whens maggie coming back then.
She thinks she's still in Number 10..........bless 🙂
She's completely do-dally doncha know ?
It's funny how the ones who got to the trough under Thatch think it was great and the rest of us were considered expendable.
Everyone, including those who voted tory are expendable. But keep dreaming you are winners. Stiff upper lip and all that.
One slightly alarming thing is if Thatch dies during the term of this Government, this lot might be stupid enough to arrange a state funeral.
She's completely do-dally doncha know ?
Does that mean she's got better or worse since 1990?
Want to bet? I bet interest rates and unemployment are significantly up in 3 months time.
A million on the dole queue in a year - thats my bet
Won't even take that long. Liebor have been massaging the numbers just as much. Once the lid gets lifted on the 'economically inactive' and the grads number fudging sham, unemployment figures could double and it wouldn't be a shock.
Won't even take that long. Liebor have been massaging the numbers just as much. Once the lid gets lifted on the 'economically inactive' and the grads number fudging sham, unemployment figures could double and it wouldn't be a shock.
I see what you did there, ha, ha. If they have been massaging the figures they learned that trick of the CONservatives during the 80's/90's. You see? I didn't even have to change any letters.
Very funny molgrips. Er, your point is?
So, interest rates were double digit throughout the whole of the last tory adminstration were they? Someone must have been with a very dodgy bank as mine weren't.
Feeding the troll....
assuming the Tories do what they say they will then thats what I believe will happen. The massive public spending cuts will put many people on the dole queues and send us back into recession. That would not be so likely under a government not ideologically committed to tax and spending cuts
Yes it would - which is why Labour ducked responsibility, and Conservatives needed Lib Dems to have their hands dipped in the blood.
Cuts are coming, they always were, didn't matter who won the election.
porterclough - absolutly no need for cuts at all - its a political decision and the Labour policy and tory are wide apart - the tory policy if enacted will tip as back into recession - the labour one would not have done.
absolutly no need for cuts at all
Really? How exactly do you propose we extract ourselves from the deficit? Maybe you should advise Labour, as I'm sure they were proposing cuts too.
Bikingcatastrophe - my point was that you are asusming that just because you are worse off under a labour govt that the labour govt CAUSED you to be worse off.
Almost impossible to deduce that in MOST cases I reckon. Most likely they are just two things that happened to occur at the same time.
Hence the graph - has been used many times to illustrate how people can use apparently sound arguments to prove the ridiculous - that pirates cause climate change, for instance.
absolutly no need for cuts at all
I want some of whatever you're drinking. Every serious party has recognised the need for cuts. We've got the highest deficit in Europe, and we're spending £42 billion a year on servicing the interest on our debts. That's as much as we spend on schools.
It's pretty obvious that the ratings agencies have been considering downgrading our AAA status.
If we lose AAA rating, there can only be one result. We pay more interest.
We simply cannot afford to do that, because there's no way of finding the extra money, without cutting even harder or taxing the economy to a halt.
Tron - wrong. cuts is a political decision and not needed. Tax could be increased instead. Growth will reduce the debt.
We do not have the largest debt in Europe relative to the size of our economy
That only holds up if you believe that tax increases don't affect economic growth. If you look at debt in terms of debt / GDP or deficit / GDP, we're up there with the shakiest economies in Europe - we don't always come out bottom of the list, but we're certainly not in rude health.
Hmmm...let me see that indy referendum again....... 😉
And furthermore we are at risk of sterling devaluation causing rising inflation and thus interest rates, which would stifle growth.
I bet interest rates and unemployment are significantly up in 3 months time.
Interest rates are a one way bet!
Still, the major driver I can see for an increase in interest rates (given that demand pull inflation is unlikely) is to defend the £ on the international markets.
The big reason I can see that would cause a fall in the £ would be too few cuts, following the policies of the Labour party. Perfectly illustrated by the way the £ and FTSE jumped in perfect time with the news that bags were seen in the back of a car at Number 10...
Still, the major driver I can see for an increase in interest rates (given that demand pull inflation is unlikely) is to defend the £ on the international markets.
- The Bank of England (currently) controls interest rates, and their mandate is firstly an inflation target, then subsequnetly economic stability. They would not directly therefore target an exchange rate. However, I think I recollect the Tories opposing BoE independence in 1997, so I suppose we can expect Osborne to take back interest rate management in some form, which will be handy for creating wild but voter-friendly booms just before elections.
The BoE would almost certainly try to defend the pound, as a very weak pound would directly impact on economic stability. The inflation target would go out of the window, as inflation is not being driven by an overheated internal market, so the interest rates lose the ability to affect it.
I thought the differences in party policies was the timing of cuts, rather than whether or not to cut.
Well in answer to the OPs question i think the Coalition will last longer than Fred / Talkemadas time on this forum. I see he is up to his tricks having threads closed.
Anyway what a bunch of downtrodden, glass half full miserable w@nkstains we have on this forum, see the Coalition for what it is a new start, a change and a way for Democracy to work having such a variation of ideas in power. If any of us were experts in politics we would be sat in Westminster not speculating here, to say the Tories will send us back into recession without giving them a chance is stupid, lets be honest they have inherited an empty cash till again but give them a chance and stop been so negative.
I hope the coalition lasts the full term and Cameron goes onto to do well, i maybe wrong but give them a chance FFS
cuts is a political decision and not needed. Tax could be increased instead. Growth will reduce the debt.
I think this would some serious tax rises - any suggestions on what might cover this?
A penny on income tax and a penny on NI, assuming that increasing tax is 100% efficient (ie, people don't avoid the tax, work less etc.).
Or more taxes at the top end of the income scale, the proposed tax on financial transactions, taxing bonuses, clamping down on tax avoidance and so on.
What's the target at the moment? £50bn?
Or more taxes at the top end of the income scale, the proposed tax on financial transactions, taxing bonuses, clamping down on tax avoidance and so on.
TJ, get this - the rich are generally pretty bloody canny at getting and holding onto money. Astonishing. Start taxing them through the hoop and they'll find a way of not paying, even if that means relocating entire businesses. The only way to make money out of the rich is to tax them at a vaguely sane rate, in the knowledge that you'll get tax out of them for year after year, not just a big payout this year.
Tron - wrong as you know - you really need to stop asserting without knowledge or evidence.
A significant attempt to clamp down on tax avoidance will have huge benefits - this thing about the rich relocationg is a myth - you might loose the odd Ecclestone but how can a london libel lawyer earning half a million a year move abroad? How about the CEO of a company that does most of its business in the UK?
I don't think 50% on over £100 000 pa is OTT and I am certain that it would raise money.
it needs a legislative closing of loopholes as well.
A significant attempt to clamp down on tax avoidance will have huge benefits - this thing about the rich relocationg is a myth - you might loose the odd Ecclestone but how can a london libel lawyer earning half a million a year move abroad?
As I'm sure you know, libel lawyers are a very special case, being as we're practically the world capital for libel cases, so I suspect they'd stay put.
How about the CEO of a company that does most of its business in the UK?
Philip Green seems to manage it pretty well.
On the other hand, the financial sector has a choice of plenty of other locations to choose from, and contributes a large chunk of GDP.
Well, there looks likely to be an increase in the levels of capital gains tax, plus a royal commision into the banking industry... along with the proposed £10k tax threshold... so I'd say that the Tories aren't having it all their own way here...
Oh, plus they seem to have scrapped the rise in inheritance tax threshold too.
Although the Tories have kept their £6bn in cuts and the scrapping of the planned 1p rise in NI.
as a lib dem voter (first time I've ever voted btw) it does rather stick in my throat that I voted against the tories and ended up getting them. I too cannot forget the previous tory governments and the devastation they caused to communities up and down the country.
but
At least the libs have had a fairly big say in the structure and policy of this coalition. Whether this translates into action reminds to be seen...
from the beeb:
0955: The Lib Dems have got another of their big wishes - we've learned that there's going to be wholesale reform of the House of Lords, early in the parliament, to make it fully elected. And the method they're going to use to elect it? Proportional representation, the system the Lib Dems have loved for so long, says the BBC News channel's chief political correspondent Laura Kuenssberg.
I think that the tories will be extremely wary of an early election and this gives an awful lot of power to Nick Clegg et al. It would likely decimate the lib dem vote as many switched to Labour but the tories would be out of office, and they know it.
TJ, get this - the rich are generally pretty bloody canny at getting and holding onto money.
So because they avoid paying we should moderate our laws accordingly accordingy.
Criminals are pretty good at avoiding getting caught should we alter the law to reflect this?
Astonishing. Start taxing them through the hoop and they'll find a way of not paying, even if that means relocating entire businesses. The only way to make money out of the rich is to tax them at a vaguely sane rate, in the knowledge that you'll get tax out of them for year after year, not just a big payout this year.
NoI see this asserted constantly that if we increase tax we get less money. Now this argument is only ever used by those who earn the most and need the money the least the very rich. I dont beleieve anyone has ever said thia about income tax we all pay. Can you actually provide any evidence for this assertion that they will move their businesses abroad and relocate themselves. Examples of research proving this, names of companies ..it sounds like a specious oft repeated piece of right wing BS to me.
Philip Green seems to manage it pretty well- heis a uK resident the tax avoidance all involved his family- stuff in his wifes name ircc and companies not him directly. I can see why we would not want to tax someone with a personal wealth of over £4 billion though. If they want to leave fine tell them to f@ck off and never come back and we will nationalise his businesses when he deserts.
You cannot really be comfortable with a person of that wealth paying a lower % of his earnings in tax as aminimum wage single mother cleaner working 50 hours a week can you?
So why is it a good idea to tax people with a higher income at a higher rate? Why, when you get to a threshold of, say, £100,000 or £150,000 per year is it a great idea to introduce a higher rate of tax for the income above that level?
And molgrips - yes I am worse off. Fact. I pay more tax and have fewer allowances to mention 2 specific things. I am by no means rich. I agree, I can't tell how much worse off I am compared to how I might have been with an alternative government these past 13 years. I can speculate that had the Conservatives won I would be paying less tax than I am now (but possibly more than I was 13 years ago) and if Lib Dems had won 13 years ago I would be paying more tax.
bikingcatastrophe - its a purely philosophical point - you either believe in the redistribution of wealth or you do not.
Wealth is grabbed by those with the most power - so governments need to attempt to reverse this or we end up back in serfdom - the few with all the wealth and the many who have nothing.
there is not must or fact tho - its a purely philosophical point about what you think is right
The government runs the country, we run our lives.
And everytime thet screw it up or miscalculate growth / spending, we get stung by either cuts in services or increase in taxes if not both.
I see this asserted constantly that if we increase tax we get less money. Now this argument is only ever used by those who earn the most and need the money the least the very rich.
It's based on the Laffer curve, which is fairly well known idea. It wouldn't really help your average left of centre party to refer to this idea as it rather damages several ideas which are central to their policies.
You cannot really be comfortable with a person of that wealth paying a lower % of his earnings in tax as aminimum wage single mother cleaner working 50 hours a week can you?
No, I'm not. Neither are the Tories or the Lib Dems (reduce marginal rates of tax for low earners and the £10k income tax threshold respectively as manifesto pledges).
I'd personally like to see a move towards flat tax - set a high income tax threshold, perhaps £10 to £15k, and then tax above that at relatively low rates - perhaps a top band of 40%. Now, the last time this idea was around, it was jumped on by the left as tax cut for the rich, ignoring that it also considerably cuts tax for the poorest in society. And also ignoring the fact that we are currently specatularly ineffective in collecting tax from the very rich - they simply do not pay the headline rates of income tax.
The key advantage with flat tax systems is that they're simple. You provide far fewer allowances, write offs and so on. As a result, you have something of a win win situation - because the tax is simple, it is easy and cheap to collect and difficult to avoid, which is good for the government. From the perspective of the taxpayer, it is far easier to calculate payments, and the wealthy can stop paying their tax advisor fees.
For the lefties present, I do believe that the wealthy should pay higher rates of tax, but I don't believe that punitive rates of tax are effective. A middle ground where the rich pay more tax than the rest of us, but not so much that it's worth their while actively avoiding it would result in ultimately, a larger total tax take.
But you can't simplify taxation, think of the job losses!
bikingatastrophe ...do you wonder why we have free helathcare and welfare state? You know the reasoning and logic for taxing rich people at higher rates dont you as TJ states the rich and powerful wont give their wealth away will they., Was the 19thC version of millowners owning the houses, the shops and effectively the workforce a fairer model? Is serfdom fairer? Is a huge disparity between the rich and poorer more desirable and fairer?
tron I asked for research and evidence not the thought experiment that is the laffer curve. It is hypothetical construct and questionable. It is not reasearch or evidence based. For example [assuming for a second it is true and I dont] what is the exact shape of the curve for the uk...who did the research? Can you publish it?. As I said it is just an oft repeeated piece of right wing BS to make us think that taxing the rich at a higher rate will leave us worse off. As a country is a relative monopoly [ye syou can move but you can cut off your gas supply too but it is not very easy or practical to do]what does economic theory say is the effect of a company with a monopoly increasing prices[taxation]? more or less profit?
Right so you are not against the rich paying a lower percentage of their tax than the poor and the you give a flat rate tax. If you add up the fixed costs a poor person has - tax , housing food etc you will find they are paying a higher % of their income to be alive than a rich person under your simple flat rate system.
I agree with raising the threshld to a reasonable level and tax more heavily above that though. I think there should be an upper threshold as well above which we tax much higher and keep going as there is only so much monety a person can spend /need. How many homes/cars/yachts/planes etc do these people need?
ignoring the fact that we are currently specatularly ineffective in collecting tax from the very rich - they simply do not pay the headline rates of income tax.
We are spectacularly ineffective at catching beneift cheats do you propose we alter the law reflect this or should we go for more enforcement,better policing and longer prisons ?. Only with tax do the right wing [you seeme sensible mind] suddenly want to alter the law to let law breakers/avoiders amoral types able to continue to do so but legally.
Hang on, these goalposts seem to be mounted on wheels.
Almost nothing in economics has been proven empirically. I'm sorry. That's why they call it the dismal science. There have been empirical studies, and they've been broadly supportive of the idea from what I know.
Right so you are not against the rich paying a lower percentage of their tax than the poor and the you give a flat rate tax.
I would be really grateful if you could finish words. I can't make much sense of this.
What I said was that I would like to see the rich pay rather more tax than the poor as a percentage of their income.
I think you will always find that the poor spend a higher proportion of their income on the fixed expenditures required to maintain life. The only situation I can imagine where they wouldn't would be is if we were to provide everyone with free housing and heat, and food stamps.
I think there should be an upper threshold as well above which we tax much higher and keep going as there is only so much monety a person can spend /need. How many homes/cars/yachts/planes etc do these people need?
That simply wouldn't work. As I've pointed out, once tax rates become punitive, it becomes very desirable to avoid paying tax. So these people find ways around it.
The only way to force high earners to pay tax is to borrow a method that the Russians used for the likes of Tupolev - imprison them and force them to work. Otherwise, they will always find a way, even if we have a hundred percent watertight tax code, they can always leave.
If you start taxing the big earners they will take their money elsewhere, i dont get this idea of taxing someone because they are sucessfull, lets start by getting rid of the waste, tighten up on free handouts to lazy ****wits, cut the management in the Health Service and Education.etc etc
The threat of cuts and associated dip back into recession is stupid, it is private investment that will turn the tide not a Government borrowing money to pay a workforce to work in inefficient Departments.
I think there should be an upper threshold as well above which we tax much higher and keep going as there is only so much monety a person can spend /need. How many homes/cars/yachts/planes etc do these people need?
Woah, hello Communism!
I agree re ecomonics asan aimpirical science but I did ask for research/evidence initially. Laffer is a theoretical construct/thought experiment - it is contentious to say that a 100% tax rate would equate to zero income the laffer curve is simply an unsubstantiated assertion so it is meaningless to use it in an argument unless you can prove/demonstarte/show it has some basis in reality ....like this
agains assettion on your part. Criminals find ways of beating car alarms should we stop trying to improve security then as it is pointless? I notice you just dont want to use the same logic/principles against benefit cheats do you?. As I've pointed out, once tax rates become punitive, it becomes very desirable to avoid paying tax. So these people find ways around it.
I am toot tired/ill informed too bicker for the day on this issue.
HOb NOb redistributive taxation is some way short of Communism I did not mention the means of production did I. Perhaps you should look up Communism via Google or read some Marx. I am not a communist but I do beleieve in redistributing wealth. I find it hard to stomach the lifestyles of the unbber rich whilst other people her and abroad struggle ot feed their children and stay alive. Not sure why you think someone should have/need/require a personal wealth of billions or how exactly someone works that hard to get that much...they do it by exploiting the labour of others [ there that last bit was communism 😉 ]
i have a few of mates who are IT contracters in the city
they earn rather large amounts of money but pay an accountant to quite a lot to set up a company based in croatia i think
basically they pay about as much tax as me but earn vastly more
apparently what they do is all perfectly legit
whatever tax system was in place they would probably just pay another accountant lots more money to find away around that
and fwiw they are all tory supporters as they think that their tax will be less under them
TJ - I reckon your tax proposals are even less well costed out than the (published) deficit reduction proposals of the major parties. You really don't know how much money what you're suggesting will make do you? I'll give you a clue - it won't get anywhere near filling the black hole.
Growth will reduce the debt.
😆 - when the projected economic growth rates are outstripped by the debt growth rates? Or were you proposing the more basic debt reduction measure of hyperinflation?
whatever tax system was in place they would probably just pay another accountant lots more money to find away around that
Surely that is an argument for better laws [ or more moral mates I mean Kimbers IT,the city and Tories please tell me they don’t singlespeed] rather than for lower taxes? Odd we don’t see other people avoiding the law and think we should change the law to encompass there law breaking [ yes I know avoidance is legal and evasions is not before corrected but you know what I mean]. As I said with benefit cheats why not change the law so what they do is legal ,allow a bit of cash in hand work as it will always happen, turn a blind eye to illegal immigrants as we cannot stop them etc. Just an argument for better laws IMHO. No other area where we have avoiders we argue we change the law so they don’t have to avoid their responsibilities do we?
No other area where we have avoiders we argue we change the law so they don’t have to avoid their responsibilities do we?
Because, as I pointed out, we cannot stop somebody leaving the country, which is the last resort for someone who wants to reduce their tax bill.
