We're all in this together

[hibsbollah]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15487866

With the imminent scrapping of the 50% top tax rate as well, things are certainly looking up for the filthy rich.

Meanwhile, average private sector pay is up just 2.6%, public sector pay at...uh...0% and inflation is at 5.2%.

[7Hero]

Are they not making less money with the
50 percent tax ?


Sent from my HTC Sensation Z710e using Tapatalk

[One Day Soon]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15487866

With the imminent scrapping of the 50% top tax rate as well, things are certainly looking up for the filthy rich.

Meanwhile, average private sector pay is up just 2.6%, public sector pay at...uh...0% and inflation is at 5.2%.


I cannot find words to express what I feel about these out of touch and self-aggrandising idiots lining their own pockets. This behaviour is literally disgusting. It is shameless, greedy and utterly unjustifiable in this climate. I would like to hear the Prime Minister and First Minister speak out unequivocally on this and I'd like to know what they propose to do about it. Fred Goodwin was pilloried after the RBS fall, why should these people be any different?

We're all in this together. My ar5e we are.

Not while some people are stuffing themselves like the pigs in George Orwell's 1984 and not while others like George Osborne have multi-million pound trust funds to insulate themselves with.

[hibsbollah]

This issue goes to the heart of what politicians want to promote as fair, equitable and moral in our society.

If Miliband shows he can say the right things on this over the next few months, or heaven forbid launch a policy proposal or two, he might just get my vote back. I might even campaign for the twat.

[One Day Soon]

This issue goes to the heart of what politicians want to promote as fair, equitable and moral in our society.

If Miliband shows he can say the right things on this over the next few months, or heaven forbid launch a policy proposal or two, he might just get my vote back. I might even campaign for the twat.

There's really nowhere else to go. The problem is that until Miliband/Labour make themselves relevant and credible again, those votes that are waiting to be harvested won't be. If they could get their act together though...

In the meantime I would really like to see our media make themselves useful for once by interviewing and exposing these jokers who are joyriding on the back of everyone else.

[RyeSloan]

This issue goes to the heart of what politicians want to promote as fair, equitable and moral in our society.

If Miliband shows he can say the right things on this over the next few months, or heaven forbid launch a policy proposal or two, he might just get my vote back. I might even campaign for the twat.

Any suggestions as to what a suitable policy would be that would prevent this 'unfairness'?

[GlesgaeHibby]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15487866

With the imminent scrapping of the 50% top tax rate as well, things are certainly looking up for the filthy rich.

Meanwhile, average private sector pay is up just 2.6%, public sector pay at...uh...0% and inflation is at 5.2%.

Directors pay/perks have been announced in the news to have risen by 50% this year. Average Joe's in the Private and Public sector in real terms this year have had a pay cut due to inflation being at 5.2%, while the fat cats get a pay rise at nearly ten times inflation. Disgusting.

[CropleyWasGod]

Are they not making less money with the
50 percent tax ?


Sent from my HTC Sensation Z710e using Tapatalk

The 50% tax rate is only on the slice above £150k.

So, given that they previously paid 40% on that, anybody who has had the hike quoted will swallow the tax rise quite easily.

[One Day Soon]

Any suggestions as to what a suitable policy would be that would prevent this 'unfairness'?

Just for starters I would be tempted to make it a legal requirement for all company directors earning in excess of, say, £250,000 a year to have to issue a public personal statement confined to one side of A4 paper in a font size no smaller than eleven point explaining what they had achieved in the preceding year to justify their pay rise. I think the media could have a field day with those individuals whose statements did not present a reasonable case. It would not stop the truly brass necked from going right ahead but it would at least put their shamelessness out into the open and create a sense of some degree of accountability if only in discourse.

A more radical approach would be to either create ceilings for % pay rises related to profitability or to require that pay increases be substantially taken in the form of shares. Or both.

For me this is not an issue about regulating top pay - if you are accepting a capitalist system then you accept what goes with it. This is an issue about what is reasonable, open and honest. If we had a media that spent less time telling us about the private (mainly sex) lives of celebrities and more time informing people about how the country is run across all sectors we would move towards the healthier 'demos' that Magpie was calling for on another thread.

It is certainly interesting that medium and lower earning public and private sector employees are making their contribution to deficit reduction on one side and economic recovery on the other with low or no pay rises (and in some cases pay cuts), while the very highest earning in the private sector are making their contribution by taking vastly more pay.

[CropleyWasGod]

Just for starters I would be tempted to make it a legal requirement for all company directors earning in excess of, say, £250,000 a year to have to issue a public personal statement confined to one side of A4 paper in a font size no smaller than eleven point explaining what they had achieved in the preceding year to justify their pay rise. I think the media could have a field day with those individuals whose statements did not present a reasonable case. It would not stop the truly brass necked from going right ahead but it would at least put their shamelessness out into the open and create a sense of some degree of accountability if only in discourse.

A more radical approach would be to either create ceilings for % pay rises related to profitability or to require that pay increases be substantially taken in the form of shares. Or both.



Directors of public companies already have the obligation to justify what they do, at the very least to shareholders. As far as private companies are concerned, the normal situation is that directors own the company, and are therefore making commercial decisions with their own money.

[One Day Soon]

Directors of public companies already have the obligation to justify what they do, at the very least to shareholders. As far as private companies are concerned, the normal situation is that directors own the company, and are therefore making commercial decisions with their own money.

An obligation to justify to shareholders is entirely different. An obligation to justify to the general public should not hinder their obligations to shareholfders in any way.

In the second case I see no reason why the same rule could not apply. They would not be being directed as to what to do with their money, merely being asked to explain it.

[magpie1892]

Not while some people are stuffing themselves like the pigs in George Orwell's 1984

Animal Farm!

[lapsedhibee]

Animal Farm!

"Four Trotters Good!"

Or was that Only Fools And Horses?

[Big Ed]

Executive salaries appear to me to be a corporate con-trick. The IDS report highlighted the example of JD Sports Fashion, which is in the mid 250 of the FTSE.
Their CEO’s salary rose by more than 59% last year.
The company's remuneration committee said: "The salary increase was necessary to ensure the retention of the executive chairman and that his ongoing retention is critical in enhancing shareholder value."
The CEO is Barry Bown. He has worked for the firm since 1983, and was appointed CEO in 2000.
You can see where the remuneration committee are coming from. A guy who has worked for the company for 28 years, and by anyone’s standards; done well for himself there, might depart and leave them: We’d better hand him a 59% pay rise in order to retain him.
I suspect that this has little to do with Mr. Bown’s performance over the said twelve month period and more to do with the company taking part in a corporate dick measuring contest.
“Here, come and look at the size of our CEO’s salary increase.”
This kind of corporate behaviour should not have any relevance to the general public because it is up to the companies and their shareholders what they pay their directors; however, these people (and I am not talking specifically about Bown here) are the ones who are held up as the saviours of the economy.
When the subject of Public Sector finance arises; it is often stated that that kind of waste would not be tolerated in the Private Sector. However, as we can see, a corporate culture that can accept a scenario like that of JD Sports and others like it, suggests that financial carelessness is not exclusive to the Public Sector.

[RyeSloan]

Just for starters I would be tempted to make it a legal requirement for all company directors earning in excess of, say, £250,000 a year to have to issue a public personal statement confined to one side of A4 paper in a font size no smaller than eleven point explaining what they had achieved in the preceding year to justify their pay rise. I think the media could have a field day with those individuals whose statements did not present a reasonable case. It would not stop the truly brass necked from going right ahead but it would at least put their shamelessness out into the open and create a sense of some degree of accountability if only in discourse.

A more radical approach would be to either create ceilings for % pay rises related to profitability or to require that pay increases be substantially taken in the form of shares. Or both.

For me this is not an issue about regulating top pay - if you are accepting a capitalist system then you accept what goes with it. This is an issue about what is reasonable, open and honest. If we had a media that spent less time telling us about the private (mainly sex) lives of celebrities and more time informing people about how the country is run across all sectors we would move towards the healthier 'demos' that Magpie was calling for on another thread.

It is certainly interesting that medium and lower earning public and private sector employees are making their contribution to deficit reduction on one side and economic recovery on the other with low or no pay rises (and in some cases pay cuts), while the very highest earning in the private sector are making their contribution by taking vastly more pay.

I accept that this increase seems at odds with the wider environment and can understand that it may be considered wrong but
I'm not entirely sure why you consider the directors of listed UK companies should be answerable to the general public.

As for openess and honesty...is that not exaclty what we have already, rules that force companies to disclose the cost of their directors. Should we not be looking to strengthen the role of the shareholder to approve executive salaries? But even if stronger rules were in place, if the shareholders of a company decide their top brass are worth what some would consider excessive salaries then who are we to disagree and on what grounds?

As for your last point. Apples and pears spring to mind. You are surely not suggesting that a contribution to deficit reduction would be to substantially increase public sector pay or indeed to limit by law private sector executive pay?

To me these exceutives should have their pay much more closely aligned to performance but in the end of the day surely it is down to the owners of these companies (i.e shareholders) to do this rather than anyone else.

[Andy74]

In terms of pensions it seems we aren't really all in it together are we?

There are a tiny, tiny percentage of bankers and other execs that get decent salaries and bonuses yet the public sector keep telling people the bankers and execs just don't get it.

Ate the public sector getting it? The deals offered are way in excess of anything you can now get in the private sector and yet they want to strike still.

[Cropley10]

In terms of pensions it seems we aren't really all in it together are we?

There are a tiny, tiny percentage of bankers and other execs that get decent salaries and bonuses yet the public sector keep telling people the bankers and execs just don't get it.

Ate the public sector getting it? The deals offered are way in excess of anything you can now get in the private sector and yet they want to strike still.

Someone from the Public Sector said this morning on the radio that the Private Sector should be 'forced' to improve their pensions.

Showing a fantastic detachment from reality I thought!

[Big Ed]

The faux distinction between Public and Private Sector Workers is one of the more depressing consequences of how our pathetic party political system has evolved in the last few years, backed up by an aggressive press, who seek to demonise anyone who does not conform to their sense of servile conformity.
Public Sector workers are merely trying to defend the terms and conditions that they signed up for. The fact that Private Sector pensions were devastated as an indirect consequence of Gordon Brown’s decision to tax pension funds, should not mean that Private Sector workers should demand that their Public Sector counterparts be shafted too.
People should be able to work and earn a decent living in decent conditions; this is becoming a utopian fantasy, particularly for the young.
Is it too much to ask that the ultimate ambition of a democratic Government, should be to create a society that strives to ensure the greatest well-being of all its members, whatever pigeon hole they find themselves in?
I see no evidence of that and the constant references to this faux distinction by politicians and media alike, merely serves to underline the fact that we are not all in this together.

[Cropley10]

The faux distinction between Public and Private Sector Workers is one of the more depressing consequences of how our pathetic party political system has evolved in the last few years, backed up by an aggressive press, who seek to demonise anyone who does not conform to their sense of servile conformity.
Public Sector workers are merely trying to defend the terms and conditions that they signed up for. The fact that Private Sector pensions were devastated as an indirect consequence of Gordon Brown’s decision to tax pension funds, should not mean that Private Sector workers should demand that their Public Sector counterparts be shafted too.
People should be able to work and earn a decent living in decent conditions; this is becoming a utopian fantasy, particularly for the young.
Is it too much to ask that the ultimate ambition of a democratic Government, should be to create a society that strives to ensure the greatest well-being of all its members, whatever pigeon hole they find themselves in?
I see no evidence of that and the constant references to this faux distinction by politicians and media alike, merely serves to underline the fact that we are not all in this together.

Who is going to pay for these generous public sector pensions exactly? We are in a huge mess, there's nae money, we can't afford to keep paying out index linked final salary pensions. It really is that simple, isn't it?

[Big Ed]

Who is going to pay for these generous public sector pensions exactly? We are in a huge mess, there's nae money, we can't afford to keep paying out index linked final salary pensions. It really is that simple, isn't it?

Is it?
We found £7,000,000,000 to send to Ireland last year, Cameron's G20 plan was to increase our funding to the IMF and 98 of our top 100 companies avoid paying large chunks of tax by using tax havens, with barely so much as a word from the coalition Government or the Opposition and yet we are told there is no money.
Far from being simple; I find it a bit confusing.

[Betty Boop]

Francis Maude suggests a 15 minute walkout on November 30th. A pointless PR exercise.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-15704451

[HKhibby]

Its the same old same old! with the politics of envy!, when are people in Scotland going to either fall into line with the rest of the U.K. or to that matter the rest of the world!.....definatly not Europe!, governments do not create jobs or wealth or buisness!, they can only create the circumstances for companys or organisations or individuals to create it...including employment!, thats why the U.K. is in the mess it is in!....13 years of Labour!, old Labour/New Labour all the same!
A private company is a private company! a buisness is a buisness! they are there to make a profit and the more profit they can make, the more they can pay their employees and management! anyway what buisness is it of anyone how much a company director gets paid? thats their buisness not mine or yours!.
The more you restrict people in buisness to make money and move money around with legislation from government etc..the more they will use loopholes...and legal loopholes! to not pay corporation tax...blah blah etc.., incidentally i think you will find that the last U.K. Labour govt probably made it ten times easier to move capital out of the U.K., while supposedly wanting to cash in on rich people!...but then again thats new/old labour and the politics of envy!, oh and there is no such thing in life as fair!....get real, never has been! never will be!...its called life!

[Big Ed]

The UK (that’s Scotland, England, Northern Ireland and Wales) economy is over-dependent on the Financial Services Industry. One of the biggest failures of the Labour Government was to acquiesce to self-regulation of the City’s financial markets.
When the financial crisis of 2008 happened; what did the Industry do? Did it ask its shareholders to help out? No chance. Did the banks that had run out of money simply go out of business? Again, no. They were bailed out by the UK Government.
Now, when we are in the maelstrom of world wide financial chaos, top directors are calling for austerity whilst at the same time accepting enormous pay increases. Are you oblivious to that?
The notion that these same directors will ultimately be the ones who save our economy is utter bollocks as is the notion that they have no choice but to avoid paying tax or move money offshore.
Far from being the politics of envy; it is the democratic politics of common decency that should prevail.

[Betty Boop]

The UK (that’s Scotland, England, Northern Ireland and Wales) economy is over-dependent on the Financial Services Industry. One of the biggest failures of the Labour Government was to acquiesce to self-regulation of the City’s financial markets.
When the financial crisis of 2008 happened; what did the Industry do? Did it ask its shareholders to help out? No chance. Did the banks that had run out of money simply go out of business? Again, no. They were bailed out by the UK Government.
Now, when we are in the maelstrom of world wide financial chaos, top directors are calling for austerity whilst at the same time accepting enormous pay increases. Are you oblivious to that?
The notion that these same directors will ultimately be the ones who save our economy is utter bollocks as is the notion that they have no choice but to avoid paying tax or move money offshore.
Far from being the politics of envy; it is the democratic politics of common decency that should prevail.

Great post Ed, agree 100%.

[Dashing Bob S]

Its the same old same old! with the politics of envy!, when are people in Scotland going to either fall into line with the rest of the U.K. or to that matter the rest of the world!.....definatly not Europe!, governments do not create jobs or wealth or buisness!, they can only create the circumstances for companys or organisations or individuals to create it...including employment!, thats why the U.K. is in the mess it is in!....13 years of Labour!, old Labour/New Labour all the same!
A private company is a private company! a buisness is a buisness! they are there to make a profit and the more profit they can make, the more they can pay their employees and management! anyway what buisness is it of anyone how much a company director gets paid? thats their buisness not mine or yours!.
The more you restrict people in buisness to make money and move money around with legislation from government etc..the more they will use loopholes...and legal loopholes! to not pay corporation tax...blah blah etc.., incidentally i think you will find that the last U.K. Labour govt probably made it ten times easier to move capital out of the U.K., while supposedly wanting to cash in on rich people!...but then again thats new/old labour and the politics of envy!, oh and there is no such thing in life as fair!....get real, never has been! never will be!...its called life!

Or punctuation, by the sound of it.

[IndieHibby]

In 2007 changes were made to the Teachers Pension Scheme which made it affordable. The government now wants to reduce the value of our pensions with a three-pronged attack.

These changes will be permament. The economic downturn will not.

We don't benefit from bonus payments, promotions etc when the economy is doing well. So why should we have lose-out at the other end of the cycle?

It's not as if the essential public services we provide have been degraded, now is it?

Do you want your children taught by 68 year old teachers?

[The Green Goblin]

In 2007 changes were made to the Teachers Pension Scheme which made it affordable. The government now wants to reduce the value of our pensions with a three-pronged attack.

These changes will be permament. The economic downturn will not.

We don't benefit from bonus payments, promotions etc when the economy is doing well. So why should we have lose-out at the other end of the cycle?

It's not as if the essential public services we provide have been degraded, now is it?

Do you want your children taught by 68 year old teachers?


Apart from the fact that a 68 year old teacher would be enormously experienced, there is no reason why someone shouldn't be able to teach very well at that age, if they are in good health and attend the regular INSETs and training that all teachers attend as a matter of course. Part of being a teacher is keeping yourself up to date with changes to educational practice and that would be no different for a teacher of 28 or 68.

So, in answer to your question, yes, I would be perfectly happy for that to happen, if, as I said, they were competent at their job and wanted to continue working out of choice rather than necessity.

GG

[IndieHibby]

Apart from the fact that a 68 year old teacher would be enormously experienced, there is no reason why someone shouldn't be able to teach very well at that age, if they are in good health and attend the regular INSETs and training that all teachers attend as a matter of course. Part of being a teacher is keeping yourself up to date with changes to educational practice and that would be no different for a teacher of 28 or 68.

So, in answer to your question, yes, I would be perfectly happy for that to happen, if, as I said, they were competent at their job and wanted to continue working out of choice rather than necessity.

GG

I did write my post in the full knowledge that someone would give me the reply you have done :greengrin

You cannot say that a 68 year old teacher is just as good as a 28 year old as long as they keep up with the 'latest eductional practice' (many teachers will tell you that the opposite is true, but that's another discussion!)

What I meant was that the children of today are not the biddable, silent and rigidly obedient children you may expect; they are demanding (of time, effort, emotional and intellectual energy), hyperactive (due to the instant rewards provided by new parenting 'styles' and technology) and largely unable to work quitely and peacefully on an extended task.

Younger teachers (by which i mean anyone under the age of 50) are probably able to cope with these children. Older teachers - on the whole - just won't be able to keep up the pace. Just because people now live to 80 or so, doesn't mean that they will see a commensurate increase in their 'fit and healthy' life span. Our older generation will be a valuable resource in the future, I just doubt it will be in the classroom.

All we ask for is what we signed up for in 2007. As we know full well, when the economy recovers, our pensions won't....

[Betty Boop]

Youth unemployment hits a record high of just under 1.2 million. I would hate to be a teenager trying to get any kind of job in the current climate. What a sad state of affairs.

[Beefster]

We should nationalise all private businesses so that the government can tell everyone what they are allowed to be paid. Maybe even pay everyone the same. Queues for bread would be nice too.

Trying to interfere in private businesses, thinking about legislating on what legal activities folk can do in their own property, thinking about a minimum alcohol price (in the rest of the UK), putting up VAT (and lots more) - it's almost like the Lib Dems are in power....

[Sylar]

Youth unemployment hits a record high of just under 1.2 million. I would hate to be a teenager trying to get any kind of job in the current climate. What a sad state of affairs.

It is an interesting dilemma. It's difficult to get meaningful work without some form of qualification and because the number of folks going to University had skyrocketed over the past few years, so there's a saturation of graduates out there applying for jobs with a degree to their name.

Going down the same route of going to University isn't quite as affordable now as it was though, so the folks either dropping out of school or who have no interest in going to University are always going to be facing up against people with a degree, or better.

I even know of people with degrees, Masters' and even PhD's who just can't find work right now and have resorted to taking positions like waiting, shop assistant, call centre work, just to pay the bills. I'd hate to imagine how much harder that must be for folks without any notable qualifications.

[IWasThere2016]

It is an interesting dilemma. It's difficult to get meaningful work without some form of qualification and because the number of folks going to University had skyrocketed over the past few years, so there's a saturation of graduates out there applying for jobs with a degree to their name.

Going down the same route of going to University isn't quite as affordable now as it was though, so the folks either dropping out of school or who have no interest in going to University are always going to be facing up against people with a degree, or better.

I even know of people with degrees, Masters' and even PhD's who just can't find work right now and have resorted to taking positions like waiting, shop assistant, call centre work, just to pay the bills. I'd hate to imagine how much harder that must be for folks without any notable qualifications.

They may never put their respective qualifications to use - and arguably some have studied areas of little/no worth viz employability. There were something like 3,000 Art Lit. graduates last year .. yet try getting a decent/reliable tradesman. Some degrees are worthless IMHO.

I can also say - hand on heart - that of my friends, those of us who did not choose Uni are doing better than those who did. That wasn't yesterday - it is 24 years ago since I left College.

Best thing I ever did was to turn down offers to go to University(s) - to do a HND.

[Big Ed]

We should nationalise all private businesses so that the government can tell everyone what they are allowed to be paid. Maybe even pay everyone the same. Queues for bread would be nice too.

Trying to interfere in private businesses, thinking about legislating on what legal activities folk can do in their own property, thinking about a minimum alcohol price (in the rest of the UK), putting up VAT (and lots more) - it's almost like the Lib Dems are in power....


After your sarcastic first paragraph; your second appears to be lashing out at Government interference in our society, including interfering with private company business.
When the financial crisis of 2008 happened; I didn’t hear too many in the Finance Sector complaining when the Government bailed out the banks. Surely that is interference too.
The Government bailed out the banks in the national interest and, in my opinion, should be doing a lot more in the national interest now. The current laissez-faire approach to our economy coupled with austerity measures are not working. Unemployment is rising and this affects tax revenue; lack of job security has rendered the housing market (another source of Government revenue) stagnant, with the result that Government spending is continuing to rise. Meanwhile some free market economists are advocating tax cuts for the top earners.
The notion that these “Private” companies will act in their best interests and subsequently, by doing well, the best interests of the country, is both misleading and dangerous.
Today, both the Guardian and the Daily Telegraph are both running a story that banks are deliberately misleading the Bank of England with their figures regarding lending to SMEs following Project Merlin and is a sign of both their naked self interest and contempt for the Government.
For Government inaction, read acquiescence.

[RyeSloan]

After your sarcastic first paragraph; your second appears to be lashing out at Government interference in our society, including interfering with private company business.
When the financial crisis of 2008 happened; I didn’t hear too many in the Finance Sector complaining when the Government bailed out the banks. Surely that is interference too.
The Government bailed out the banks in the national interest and, in my opinion, should be doing a lot more in the national interest now. The current laissez-faire approach to our economy coupled with austerity measures are not working. Unemployment is rising and this affects tax revenue; lack of job security has rendered the housing market (another source of Government revenue) stagnant, with the result that Government spending is continuing to rise. Meanwhile some free market economists are advocating tax cuts for the top earners.
The notion that these “Private” companies will act in their best interests and subsequently, by doing well, the best interests of the country, is both misleading and dangerous.
Today, both the Guardian and the Daily Telegraph are both running a story that banks are deliberately misleading the Bank of England with their figures regarding lending to SMEs following Project Merlin and is a sign of both their naked self interest and contempt for the Government.
For Government inaction, read acquiescence.

I suppose it depends if you think futher and deeper Government intervention would do anything to improve the situation or make it worse....maybe we should be demanding a return of the Selective Employment Tax that was used so succesfully in the 60's to try and directly intervene in the direction of the economy as a whole.

[Beefster]

After your sarcastic first paragraph; your second appears to be lashing out at Government interference in our society, including interfering with private company business.
When the financial crisis of 2008 happened; I didn’t hear too many in the Finance Sector complaining when the Government bailed out the banks. Surely that is interference too.
The Government bailed out the banks in the national interest and, in my opinion, should be doing a lot more in the national interest now. The current laissez-faire approach to our economy coupled with austerity measures are not working. Unemployment is rising and this affects tax revenue; lack of job security has rendered the housing market (another source of Government revenue) stagnant, with the result that Government spending is continuing to rise. Meanwhile some free market economists are advocating tax cuts for the top earners.
The notion that these “Private” companies will act in their best interests and subsequently, by doing well, the best interests of the country, is both misleading and dangerous.
Today, both the Guardian and the Daily Telegraph are both running a story that banks are deliberately misleading the Bank of England with their figures regarding lending to SMEs following Project Merlin and is a sign of both their naked self interest and contempt for the Government.
For Government inaction, read acquiescence.

See, this is where we fundamentally disagree and so getting into the debate would drag on, go round in circles and never get anywhere.

I believe that the state should allow all citizens and organisations to live their lives/run themselves however they see fit, as long as it doesn't harm anyone or thing else. The state shouldn't be legislating what I do to or with my body (some folk actually manage to be slim, non-alcoholics and non-junkies without the state telling us that we should be), what I do in private or how much a private organisation pays its employees (that's a shareholder's job). They shouldn't even be offering opinions (which are purely for political pointscoring).

I'd scrap universal benefits (there is a campaign asking OAPs to give their Winter Fuel Allowance to charity so how much is the state wasting), make everyone who could afford it buy private health and education (state resources should be concentrated on those who can't afford to do it any other way) and plenty of other things to remove reliance on the state to run folks' lives.

The more the state tries to control, the worse things get. They should stick to providing the best NHS, police, defence, education etc etc that they can. They can't even get that stuff right.

PS I realise that this is waaaaay off-topic.

[Big Ed]

I suppose it depends if you think futher and deeper Government intervention would do anything to improve the situation or make it worse....maybe we should be demanding a return of the Selective Employment Tax that was used so succesfully in the 60's to try and directly intervene in the direction of the economy as a whole.

I cannot deny that Governments too often act out of self interest and when they interfere, can cause lots of problems; however the policy of this and the previous Governments has been appeasement to the Financial Services Sector, which dominates our economy.
By trying to appeal to the better nature of the financial organisations; they appear servile and now cannot impose any significant influence. For the sake of our economy, this has to change.
I confess to being ignorant of Selective Employment Tax and its impact on the economy, but the concept that it is best if we leave the Markets to their own devices, is destructive to both the short and long term nature of the UK economy.

[Big Ed]

See, this is where we fundamentally disagree and so getting into the debate would drag on, go round in circles and never get anywhere.

I believe that the state should allow all citizens and organisations to live their lives/run themselves however they see fit, as long as it doesn't harm anyone or thing else. The state shouldn't be legislating what I do to or with my body (some folk actually manage to be slim, non-alcoholics and non-junkies without the state telling us that we should be), what I do in private or how much a private organisation pays its employees (that's a shareholder's job). They shouldn't even be offering opinions (which are purely for political pointscoring).

I'd scrap universal benefits (there is a campaign asking OAPs to give their Winter Fuel Allowance to charity so how much is the state wasting), make everyone who could afford it buy private health and education (state resources should be concentrated on those who can't afford to do it any other way) and plenty of other things to remove reliance on the state to run folks' lives.

The more the state tries to control, the worse things get. They should stick to providing the best NHS, police, defence, education etc etc that they can. They can't even get that stuff right.

PS I realise that this is waaaaay off-topic.


As you can see from my reply to Simar’s post; I am not a total advocate of universal Government interference for the reasons given.
Ultimately however, I contend that the role of Government is to represent the best interests of the population and our economy needs urgent attention. Austerity measures, high unemployment and flat-lining economic figures all indicate that the half-hearted concepts implemented so far are not enough and that more radical measures are necessary.
Large companies do not have an obligation to help out Governments as they are compelled to act in their own self interests, so only Government intervention can have any impact in times of crisis.

[The_Exile]

The cavemen had it easy, but that's enough about Stephen Pressley, I think we should just do away with Money and fancy possessions and just standardise everything, welcome to Utopia.

[Leicester Fan]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-15759818


Leicester mayor Sir Peter Soulsby set for £44,000 rise


Sir Peter currently earns £56,000 but an independent remuneration panel is recommending Leicester City Council increases it to £100,000 per year.
Under the plan deputy mayor Rory Palmer would see his salary rise from £34,000 to £75,000 and assistant mayors would also get a pay increase.
Councillors at the Labour-run authority will vote next week on the proposals.

P (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-15759818)S Peter Soulsby is a Labour politician.

[Big Ed]

Peter Soulsby is a Labour politician.

....and?

[Betty Boop]

Cancer patients are to face welfare tests and back to work interviews, during chemotherapy treatment. How humiliating is this ?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/dec/06/cancer-patients-welfare-work-tests

[green is good]

Cancer patients are to face welfare tests and back to work interviews, during chemotherapy treatment. How humiliating is this ?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/dec/06/cancer-patients-welfare-work-tests


That is absolutely outrageous. I had cancer two years ago and though I had radiotherapy rather than chemotherapy it was a horrible thing to go through and you really shouldn't have to worry about welfare tests and back to work interviews during treatment.

[Jonnyboy]

Cancer patients are to face welfare tests and back to work interviews, during chemotherapy treatment. How humiliating is this ?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/dec/06/cancer-patients-welfare-work-tests

Dave and Nick eh. They stoop to a new low :bitchy:

[Betty Boop]

That is absolutely outrageous. I had cancer two years ago and though I had radiotherapy rather than chemotherapy it was a horrible thing to go through and you really shouldn't have to worry about welfare tests and back to work interviews during treatment.

I didn't think Cameron and co could sink any lower. Well named the Nasty Party !

[Betty Boop]

Dave and Nick eh. They stoop to a new low :bitchy:

They obviously don't live on the same planet as the rest of us,**** of the highest order. McMillan Cancer Support have launched a petition, I would urge every one to sign.


http://e-activist.com/ea-action/action?ea.client.id=70&ea.campaign.id=12513

[Jonnyboy]

They obviously don't live on the same planet as the rest of us,**** of the highest order. McMillan Cancer Support have launched a petition, I would urge every one to sign.


http://e-activist.com/ea-action/action?ea.client.id=70&ea.campaign.id=12513

Done.

Heard today that the nasty's have delayed the tax on private jets for a year. Nice to know they care :bitchy:

[Saorsa]

Dave and Nick eh. They stoop to a new low :bitchy:signed :agree: what a disgrace :bitchy: ****in' tory ****.

[bighairyfaeleith]

sadly not surprised by the story!

signed the petition.

[Lucius Apuleius]

Petition signed. I too went through radiotherapy this year. Luckily my company decided to keep paying me (reduced wages, but appreciated) so never had to bother with any of that rubbish. Shocking IMO.

[BEEJ]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15487866

With the imminent scrapping of the 50% top tax rate as well, things are certainly looking up for the filthy rich.

Meanwhile, average private sector pay is up just 2.6%, public sector pay at...uh...0% and inflation is at 5.2%.
Getting back to the topic in the OP, there can be no justification for cutting the 50% tax rate. We keep hearing how this tax rate 'stifles entrepreneurial spirit' and 'hinders job creation'. Yet over half of those in the UK that actually pay a marginal rate of tax of 50% work in the City of London.

If we are genuinely concerned about budding entrepreneurs doing their stuff elsewhere, then establish targeted tax breaks and incentives for those who are setting out to establish new ventures with the resultant benefits to the economy. But leave the 50% tax rate where it is.


I accept that this increase seems at odds with the wider environment and can understand that it may be considered wrong but
I'm not entirely sure why you consider the directors of listed UK companies should be answerable to the general public.

As for openess and honesty...is that not exaclty what we have already, rules that force companies to disclose the cost of their directors. Should we not be looking to strengthen the role of the shareholder to approve executive salaries? But even if stronger rules were in place, if the shareholders of a company decide their top brass are worth what some would consider excessive salaries then who are we to disagree and on what grounds?

To me these exceutives should have their pay much more closely aligned to performance but in the end of the day surely it is down to the owners of these companies (i.e shareholders) to do this rather than anyone else.
You must know that the major shareholders in these large companies are the pension funds and financial institutions. It is very rare for a group of individual shareholders in a major company to carry enough clout to do anything other than express mild concern at the company AGM.

Unfortunately there is too cosy a relationship between the City shareholders and the senior directors in these companies and therefore a reluctance to rock the boat when Directors' salaries move seriously out of alignment with company performance.

That aspect of shareholder oversight does need to be overhauled.

[RyeSloan]

Getting back to the topic in the OP, there can be no justification for cutting the 50% tax rate. We keep hearing how this tax rate 'stifles entrepreneurial spirit' and 'hinders job creation'. Yet over half of those in the UK that actually pay a marginal rate of tax of 50% work in the City of London.

If we are genuinely concerned about budding entrepreneurs doing their stuff elsewhere, then establish targeted tax breaks and incentives for those who are setting out to establish new ventures with the resultant benefits to the economy. But leave the 50% tax rate where it is.

From what I have read the 50% tax is neither here nor there...it doesn't raise much revenue and what it does raise is offset against the tax lost on those who relocate to avoid it. Does it send the right message in saying UK PLC is open for business in a low tax environment - probalby not. Does it send the right message about trying to get eveyone to 'do their bit' - probably. But ulitimately it's just noise as far as I can see.



You must know that the major shareholders in these large companies are the pension funds and financial institutions. It is very rare for a group of individual shareholders in a major company to carry enough clout to do anything other than express mild concern at the company AGM.

Unfortunately there is too cosy a relationship between the City shareholders and the senior directors in these companies and therefore a reluctance to rock the boat when Directors' salaries move seriously out of alignment with company performance.

That aspect of shareholder oversight does need to be overhauled.

Totally, that's exactly what I was implying. Large Pension funds for example should be exercising their voting rights with their pensioners in mind not their cosy relationship but ultimately company performance should be at the heart of directors remuneration...I don’t think it is just now.

On the other hand though when it is and the directors are rewarded handsomely for creating significant shareholder wealth (and like it or not good leadership is normally the difference between a company failing and a company succeeding) I’m not entirely sure that there won’t still be a vocal percentage of people who simply won’t accept this fact or see it as ‘fair’

[BEEJ]

From what I have read the 50% tax is neither here nor there...it doesn't raise much revenue and what it does raise is offset against the tax lost on those who relocate to avoid it. Does it send the right message in saying UK PLC is open for business in a low tax environment - probalby not. Does it send the right message about trying to get eveyone to 'do their bit' - probably. But ulitimately it's just noise as far as I can see.

I'd be very surprised if the numbers going to the trouble to uproot everything and leave the country due to a 50% tax rate were sufficiently high to offset the additional tax take.

And for those that are leaving, if they're not new wealth creators, then let them go elsewhere.

Same applies to the routine justification for over-inflated salaries - "you have to pay the market rate to compete internationally for management talent"; "these people will simply find jobs elsewhere". If all the nations keep telling themselves that then we're on a permanent upward cycle for executive salaries, one that ignores the realities of where we are in the economic cycle.

Those arguiments might have had some merit when all the economies were on that seemingly unrelenting bull run. But the global economy is now shrinking. If these people can get 'better' jobs in Paris, New York, Los Angeles etc - let them. We'll take the executives they replace.

[Leicester Fan]

Cancer patients are to face welfare tests and back to work interviews, during chemotherapy treatment. How humiliating is this ?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/dec/06/cancer-patients-welfare-work-tests

Did the govt actually say that cancer patients have to undergo test during chemotherapy? Have they specifically singled out cancer patients?Could it be that this is just a general tightening up on the rules concerning disability benefits and this has been spun by a newspaper in the same way the Daily Mail is roundly condemned for?

Cue 'Why do you want cancer patients to suffer?' over reaction.

[RyeSloan]

Did the govt actually say that cancer patients have to undergo test during chemotherapy? Have they specifically singled out cancer patients?Could it be that this is just a general tightening up on the rules concerning disability benefits and this has been spun by a newspaper in the same way the Daily Mail is roundly condemned for?

Cue 'Why do you want cancer patients to suffer?' over reaction.

Not got time to look beyond the linked article but in that article it states:

"Buried in a report to ministers by Prof Malcolm Harrington, the government adviser on testing welfare recipients, are proposals"

"The government said that patients would be allowed to prove they were too ill to work with "documentation", and would not always be asked to undergo a complete assessment."

"This must be about an individual's needs. Our proposals would ensure a person would only be asked to attend a face-to-face assessment where absolutely necessary."

So it would not yet appear to be government policy nor does the proposal appear to force all cancer patients to attend interviews.

I think this is clearly a sensitive area and as always there is probably a conflict between individual circumstances and those meeting the government machine.

[greenlex]

David Cameron isn't alf putting the beef on. All those lunches on expenses are taking their toll.

[Betty Boop]

Michael Gove would like the taxpayers of this country, to fund a new Royal yacht in honour of the Queen's Diamond Jubilee. Hilarious ! :greengrin

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jan/15/queen-royal-yacht-diamond-jubilee-gove

[steakbake]

David Cameron isn't alf putting the beef on. All those lunches on expenses are taking their toll.

Comfort eating. He's taking a lot for the team.

[Big Ed]

Michael Gove would like the taxpayers of this country, to fund a new Royal yacht in honour of the Queen's Diamond Jubilee. Hilarious ! :greengrin

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jan/15/queen-royal-yacht-diamond-jubilee-gove


I especially like this bit: “Gove ends his letter by suggesting that if insufficient taxpayer funds are available a private donation could be sought.”
Maybe a scheme could come in whereby those earning the most could have the 50% Income Tax that they have to pay reduced. This would encourage the talented entrepreneurs and risk takers to display even more of their zeal: more money could be generated and we could give the Queen an even bigger boat.
We would also be helping out the yacht building sector too. :thumbsup::thumbsup:

[Betty Boop]

Fred Goodwin stripped of his knighthood.

[steakbake]

An empty feel good gesture. Just goes to show you the sham of the knighthoods. He's had 3 years to be stripped of his wee medal for bankrupting the country. Now it happens it seems almost a sad act of desperation.

The bonus stuff yesterday was ill advised. Shook confidence that RBS is capable of being a normal bank because of interference from politicians. It'll be public property for a very very long time to come if it's going to be used as a political football.

[Mixu62]

Cancer patients are to face welfare tests and back to work interviews, during chemotherapy treatment. How humiliating is this ?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/dec/06/cancer-patients-welfare-work-tests

Do you have to be UK resident to sign it? I've been overseas for almost 6 years, but these proposals are sickening.

[Beefster]

An empty feel good gesture. Just goes to show you the sham of the knighthoods. He's had 3 years to be stripped of his wee medal for bankrupting the country. Now it happens it seems almost a sad act of desperation.

Absoutely. It suits the politicians to make Goodwin into some sort of bogey-man for the banking crisis. All the other main players continue to be a part of the establishment (and in some cases, do work for the government).

If there's one thing that gets right on my cheps, it's shameless hypocrisy.

[bighairyfaeleith]

Absoutely. It suits the politicians to make Goodwin into some sort of bogey-man for the banking crisis. All the other main players continue to be a part of the establishment (and in some cases, do work for the government).

If there's one thing that gets right on my cheps, it's shameless hypocrisy.

:agree:

No time for goodwin but the personal and sustained attacks on him to save politicians having to actually deal with the issues is becoming tiresome. That's fired at all parties by the way!!

[Big Ed]

Listen: can you hear the church bells ringing? that's the sound of rejoicing because Fred Goodwin has been stripped of his knighthood.
We are all deliriously happy, aren't we?
Well, first of all, it's hard to feel too sorry for the arrogant prick: if he is feeling a wee bit down, he can always go and look at his bank statements to cheer himself up, because he's not likely to be seen in Lidl any time soon.
However, as with other posters on here, the rank smell of hypocrisy is wafting past my nostrils and I don't like it. Politicians make me sick.
Despite what you may think if you believed what was said in the Cabinet Office statement which stripped him of his title, Fred Goodwin alone did not cause the financial crisis of 2008.
Giving up Goodwin to the baying pack is merely a distraction, because the rotten culture at the heart of our Financial Services Industry is still as recalcitrant as it was when he was in his pomp.

[bighairyfaeleith]

Listen: can you hear the church bells ringing? that's the sound of rejoicing because Fred Goodwin has been stripped of his knighthood.
We are all deliriously happy, aren't we?
Well, first of all, it's hard to feel too sorry for the arrogant prick: if he is feeling a wee bit down, he can always go and look at his bank statements to cheer himself up, because he's not likely to be seen in Lidl any time soon.
However, as with other posters on here, the rank smell of hypocrisy is wafting past my nostrils and I don't like it. Politicians make me sick.
Despite what you may think if you believed what was said in the Cabinet Office statement which stripped him of his title, Fred Goodwin alone did not cause the financial crisis of 2008.
Giving up Goodwin to the baying pack is merely a distraction, because the rotten culture at the heart of our Financial Services Industry is still as recalcitrant as it was when he was in his pomp.

had to google that word:doh::greengrin

[Beefster]

:agree:

No time for goodwin but the personal and sustained attacks on him to save politicians having to actually deal with the issues is becoming tiresome. That's fired at all parties by the way!!

I've yet to see any Peers stripped of their titles either, despite a few of them actually being convicted of a crime (unlike Goodwin). Nothing to do with them being part of the political establishment, I suppose!

[bighairyfaeleith]

I've yet to see any Peers stripped of their titles either, despite a few of them actually being convicted of a crime (unlike Goodwin). Nothing to do with them being part of the political establishment, I suppose!

yeah it's amazing how quickly the sanctimonious mp's forget there own misdemeanour's. It's hard to be interested in politics when you know it's just full of two faced bstard's and never changes.

Ach well mibbes an independant scotland will be different:wink:

Sorry couldn't have us agreeing for too long!!

[Future17]

Government appointee paid without deductions for tax or NI - we're all in this together:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-16709780

[Lucius Apuleius]

Glad to see I am not the only one who thought taking his knighthood off him was wrong. To start, I do not believe in the honours system anyway, but something stinks to me when he appears to be made a scapegoat for the whole banking crisis.

[Beefster]

yeah it's amazing how quickly the sanctimonious mp's forget there own misdemeanour's. It's hard to be interested in politics when you know it's just full of two faced bstard's and never changes.

Ach well mibbes an independant scotland will be different:wink:

Sorry couldn't have us agreeing for too long!!

Yeah, it was getting a wee bit too lovey-dovey for comfort!

[Eyrie]

but something stinks to me when he appears to be made a scapegoat for the whole banking crisis.
He always has been the scapegoat. Hornby got off very lightly for getting HBoS into a similar mess and, unlike Goodwin, he didn't have any successes to his name.

No problem with Goodwin losing his knighthood, but I did find it ironic that the committee which made that decision was composed of knights and dames - all of whom had got their awards for climbing the civil service career ladder rather than actually achieving anything.

[hibsbollah]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15487866

With the imminent scrapping of the 50% top tax rate as well, things are certainly looking up for the filthy rich.

Meanwhile, average private sector pay is up just 2.6%, public sector pay at...uh...0% and inflation is at 5.2%.

Here it comes...Tax cut for the rich as youth unemployment rises. Same old tories?

http://m.guardian.co.uk/ms/p/gnm/op/sjM3vwXt5_TZOI7nF8dg6uA/view.m?id=15&gid=politics/2012/mar/15/george-osborne-top-tax-rate&cat=top-stories

[Beefster]

Here it comes...Tax cut for the rich as youth unemployment rises. Same old tories?

http://m.guardian.co.uk/ms/p/gnm/op/sjM3vwXt5_TZOI7nF8dg6uA/view.m?id=15&gid=politics/2012/mar/15/george-osborne-top-tax-rate&cat=top-stories

Political suicide. Especially when their core vote is being squeezed so much.

[ginger_rice]

Political suicide. Especially when their core vote is being squeezed so much.

You have to give it to the Tories, they never fail to amaze me. Just when I thought it impossible to hate anyone more than Thatcher, along comes Dave and George, the new chuckle brothers.

[Hibs Class]

You have to give it to the Tories, they never fail to amaze me. Just when I thought it impossible to hate anyone more than Thatcher, along comes Dave and George, the new chuckle brothers.

Presumably they won't get this through without libdem support?

[Big Ed]

At the moment; all of this is speculation, however I was drawn to the part of the article that said “...The chancellor has, sources say, been intellectually persuaded of the case for a cut in the top rate...” - that must have taken him a couple of nano-seconds.
The Lib Dems are on record as saying that they are not wedded to a 50% tax rate but imply that its removal should be reciprocated with a policy of making the super rich pay. The subsequent suggestion of a Mansion Tax has all the hallmarks of a party political soundbite and I suspect about as long lasting.
Labour will take the opportunity to wring their hands and howl out the usual cat calls, but will fall apart when they are accused of being anti business.
Yet here we are; faced with increasing austerity and the devastation that it may bring, considering whether extraordinarily wealthy people should get a 10% tax cut, in the faint, and discredited, hope that the millions who are struggling may receive some crumbs from the table.
Anyone suggesting this should surely be universally ridiculed for their appalling misjudgement; but there are many, who are nowhere near this tax threshold, who will look at this and agree.
I find that utterly depressing.

[Eyrie]

It may or may not be a sensible policy, depending on your political views, but it certainly is poor politics.

The main focus should be on raising the personal allowance to £10,000 which would not only help everyone (except those earning over £100k) but would also help stimulate the economy since most people would spend the additional cash.

[ginger_rice]

At the moment; all of this is speculation, however I was drawn to the part of the article that said “...The chancellor has, sources say, been intellectually persuaded of the case for a cut in the top rate...” - that must have taken him a couple of nano-seconds.
The Lib Dems are on record as saying that they are not wedded to a 50% tax rate but imply that its removal should be reciprocated with a policy of making the super rich pay. The subsequent suggestion of a Mansion Tax has all the hallmarks of a party political soundbite and I suspect about as long lasting.
.

And in the meantime their accountants will find yet even more ways in which they can avoid the "mansion tax" which I reckon would be a lot more avoidable than PAYE.

I have no objection to a just and fair taxation system but it has to be equitable, there should be no get out's and certainly no loopholes or tax breaks just because you have enough money to be able to afford a tax consultant.

If there is to be a tax cut for the rich then there should be an equal tax cut for everyone else.

[ginger_rice]

It may or may not be a sensible policy, depending on your political views, but it certainly is poor politics.

The main focus should be on raising the personal allowance to £10,000 which would not only help everyone (except those earning over £100k) but would also help stimulate the economy since most people would spend the additional cash.

:agree:

[greenlex]

The main focus should be on raising the personal allowance to £10,000 which would not only help everyone (except those earning over £100k) but would also help stimulate the economy since most people would spend the additional cash.

:agree: £40 a week more disposable income would help a huge amount for a lot of people.

I see it is going up to just over £8000 next month. Not enough IIMO

[Mibbes Aye]

It may or may not be a sensible policy, depending on your political views, but it certainly is poor politics.

The main focus should be on raising the personal allowance to £10,000 which would not only help everyone (except those earning over £100k) but would also help stimulate the economy since most people would spend the additional cash.

It is of no benefit to those whose income isn't high enough to pay income tax, and that's more than a third of the adult population.

And both the IFS and the OBR argue that it isn't the best kind of fiscal stimulus to the economy.

Nevertheless it would represent an income tax cut for a lot of people on lower incomes (but also a tax cut for anyone up to 100K as you say).

It can also be argued that it makes work more attractive for lower-earners who see a bigger impact in their wage packet. Of course the lack of jobs somewhat diminishes that 'positive'.

[Mibbes Aye]

:agree: £40 a week more disposable income would help a huge amount for a lot of people.

I see it is going up to just over £8000 next month. Not enough IIMO

I'm unclear how raising the allowance to £10,000 represents a £40 a week increase for people :confused:

[CropleyWasGod]

I'm unclear how raising the allowance to £10,000 represents a £40 a week increase for people :confused:

Current PA is £7475.

New Allowance £10,000

Additional allowance is £2,525.

Tax on that is £505 per year.

£9.71 per week.

£40 per MONTH is closer to the mark

[Mibbes Aye]

Current PA is £7475.

New Allowance £10,000

Additional allowance is £2,525.

Tax on that is £505 per year.

£9.71 per week.

£40 per MONTH is closer to the mark

Cheers CWG and sorry to distract you from the Rangers thread :greengrin

Am I right in thinking that the tax allowance was meant to rise to £8,105 this year anyway, meaning the benefit to people is actually less than £400 a year?

It's not my area of expertise at all but I think to get £40 a week more in people's pockets would mean raising the allowance by a whopping £10,000, which would cost us many, many billions.

[CropleyWasGod]

Cheers CWG and sorry to distract you from the Rangers thread :greengrin

Am I right in thinking that the tax allowance was meant to rise to £8,105 this year anyway, meaning the benefit to people is actually less than £400 a year?

It's not my area of expertise at all but I think to get £40 a week more in people's pockets would mean raising the allowance by a whopping £10,000, which would cost us man, many billions.

£10,400 :greengrin

[Mibbes Aye]

£10,400 :greengrin

:faf: :aok:

[greenlex]

I'm unclear how raising the allowance to £10,000 represents a £40 a week increase for people :confused:
Sorry should have read per month. I knew what I meant. :greengrin

[Mibbes Aye]

Sorry should have read per month. I knew what I meant. :greengrin

:greengrin

I find these sort of calculations doable but complicated - my brain isn't wired that sort of way obviously, and it seems to take longer with every passing year :greengrin


Another thing to throw into the melting pot - on the surface this is a measure which screams out "helping the low-paid".

Yet the biggest average cash gain goes to the second-richest tenth of earners :rolleyes:

[CropleyWasGod]

:greengrin

I find these sort of calculations doable but complicated - my brain isn't wired that sort of way obviously, and it seems to take longer with every passing year :greengrin


Another thing to throw into the melting pot - on the surface this is a measure which screams out "helping the low-paid".

Yet the biggest average cash gain goes to the second-richest tenth of earners :rolleyes:

The gain is the same for all those who are in the 20% and 40% tax bands.

The phrase "taking people out of tax" just gets my eyes rolling.

[Mibbes Aye]

Political suicide. Especially when their core vote is being squeezed so much.

I'm going to avoid the temptation to go partisan :greengrin


It's a curious decision if it does come to pass. While the 50p rate doesn't raise a lot of money relatively speaking, it does raise some and I don't think anyone has offered a plausible narrative about scrapping it leading to a higher tax take, which suggests that scrapping it would be political rather than economic.

On the basis that it is political, that raises a whole host of possible reasons for scrapping it. On an abstract level I think it's fascinating.

[Mibbes Aye]

The gain is the same for all those who are in the 20% and 40% tax bands.

The phrase "taking people out of tax" just gets my eyes rolling.

The gain is the same but doubles up where there are two earners in the household who benefit. Two-earner couples tend to fall towards the higher end of income distribution which is why the second-richest decile gain most on average, in cash. It's statistical jiggery-pokery of course, but interesting nevertheless :greengrin

The less well-off get a bigger benefit relatively speaking as the gain is a bigger percentage of their overall income, but as mentioned earlier the poorest third of adults get nothing at all.

The "taking people out of tax" line does more than make my eyes roll, it genuinely angers me. It's not "taking people out of tax", it's taking people for idiots.

[RyeSloan]

The gain is the same but doubles up where there are two earners in the household who benefit. Two-earner couples tend to fall towards the higher end of income distribution which is why the second-richest decile gain most on average, in cash. It's statistical jiggery-pokery of course, but interesting nevertheless :greengrin

The less well-off get a bigger benefit relatively speaking as the gain is a bigger percentage of their overall income, but as mentioned earlier the poorest third of adults get nothing at all.

The "taking people out of tax" line does more than make my eyes roll, it genuinely angers me. It's not "taking people out of tax", it's taking people for idiots.

So do you argree with the policy of reducing the income tax burden or not?

Not sure if it is being planned but this approach would appear to be a good way of getting rid of the expensive and poorely designed working tax credit system. By building those values into the income tax threshold you could maintain peoples income levels without the need for such a huge logistical operation.

As for the 'poorest' third (it should be noted that taxable earnings are not always an indication of overall wealth) they will not gain out of income tax changes as they are not paying any income tax, I don't really get the relevance of mentioning them when discussing changes to income tax levels unless you are suggesting that the governement should re-allocate the money that would have been retained by the worker paying less income tax to paying bigger benefits to those that don't work or currently pay no income tax instead?

I also fail to see the two earners in a household argurment...income tax is very much an individual tax, surely we can't start amalgamating incomes to make a point on an income tax change when that tax change is on a tax that is levied on the individual?

Also why the anger at "taking people out of tax" line is it because it misses out the word income? And although it might be a bit of a generalisation as it impacts all income tax payers I think the concept is clear in that it aims to have the biggest impact in % terms of £'s more compared to £'s currently taken home at the lower end of the scale. Does it not help to relieve the 'benefits trap' as well?

[Mibbes Aye]

So do you argree with the policy of reducing the income tax burden or not?

Oh SiMar, that's so subjectively posed you could be recruited by the Nats for the referendum :greengrin "Burden"!!!

To be honest I'm a bit ambivalent - on the one hand I can sign up to paying more tax if I thought it would lead to a better society, and by better I mean fairer and better able to meet the needs of the demographic timebomb, for example. A free market economy doesn't really have concern for those on the margins and nor should it, it's not meant to, I accept that.

On the other hand I can see the argument that even a little more money in people's pockets might encourage growth. The problem is that in the current climate you can understand people choosing to pay down debt instead, which is good in principle but doesn't really do much for growth. I'm not in business (you might be?) and I wonder whether targeted VAT cuts would appeal more to the likes of SMEs?


Not sure if it is being planned but this approach would appear to be a good way of getting rid of the expensive and poorely designed working tax credit system. By building those values into the income tax threshold you could maintain peoples income levels without the need for such a huge logistical operation.

The tax credit system is clunky, not a shadow of a doubt. At the same time it didsuccessfully redistribute wealth to those who were targeted (very clunkily). I think the challenge is that when you get to the various thresholds in the system it becomes inordinately complex, and all these inequities spring up, as we're seeing with some of the stuff around child benefit. I think that's always going to be an issue, whichever government is implementing whatever policy shifts. Things like the universal credit, or even a flat tax rate, sound superficially attractive because they're simple but I think it's misleading and I suspect inequities are equally likely to rise.


As for the 'poorest' third (it should be noted that taxable earnings are not always an indication of overall wealth) they will not gain out of income tax changes as they are not paying any income tax, I don't really get the relevance of mentioning them when discussing changes to income tax levels unless you are suggesting that the governement should re-allocate the money that would have been retained by the worker paying less income tax to paying bigger benefits to those that don't work or currently pay no income tax instead?
You don't get the relevance of mentioning them becuase you want to airbrush them out of existence, typical Tory bas....:greengrin

Only joking :aok:


I mentioned them in response to a post that said everyone benefitted from the change. Thought it was important to point out that a substantial amount of the population don't. Whether more should be done for the poorest third of the country is taking the argument elsewhere. I suspect we both agree that we want people on low incomes to be earning more though we probably hope for that arising by different means :greengrin


I also fail to see the two earners in a household argurment...income tax is very much an individual tax, surely we can't start amalgamating incomes to make a point on an income tax change when that tax change is on a tax that is levied on the individual?
I think the point about two earners is valid because it adds to a more sophisticated interpretation of the policy. The nature of income distribution is such that the biggest winners from this are the second-highest decile. It's not a huge amount more than lower deciles, and proportionally the impact may well be greater for lower-earners as I pointed out above.



Also why the anger at "taking people out of tax" line is it because it misses out the word income? And although it might be a bit of a generalisation as it impacts all income tax payers I think the concept is clear in that it aims to have the biggest impact in % terms of £'s more compared to £'s currently taken home at the lower end of the scale. Does it not help to relieve the 'benefits trap' as well?

From what I recall is there not an impact from people losing child benefit somewhere on the scale? Can't remember to be honest and that's not why I said what I said. In response to your main point, it's more about my pedantry rather than anything else :greengrin. Yes, there are some people who will no longer pay tax, but the point is that they weren't paying tax on a vast proportion of their income anyway. So it's an accurate statement but it really annoys me because I think a lot of people are genuinely misled into thinking its something far greater than it is and that needles me, would do regardless of who was saying it to be honest :agree: