings are higher. They do not feel the impact of stamp price rises or fuel duty rises in the same way that those on low incomes feel them. Therefore it is RIGHT that they pay a higher proportion of their salary in tax and that they PAY it if they are DUE to pay it.
By closing the tax avoidance loopholes and yet at the same time lowering the tax rate the government is saying "dont do that that is naughty" whilst whispering behind their hand - "dont worry we are looking out for you really" .
The issue here for me is that the LABOUR party are so disorganised and chaotic that they dont know what they are supposed to be doing and also that they would abstain from voting against a tax cut for the highest earners in a budget which takes money from pensioners and the poorest. That is so far away from the role the labour party should be playing that it makes me hang my head.
weezer 316
28-Mar-12, 19:02
That's the trouble weezer, "the treasury thinks" !! only you and the tory's believe it. Simple maths do not and if the sums don't add up who is wrong. Now if what your saying is out of spite there is tax evasion then they should be persecuted and prosecuted.
I assume you possess superior income tax information that the treasury, as well as the skills to make use of that information?
Your believing again. How about we deal with facts eh? That sound like a good idea?
weezer 316
28-Mar-12, 19:18
Crumbs Phill and Weezer you only ever see what you want to see.
I do not and never have wanted to see a tax on the highest earners of 90 percent. Where I have advocated tax rises, I have advocated them across the board. I did object to the 10 pence tax rate being removed although that was mitigated by a rise in tax credits and allowances for pensioners at the time. This meant that many people were actually better off. There were some losers, part time workers without children were worse off but the overall effect was to target support to those who needed it.
The reason the treasury were able to say that the 50% tax was not viable is because many wealthy people who would have paid it were able to enlist the services of people whose job it is to help them avoid tax by using loopholes in the tax law until recently largely ignored by successive governments. If they had closed the avoidance loopholes and left the tax rate at 50 p they would have collected far more. but that would have meant putting people before money and that doesnt fit the Tory ethos.
Badoom ching.
Thats it.
So they commit to closing the loopholes which is great but they drop the tax rate for the highest paid in society whilst removing thousands of part time workers from the tax credit system. Very high earners SHOULD pay tax if it is due - they MUST pay it - not avoid it. You and I cant avoid tax if we are on PAYE. Do you think tesco will employ people as cashiers and shelf fillers and drivers and allow their salary to be paid through a limited company so they can avoid their tax liability??? Objecting to the cut int he 50 p tax rate is not about penalising people for earning more it is about fairness - about people paying what they should be paying to support society. High earners pay less of a proportion of their salary in VAT, council tax and the like because their earnings are higher. They do not feel the impact of stamp price rises or fuel duty rises in the same way that those on low incomes feel them. Therefore it is RIGHT that they pay a higher proportion of their salary in tax and that they PAY it if they are DUE to pay it.
By closing the tax avoidance loopholes and yet at the same time lowering the tax rate the government is saying "dont do that that is naughty" whilst whispering behind their hand - "dont worry we are looking out for you really" .
The issue here for me is that the LABOUR party are so disorganised and chaotic that they dont know what they are supposed to be doing and also that they would abstain from voting against a tax cut for the highest earners in a budget which takes money from pensioners and the poorest. That is so far away from the role the labour party should be playing that it makes me hang my head.
Firstly I see what presented. I refuse to back ideologies or movements, like yourself, as it blinds you to what may very well happening infront of our nose. See right wing mania in the states to see what I mean.
Secondly, and this is the crucial point, the 50p tax rate was costing money quite simply becuase people moved themselves and their capital away form the UK. Dont forget many of the UK's richest people are foreigners and they can go as easily as they came. it seems to be a particular point of ignorance for alot of people who seem to believe this cou try generates al the high wages itself, minus outside investment.
If Roman Abaramovich s off with his £10bn, not only would the lieks of Chelsea be hit hard but the £100m+ he invests in this country each year outside of Chelsea FC will go with him, its the equivalent hit to the treasury of about 10 000 - 20 000 basic tax payers stopping paying any tax at all. It stiings and thats just one guy. Quite how you cant see that I dont know.
Thirdly, your point on tax evasion or avoidance is moot. Your moaning abou the 50p tax rate being cut, and arguing they should hand over half their pay the exchequer. Now as for fairness, tell me, how much SHOULD a person on say £1m a yer pay to the exchequer? The top 10% paying 55% of income tax in this country....I think thast fair, dont you?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8417205.stm
....how much SHOULD a person on say £1m a yer pay to the exchequer? .....
Using the word "SHOULD" as a basis for my answer then....
£900,000.... £100,000 SHOULD be more than enough for anybody to live quite comfortably on...
Squidge, Weezer. I'm generally agreeing with what your both saying.
But it is this general banging on about the 50p tax rate from so many. Especially in reply to the budget it was all that Dribbleband et al focused on. It's just a media sound bite that is winding a lot of jealous people up because so many do not want to look at the bigger picture, or facts.
Crumbs Phill and Weezer you only ever see what you want to see.Methinks I see a damn sight more than some because I take the blinkers & rose tinted spectacles off. :Razz
High earners pay less of a proportion of their salary in VAT, council tax and the like because their earnings are higher. They do not feel the impact of stamp price rises or fuel duty rises in the same way that those on low incomes feel them. Therefore it is RIGHT that they pay a higher proportion of their salary in tax and that they PAY it if they are DUE to pay it. True, I accept that. Also, high earners have more to spend, be that on the highlife or just the ability to buy more, and by employing people to do various jobs on their behalf. Thus further adding to the economy.
But as Weezer pointed out these people are often highly mobile, as is their cash. Also there are many other options open to them to reduce their tax bill (some of which were taken away by Mr Osborne).
And yes it may be avoidance and or evasion, and yes these loopholes need closing, (some were).
But at the same time we need more rich people to come to the UK to pay tax, if they have the option of UK @ 50p or another EU state @ 40p where do you think they're going to go?
For example, in 2010 it was announced that a full 20% (from 0%) would be put on private jets imported into the UK. Played out as a 'rich' attack some were jumping for joy.
The Treasury also planned on spending the expectant £1.3Billion in revenue.
Overnight the imports stopped (and went to Denmark for 0%) massively damaging a large sector of the aviation industry and affecting jobs, further revenue from associated income and service providers.
Net result: 20% of nothing.
Using the word "SHOULD" as a basis for my answer then....
£900,000.... £100,000 SHOULD be more than enough for anybody to live quite comfortably on...Very idealistic, but in the real world.......?
weezer 316
28-Mar-12, 21:48
Using the word "SHOULD" as a basis for my answer then....
£900,000.... £100,000 SHOULD be more than enough for anybody to live quite comfortably on...
Brilliant! And how many jobs will that cost then? You then have the probelm people refuse to invest money as they cant atually make any more, which lowers tax recipts and then costs even more jobs, that then lowers tax receipts even more and leads to a negaive feedback loop.
I wouldnt be suprised if you were one of these people who says they shoudl just print a coupe of trillion and make everyone a millionaire!
weezer 316
28-Mar-12, 21:52
Squidge, Weezer. I'm generally agreeing with what your both saying.
But it is this general banging on about the 50p tax rate from so many. Especially in reply to the budget it was all that Dribbleband et al focused on. It's just a media sound bite that is winding a lot of jealous people up because so many do not want to look at the bigger picture, or facts.
Methinks I see a damn sight more than some because I take the blinkers & rose tinted spectacles off. :Razz
True, I accept that. Also, high earners have more to spend, be that on the highlife or just the ability to buy more, and by employing people to do various jobs on their behalf. Thus further adding to the economy.
But as Weezer pointed out these people are often highly mobile, as is their cash. Also there are many other options open to them to reduce their tax bill (some of which were taken away by Mr Osborne).
And yes it may be avoidance and or evasion, and yes these loopholes need closing, (some were).
But at the same time we need more rich people to come to the UK to pay tax, if they have the option of UK @ 50p or another EU state @ 40p where do you think they're going to go?
For example, in 2010 it was announced that a full 20% (from 0%) would be put on private jets imported into the UK. Played out as a 'rich' attack some were jumping for joy.
The Treasury also planned on spending the expectant £1.3Billion in revenue.
Overnight the imports stopped (and went to Denmark for 0%) massively damaging a large sector of the aviation industry and affecting jobs, further revenue from associated income and service providers.
Net result: 20% of nothing.
Very idealistic, but in the real world.......?
No idea about that jet carry on. Dont get me wrong, tax it but dont go bananas.
I often woder what would happen if these bankers all ed off home. Im sure the looney left would be delighted, but then we would have a 20% hit in our tax take. Which really makes us all richer eh!
Very idealistic, but in the real world.......?
Like I/you said... "SHOULD"... Never would expect it to happen...
If you want me to be idealistic then nobody should be earning that much in the first place so this should never be an issue.
You then have the probelm people refuse to invest money as they cant atually make any more
Is not making £100,000 a year making money?
What you mean is that they would only invest if they could make millions at the expense of others... Is that not greed?... Or maybe you think greed is good?
I wouldnt be suprised if you were one of these people who says they shoudl just print a coupe of trillion and make everyone a millionaire!
Nope... Counter productive... the millionaires would become billionaires & the billionaires would become trillionaires... & prices would adjust to compensate, so no difference really...
All that should happen is a better & fairer distribution of the money that is currently out there.
I dont have back any particular ideology or any particular movement. I dont wear rose tinted glasses nor blinkers.
Make no mistake I know fine that I dont have the answers and I know fine that the sort of society I want to live in costs a massive amount of money. I believe that it IS possible to have a society which looks after the weak and vulnerable and which puts the welfare of its citizens and the building of an equal society at the heart of its policies whilst maximising the country's income and ensuring fairness in its taxation system. I beleive that is possible but it will mean a complete change of priorities and to be frank an acceptance that Britian is not the world player it pretends to be in order to save a massive amount of money.
I AM anti - Tory party because I do not want a government which has the policy of increasing the personal wealth of the highest earners, the richest people in society AT THE EXPENSE of those who struggle every day to put food on the table and pay their rent through no fault of their own. I have no problem with any party who has a policy of increasing personal wealth for ALL its citizens - thats an admirable policy - i would love to be richer and have more personal wealth but the tory party do not care about the ordinary man in the street. They still beleive that there is no such thing as society - that we are not responsible for each other in any way shape or form. I cant agree with that. It goes against everything I have believed in all of my life - that everyone is entitled to a fair chance, that those who are disabled, sick and vulnerable need care and support, that people should be helped to find work not penalised for being out of work, that children are the responsibility of each and everyone of us and that society has a responsibility to ensure that EVERY SINGLE child has the opportunity to be the best they can be. Building a more equal society should be the most important policy of every party and by that I dont mean taxing the highest earners at 90% - there has to be a balance. In my opinion, reducing taxes for the highest earners can only ONLY be justified when it is done on the back of improvements in the standards of living of those at the bottom.
I get the point that what I am looking for is a big ask, pie in the sky, unattainable many might say but see if you dont reach for the stars you will never even climb a hill. Surely we have to Aspire to being the best society we can be and asking for that from our elected members.
Like I/you said... "SHOULD"... Never would expect it to happen...
If you want me to be idealistic then nobody should be earning that much in the first place so this should never be an issue.
Is not making £100,000 a year making money?
What you mean is that they would only invest if they could make millions at the expense of others... Is that not greed?... Or maybe you think greed is good?
Nope... Counter productive... the millionaires would become billionaires & the billionaires would become trillionaires... & prices would adjust to compensate, so no difference really...
All that should happen is a better & fairer distribution of the money that is currently out there.
Bit of a duff idiological argument or your'e some kind of commy
So for example, someone has an idea. Gives up work to develope it, nearly starves for 20 years persuing it and gets rejection after rejection, finally perfects it and hey presto it is a winner. They finally earn a pile of cash after all that and then you come along and say its not fare?
There is never going to be fair distribution, but we should try and work towards a fairer taxation system but a productive one.
The honest truth is we need rich people, lots of them, In the UK and paying tax. The more there are the easier it is on the rest of us.
The flipside of this reality is there will be a need for cleaners on a lower wages, shopworkers on lower wages etc. Yes, get as many very low waged out of tax and ensure we can keep a good minimum wage, but we ain't all going to be on £100k.
Years ago I remember listening to a guy on the wireless, no, not Wogan. Some economist I think. Anyway, he said that the Gov't could save billions by giving everyone £1million when they're born, they can't touch the £1m but can use the interest. This would have given (I think) £2000 per week.
But out of your £2k per week you had to pay for private healthcare - No NHS so big savings for Govt.
Also there was no benefits because you had your £2k per week - even more savings for the Govt.
These savings would pay for the £1million given to each citizen.
The initial figures stacked up, it would reduce taxes too.
But, very few people would work. And certainly not emptying bins, cleaning, fighting wars, stacking shelves, delivering fuel, teaching, firefighting, policing, nursing etc. etc. etc.
Society would pretty much fall apart.
Bit of a duff idiological argument or your'e some kind of commy
So for example, someone has an idea. Gives up work to develope it, nearly starves for 20 years persuing it and gets rejection after rejection, finally perfects it and hey presto it is a winner. They finally earn a pile of cash after all that and then you come along and say its not fare?
No... I'm not a commy... that is going to extremes in the other direction... I just want a fairer society.... Is that really too much to ask?
As for your example... Under a fairer system they would not be struggling for those 20 years, they would be doing just dandy... But once they perfect it they will be doing very well indeed, just maybe not quite as well as under the current system but more than well enough to reward them for their ingenuity & determination.
You will always need a wealth gap to provide incentive & keep the economy vibrant, it's just that now. under the greedy money obsessed society we now find ourselves in that gap has grown to preposterous levels.
Bit of a duff idiological argument or your'e some kind of commy
So for example, someone has an idea. Gives up work to develope it, nearly starves for 20 years persuing it and gets rejection after rejection, finally perfects it and hey presto it is a winner. They finally earn a pile of cash after all that and then you come along and say its not fare?
Yeah, very few things are developed that way, usually the business/money guy steals it from someone else and then screws them over.
tonkatojo
29-Mar-12, 09:46
I assume you possess superior income tax information that the treasury, as well as the skills to make use of that information?
Your believing again. How about we deal with facts eh? That sound like a good idea?
I don't profess to have genius skill like some but 45% of 100% is definitely less than 50% of 100% at least it was when I was at school. And what i said about tax evasion stands.
tonkatojo
29-Mar-12, 09:48
Bit of a duff idiological argument or your'e some kind of commy
So for example, someone has an idea. Gives up work to develope it, nearly starves for 20 years persuing it and gets rejection after rejection, finally perfects it and hey presto it is a winner. They finally earn a pile of cash after all that and then you come along and say its not fare?
I doubt that was what is implied, just pay the going rate and not evade it is the answer.
PS: your reply about Cruddas is deafening.
The Scottish Labour party ABSTAINED from a vote in the Scottish parliament against the reduction in the 50p tax rates. This is despite Ed Balls saying that Labour would oppose the tax cut. Apparently, leaked emails suggest it was a complete mess up. I am hanging and shaking my head. It saddens me that a party which I was once a member of is so incompetent and disorganised. John Smith and Donald Dewar must be turning in their graves. http://m.scotsman.com/news/labour-red-faced-over-e-mails-leak-1-2199643
I was sure this was in Westminster as the only party who voted with SNP was Welsh Nats, Dennis Skinner + another left wing Lab MP
I doubt that was what is implied, just pay the going rate and not evade it is the answer.
PS: your reply about Cruddas is deafening.
Glass houses, stones?
tonkatojo
29-Mar-12, 14:26
Glass houses, stones?
I agree,;) pity some don't acknowledge it.
I agree,;) pity some don't acknowledge it.
To expand, obviously Crudass is a pillock. However, it does highlight the fact that you would be very naive to believe people or organisations donate large sums to political partys without expecting to gain some influence.
weezer 316
29-Mar-12, 14:56
I don't profess to have genius skill like some but 45% of 100% is definitely less than 50% of 100% at least it was when I was at school. And what i said about tax evasion stands.
Right well to be frank then I suggets you return to school. Your 50% is less than my 45% if the 100% is lower, whcih is the point the treasury is making. In simple terms, people are moving off with their money! Is that a hard concept to grap?
weezer 316
29-Mar-12, 15:12
I dont have back any particular ideology or any particular movement. I dont wear rose tinted glasses nor blinkers.
Make no mistake I know fine that I dont have the answers and I know fine that the sort of society I want to live in costs a massive amount of money. I believe that it IS possible to have a society which looks after the weak and vulnerable and which puts the welfare of its citizens and the building of an equal society at the heart of its policies whilst maximising the country's income and ensuring fairness in its taxation system. I beleive that is possible but it will mean a complete change of priorities and to be frank an acceptance that Britian is not the world player it pretends to be in order to save a massive amount of money.
I AM anti - Tory party because I do not want a government which has the policy of increasing the personal wealth of the highest earners, the richest people in society AT THE EXPENSE of those who struggle every day to put food on the table and pay their rent through no fault of their own. I have no problem with any party who has a policy of increasing personal wealth for ALL its citizens - thats an admirable policy - i would love to be richer and have more personal wealth but the tory party do not care about the ordinary man in the street. They still beleive that there is no such thing as society - that we are not responsible for each other in any way shape or form. I cant agree with that. It goes against everything I have believed in all of my life - that everyone is entitled to a fair chance, that those who are disabled, sick and vulnerable need care and support, that people should be helped to find work not penalised for being out of work, that children are the responsibility of each and everyone of us and that society has a responsibility to ensure that EVERY SINGLE child has the opportunity to be the best they can be. Building a more equal society should be the most important policy of every party and by that I dont mean taxing the highest earners at 90% - there has to be a balance. In my opinion, reducing taxes for the highest earners can only ONLY be justified when it is done on the back of improvements in the standards of living of those at the bottom.
I get the point that what I am looking for is a big ask, pie in the sky, unattainable many might say but see if you dont reach for the stars you will never even climb a hill. Surely we have to Aspire to being the best society we can be and asking for that from our elected members.
Right well see I think its achievable, just the way your going about it is wrong. I can honestly say I diont know a child who cant get a school place nor a person who has been refused medical treatment, do you? Im not saying it doesnt happen, but if it does its isolated and nto the fault of the underlying system, as you seem to paint.
Secondly, can you explain how the governmet is incrasing the highest earners pay packets at the EXPENSE of lower earners please? Bare in mind the massive deficit this government inherited and the debt we carry, as not only seemingly are high earners the issue but banks are too, and whilst on that point can you explain where the economic growth is goind to come from that finances your initiatives if we have a decline in both please?
tonkatojo
29-Mar-12, 19:04
To expand, obviously Crudass is a pillock. However, it does highlight the fact that you would be very naive to believe people or organisations donate large sums to political partys without expecting to gain some influence.
That is corruption nowt but.
That is corruption nowt but.Nah, it's called lobbying!
(and they are all at it)
tonkatojo
29-Mar-12, 19:09
Right well to be frank then I suggets you return to school. Your 50% is less than my 45% if the 100% is lower, whcih is the point the treasury is making. In simple terms, people are moving off with their money! Is that a hard concept to grap?
What, 100% is the maximum hence 45% is a lower figure than 50% or put it another way 50% is a higher figure than 45%. what school didn't you go to.
tonkatojo
29-Mar-12, 19:10
Nah, it's called lobbying!
(and they are all at it)
Call it what you want it is corrupt.
weezer 316
29-Mar-12, 20:54
What, 100% is the maximum hence 45% is a lower figure than 50% or put it another way 50% is a higher figure than 45%. what school didn't you go to.
Your not getting this are you!
100%. Lets say the total PAYE earnings fom high earners was £100bn 2 years ago. If the tax rate is 45% the that would mean £45bn to the treasury (not icnluding NI).
Now the tax rate is moved to 50p in the pound. This makes some high earners shift themeslevs and their capital abroad/home. For talking sake we will say that meant £20bn was removed. That means we have £80bn in PAYE taxed at 50%. That means the treasury takes home.......£40bn. So your 50% has yeilded less than my 45%.
Does hat make sense?
This is what looks liek has happened, although we cant be ttoally sure until next year it seems. So in that situation what would you do? Stay at 50 and take less or put it to 45 and try and entice that cash back?
Right well see I think its achievable, just the way your going about it is wrong. I can honestly say I diont know a child who cant get a school place nor a person who has been refused medical treatment, do you? Im not saying it doesnt happen, but if it does its isolated and nto the fault of the underlying system, as you seem to paint.
Secondly, can you explain how the governmet is incrasing the highest earners pay packets at the EXPENSE of lower earners please? Bare in mind the massive deficit this government inherited and the debt we carry, as not only seemingly are high earners the issue but banks are too, and whilst on that point can you explain where the economic growth is goind to come from that finances your initiatives if we have a decline in both please?
Weezer you and I fundamentally disagree with the suggestion that the 50p tax rate causes people to upsticks and leave
http://touchstoneblog.org.uk/2011/04/the-impact-of-the-50p-income-tax-rate/ ( plough through it if you like - it took me a while)
When i see the reduction in the highest rate of income tax this is what i see -
You have 100 people who owe £50 in tax each - thats £5000. Through a variety of loopholes they pay only £1000. If you close the loopholes they now pay £5000. If you reduce the tax rate to £45 each and close the loopholes they now pay £4500 and each of them are £5 better off than if they had paid the £50 they owed in the first place. That is in effect a way of increasing the personal wealth of those people who owed £50.
If you use taxation to support and help lower earners then it stands to reason that by doing this they are reducing the pot of money available and by reducing that pot there is less money to help those at the poorer end of society. The governement takes part time workers out of tax credits by increasing the number of hours they have to work thus decreasing their personal wealth; the government cuts the welfare budget; the government caps the wages of public sector workers in less affluent areas thus reducing the personal wealth of part time workers, benefit recipients and some public sector workers.
So we have an increase in the personal wealth of the rich whilst we have a decrease in the personal wealth of the poor.
Its not simply health and education, We are talking about the UK as a whole so tuition fees are making it more difficult for poorer students to go to university. There is a real issue with insufficient affordable housing in many areas. The care system for the elderly and for young people is in many areas a shambles. There is insufficient money to provide therapeutic care for some severely damaged young people in care, there are closures of day care centres which support people who have mental health problems - for some of these people the day care centre was their only outing in the week, mental health services as a whole are being cut, sure start centres, parental support programmes, and despite the BIG SOCIETY many voluntary organisations have had their funding cut and are not able to offer support to vulnerable groups. All this is well and good if we are all in it together but we dont appear to be.
So when all this is happening to the poor the weak the vulnerable because we have to tighten our belts and we have to put in place austerity measure how on earth can you justify taking steps to increase the personal wealth of the richest people in society?
I accept that it is not the be all and end all of economic policy, that it isnt going to resolve the economic situation overnight - I truly do but I believe that it is an indicator of the priorities of this government, that it is the ethos of the parties in power to ignore the plight of those less fortunate than most of us and reward the most fortunate and for me, Weezer, that is something that I find abhorrent.
Thats all.
I'm afraid I agree with Weazy :eek:
If you overtax the better off they have the option to take their money elsewere. Hense all the tax havens in the world you hear about (and go on holiday to). These are outwith the control of the UK gov. The policy that can effect this is to make the UK competetive on Tax. Most wealthy peeps are happy to pay tax but like everything else, they shop around for the best deal. Their job is to create wealth, not give it away.
I'm afraid if you think they should see it as their duty/obligation, it is wishful thinking.
Call it what you want it is corrupt.
I would agree if it was a secret. Don't you think the Unions sell their members on political levy s by showing them the benefits of being able to influence a Labour government? (Whether they actually can or do is immaterial).
I know you do ducati and thats your right. We are coming at this from opposed points of view and I will never beleive that it is RIGHT to increase the wealth of the rich whilst the poor struggle. I think its immoral and I cant support it. That doesnt mean that I think you or Weezer are stupid or foolish or blind or naive other adjectives that have been applied to me ( not necessarily by yourselves i hasten to add) I dont. We simply dont agree and that is that ( its not a bad thing either:lol:)
I am however also quite sure that I have bored everyone rigid about this bloody tax rate and so I am going to step smartly out of the debate and not mention the blooming tax rate cut again. I cant say anymore than i have already said and I dont con myself that what I say makes one iota of difference to anyone's opionion so its time I shut my blooming gob lol.
Anyone for a chat about the weather?:lol:
I know you do ducati and thats your right. We are coming at this from opposed points of view and I will never beleive that it is RIGHT to increase the wealth of the rich whilst the poor struggle. I think its immoral and I cant support it. That doesnt mean that I think you or Weezer are stupid or foolish or other adjectives that have been applied to me - I dont. We simply dont agree and that is that ( its not a bad thing either:lol:)
I am however also quite sure that I have bored everyone rigid about this bloody tax rate and so I am going to step smartly out of the debate and not mention the blooming tax rate cut again. I cant say anymore than i have already said and I dont con myself that what I say makes one iota of difference to anyone's opionion so its time I shut my blooming gob lol.
Anyone for a chat about the weather?:lol:
It was brass monkeys today compared with earlier in the week. We were in Millport and it felt like June!
The other side of the coin, many if not all major UK charities rely heavily on wealthy, regular donors. More so now as Gov. support reduces.
It was brass monkeys today compared with earlier in the week. We were in Millport and it felt like June!
It was certainly cooler I was walking with my pal at Brodie and it was cooler but still warm. going to snow next week though and we are CAMPING easter weekend sigh
squidge much as I respect you, whilst watching "Question Time ," tonight I was reminded of the politics of envy that is still the trade mark of The Labour Party.
Now when I was a child if I saw a Rolls Royce go by, I was thinking that when I grow up I want 1 of them and will work for it, not that I should have 1 because that person does.
Sadly I never got to own one but did my best and got to sit in a Le Mans 1929 Bentley Roarer and and an SS that had been restored.
Aaldtimer
30-Mar-12, 03:51
Well Labour got a real kick in the butt tonight with Gorgeous George in Bradford!
Galloway is a great orator, but to my mind he's just a carpetbagger...he'll go anywhere he thinks he can get a vote with his Muslim rhetoric.
I admired his defiance of the US when he appeared before the Congress(or whatever it was), but he still leaves me with a suspicion of his motives/self-aggrandisement![disgust]
The other side of the coin, many if not all major UK charities rely heavily on wealthy, regular donors. More so now as Gov. support reduces.
Which is a shameful state of affairs... In a truly fair society there should be no need for charities.
tonkatojo
30-Mar-12, 10:28
I would agree if it was a secret. Don't you think the Unions sell their members on political levy s by showing them the benefits of being able to influence a Labour government? (Whether they actually can or do is immaterial).
You have it right it's not a secret or is it, a con party fund raiser says one thing and and all hell breaks out and the condems deny it is happening, yeah that's right you believe it, I don't.
The labour party was formed to fight for the rights of the working man, to stop being exploited by employers,thousands of individual workers put their donations into a fund not sure the going rate, now the tory gets a few thousand donations of thousands even millions pounds from individual people expecting what ?. It wouldn't be favour in policy would it ?. It stinks well at least to me it does. The cross party talks want individual donations capped but the tory want the unions capped the same, except the unions are made up of individual donations but typical tory twist the facts to suit.
Kasper King
30-Mar-12, 11:07
I have been a member of three unions during my various jobs, in two of them I was given no choice to opt out of the political levey!
I can also remember the days when Liebore government ministers were summoned to the various union head quarters as well as the TUC to get there orders. It now turns out the orders were issued in Moscow.
As for a "fair society" dream on! Human kind is built to be ambitious and to do better than there parents, society has never and will never be equal as the communists found out.
The other thing is that Liebore, the party of the working man, has introduced more reductions to the freedom of the ordanary person than any other party in history.
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.