Forum menu
sargey - MemberI'm sure I read somewhere that 34 pence in every pound paid to your local council goes towards the pensions of council employees.
I wish I didn't have to fund the majority of my pension.
1) Government cuts to local authority funding means that your council tax is also a significantly greater %age of their overall balance sheet than 7 years ago. (Particularly if your local council is labour-controlled and your area has a poor conservative vote in general elections too -although the government will dispute this till they are blue in the face the conincidence is quite compelling.)
2) They are reducing spending all over the place by quite extraordinary amounts: you can close libraries, move to fortnightly bin collections, farm out road repairs to crappy subcontractors etc but cutting people's pension repayments is not so simple to enact. Therefore pension payments represent and increasing percentage of their budget (which is increasingly from you personally not the government) because it is not falling in line with cuts to services and current staffing levels.
3) if its anything like the NHS pension, then the story goes that there is no pension 'fund' as a load of money that exists saved up for pensions. -pansion payouts come from this years budget not money saved up 30 years ago. Mine is just like an extra bit of tax that the DOH spend on other stuff in the hope that in 26 years time they will be able to pay me back as if they had actually put it away somewhere to save it for me.
4) How did you calculate that 34% of your council's tax take makes the 'majority' of these peoples' pensions payments? How many pensions, and of what value are they paying out for with that notional 34% (our local council employed thousand and thousands of people in the 80's and 90's, most of whom had pensions and many of whom are now retired.
If you assume the average income for £80k plus earners is £100k, and the tax rate at £80k moves from 40% to 45% you get a net increase in tax contributions of £1,000 per person. You can fiddle around with the numbers and % above but [b]you will struggle to get to £30k.[/b]
Yup, that's the problem.
Going with the £1,000 per person. Assume ~1.6 million people. That's 1.6 Billion. You just can't generate significant cash by taxing the 'rich'.
But it helps.
Presumably like those disability cuts 'helped'.
Except no one will die because of it.
That, plus bringing an end to all this austerity rubbish, would go some way. No one is saying it's everything, but it's a start.
plus bringing an end to all this austerity rubbish, would go some way
Yes, spending more would definitely cost less, it's worked every time in the past after all.
Yes, spending more would definitely cost less, it's worked every time in the past after all.
...and yet somehow insisting we are spending less these last 7 years seems to have increased our national debt by just over 50%. [url= https://fullfact.org/economy/has-uks-debt-doubled/ ]uncomfortable truth here[/url] Has money just got more expensive these days?
Try this for the FT article
https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:c9HW3GXEFDUJ:https://www.ft.com/content/dfe26fea-300b-11e7-9555-23ef563ecf9a+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk
Ta much appreciated. So the cash can come from increased revenue forecast in 2018/2019.
But it helps.
I suspect a lot of people were expecting something a bit more significant than 0.2pc of the national budget. Blair trebled the NHS budget to £94bn over 10 years. ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4555344.stm)
Yes, spending more would definitely cost less,
yet spending less now costs more in the future, see education & in particular sure start dentres etc
Has money just got more expensive these days?
Well we did lose our AAA rating so in theory it should have. But ironically uncertainty makes bond more desirable so seemingly it doesn't matter.
Yeah, but
Yeah but nothing.
The right wingers on this thread would not condemn the cuts to disability benefits until pressed to do so, and then how many did so?
One or two of you?
Mention something that would affect your income and it's as if someone has suggested we all take up recreational bestiality.
It's obvious where priorities lie, and it's doesn't reflect well on any of you.
Rusty Spanner - Member
But it helps.
Presumably like those disability cuts 'helped'.Except no one will die because of it.
I think youll find that all the appeals to wrongly applied sanctions has cost the taxpayer far many £millions than the sanctions "saved"
(not a go at Rusty, just clarifying)
Tory mentality.
A Tory MP has been blasted for claiming emergency food parcels should not be given to people because they could become reliant on them.Paul Maynard, who works for Minister of State Oliver Letwin, said people could start going to food banks out of habit rather than helping themselves.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/conservative-mp-paul-maynard-food-2335762
(not a go at Rusty, just clarifying)
No worries, I didn't think you were.
I don't think the disability cuts were just about the illusion of cost saving.
They were about punishment.
A softening up exercise for the demolition of social security.
Once its gone, cue much threads of STW middle management privilege types gnashing of teeth as the Precariat feed their kids by preying on the weak -
Their bike sheds
Be careful what you wish for, Welfare is an insurance policy of many facets
The 'Yeah but' in my post relates to text recently deleted from a recent post.
Would the poster involved care to respond?
ninfan - MemberYes, spending more would definitely cost less, it's worked every time in the past after all.
Darling & Brown post 2008 Global crash economic turnaround, much? Damn. There goes that selective right wing memory again
Going with the £1,000 per person. Assume ~1.6 million people. That's 1.6 Billion. You just can't generate significant cash by taxing the 'rich'.
Very poor maths going on there. The £1,000 is for the person on £100k, they are at the bottom of the 5%.
The average is around £160k from memory so you would get a few times that in extra tax. Plus the extra tax should be even higher than that above say £150k and tax should be 60 or 70%.
Now you are going to tell us that someone earning £200k per year (around £10k net per month) is not rich either.
"The £1,000 is for the person on £100k"
The £1000 didn't come from me, I don't think it's even a real number just that poster's ballpark guess.
The FT article posted by greentricky answers one of my two questions, and I'm not sure the other one has a definitive answer, so I'm happy.
Morning.
Care to respond to my post?
Plus the extra tax should be even higher than that above say £150k and tax should be 60 or 70%.
I fear we've been here before
Anyone?
Can anyone tell me why the cuts to disability benefits are justified but the proposed Labour tax increase is not?
Not just disability benefits btw, Rochdale Community Mental Health team have been told that they have to cut staff.
I know two senior members of staff have left already because they're now working for the company I work for.
More cuts to come, apparantly.
Anyone?
Been here before...
The Beatles were taxed till the pips squeaked, and yet the surviving members are still multimillionaires.
When I was young immature and stupid, I agreed with the face value of that song.
"...and yet somehow insisting we are spending less these last 7 years seems to have increased our national debt by just over 50%. uncomfortable truth here Has money just got more expensive these days?"
Simple, the deficit is shrinking, but it's not yet zero, so the debt continues to increase but at a reducing rate.
Nothing wrong with taxing the rich a bit more, but as others have said it's more about symbolism than actual tax take, and the risk as always is that if you overdo it then behavioural effects kick in and your tax take goes down, meaning less money for the needy.
The Beatles were taxed till the pips squeaked, and yet the surviving members are still multimillionaires.
Because they pissed off abroad
"Been here before...
The Beatles were taxed till the pips squeaked, and yet the surviving members are still multimillionaires."
Were they "tax efficient "? Would they have paid more at a lower rate? Don't know btw, speculating!
Going with the £1,000 per person. Assume ~1.6 million people. That's 1.6 Billion. You just can't generate significant cash by taxing the 'rich'.
Yep. But by cutting nurse's training bursaries you generate all kinds of cash, right?
Overpaid, over privileged, self indulgent musicians complaining about the taxman. FFS! 🙄
I'm quite happy for that ridiculous business model, that we all fed, to be blown away.
It's funny that a lot on here slag footballers wages but then complain about people downloading music.
**** them is what I say!
I dont slag footballer wages, I slag the arsehole paying on the gate, the arsehole Sky sports subscriber who fuels those wages...
"Nothing wrong with taxing the rich a bit more, but as others have said it's more about symbolism than actual tax take, and the risk as always is that if you overdo it then behavioural effects kick in and your tax take goes down, meaning less money for the needy."
Yup, the bulk of the cash is coming from elsewhere. The FT even tells us where.
[url= https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/may/05/labour-tax-bombshell-election-schools-hospitals-left ]It's about a lot more than income tax[/url].
The fact is that the upper echelons of this stupid corrupt system, the 1% if you like, have made a packet over the past 10 years while everyone else has suffered. It's not an extreme view to suggest that they should give something back. Even after they do, they'll still be rich.
Would anyone like to answer the question?
"Would anyone like to answer the question?"
The FT article posted above definitively answered the question. The cash is mainly coming from the predicted increase in 2019/2020 revenue.
Even after they do, they'll still be rich
Just like those Scousers warbling on about "The Taxman" on the other page...
The FT definitively answered the question.
I haven't asked the FT anything.
I asked you and the other people contributing to this thread
".... why the cuts to disability benefits are justified but the proposed Labour tax increase is not?"
Are you prepared to answer this question or not?
I answered you. It wasn't. The disabled should have been protected. Nothing wrong with the principle of assessing fitness to work but it's a complex issue and the implementation has obviously been dreadful. Happy?
I believe I thanked you for your prompt response at the time.
You were the only one with the manners to do so.
I take it those who didn't answer are happy with the cuts?
Read this blog. Hit "Older posts" button. Rinse, repeat.
Do you know the worst thing? Even though this kid is visibility losing weight from his already skinny frame, he tried saying he was ok and didn’t need anything. This is what this society is doing to people – it’s making starving kids pretend they’re not so they don’t suffer the humiliation of other people knowing.
"a complex issue and the implementation has obviously been dreadful."
Ring fencing the biggest budgets was always gonna make things insanely painful elsewhere. The SNP wisely didn't ringfence Budgets and it significantly reduced the pain.
Ring fencing the biggest budgets was always gonna make things insanely painful elsewhere.
Not really answering the question as usual.
ulysse - Member
I dont slag footballer wages, I slag the arsehole paying on the gate, the arsehole Sky sports subscriber who fuels those wages...POSTED 50 MINUTES AGO # REPORT-POST
Well that's a nice caring attitude and not in anyway judgmental.
Ring fencing the biggest budgets was always gonna make things insanely painful elsewhere.
This tells me nothing of your views on the subject and doesn't really answer the question.
Well that's a nice caring attitude and not in anyway judgmental.
Focussing on the important stuff...
Nothing wrong with the principle of assessing fitness to work but it's a complex issue and the implementation has obviously been dreadful.
I agree.
However, people with disabilities are constantly assessed already.
By the local authority, by care services, by medical services.
In all honesty, in over 10 years of working with those with disabilities, I have encountered one person who could possibly have been accused of attempting to defraud the system.
We want to help those who need it, it's in everybody's interest to ensure this happens.
However this is a targetted attack on some of the most vulnerable.
Not a tax rise on those most able to bear it.
"Not really answering the question as usual"
You haven't answered it either!