Premier David Cameron

Subject: RE: Premier David Cameron
From: Silas
Date: 14 May 10 - 11:52 AM

Cobblers.

Subject: RE: Premier David Cameron
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 14 May 10 - 11:58 AM

so you have have never claimed MIRAS

Whatever made you think of this which was withdrawn with effect from 6 April 2000 - absolutely nothing to do with David Cameron???

For those who do not know, The MIRAS (mortgage interest relief at source) scheme enabled borrowers to get tax relief on mortgage interest at the time the interest was paid. It was phased out by the end of the 1990s.

Subject: RE: Premier David Cameron
From: Dave MacKenzie
Date: 14 May 10 - 12:21 PM

Onl if you include my Grandfather.

Subject: RE: Premier David Cameron
From: Acorn4
Date: 14 May 10 - 12:22 PM

The shite is about to hit the fan big time.

We are told that we have to make cuts because "the markets" are demanding it. Does the government represent the people or the markets?

Gordon Brown's plan to secure recovery before payback helped meant that people started to forget that the bankers got us in this mess.

People are now going to start remembering that again now!

Subject: RE: Premier David Cameron
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 14 May 10 - 01:51 PM

No, only you. Everybody else is having fun.

Subject: RE: Premier David Cameron
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 May 10 - 02:36 PM

The fun is going to be pretty short-lived.

Subject: RE: Premier David Cameron
From: GUEST,The Smiler
Date: 14 May 10 - 05:06 PM

Aston Villa have announced on their website that David is a Villa supporter and thats good enough for me.
Good on yer David

http://www.avfc.co.uk/page/MediaWatchDetail/0,,10265~2052652,00.html

Subject: RE: Premier David Cameron
From: Joe Offer
Date: 14 May 10 - 05:34 PM

Please refrain from personal attacks or name-calling directed at your fellow Mudcatters. I have to remove a number of posts from Silas and the Leveller.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: Premier David Cameron
From: GUEST,The Smiler
Date: 14 May 10 - 05:58 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o0OO4ylOnZ8&feature=related

Subject: RE: Premier David Cameron
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 14 May 10 - 08:49 PM

""Don, remember Thatcher's dole queues. The rabid bitch is back from the dead. We will all suffer to help the rich get richer.""


Try adding some qualifier such as in my opinion when you are professing to be both mind reader and clairvoyant Richard.

You have no more knowledge of what will happen than I do, and you certainly cannot advance any vestige of evidence for your assertions about Cameron's intentions.

It is frightening to think that you might one day be representing a client, and find out that he is a Tory. With the hard wired hatred you exhibit toward us, I wouldn't give a penny for his chances.

Time will tell which of us is right, but I will make one confident prediction right now. If Cameron proves you wrong, and turns out to be a good Prime Minister, instead of being relieved you will be ROYALLY pissed off!

BTW, in my opinion, Gordon Brown, in his raids on our pensions, reckless frittering away of our treasury, and our gold, and his failure to rein in the banks, is much more deserving than Cameron of the title "Spawn of Thatcher".

Don T.

Subject: RE: Premier David Cameron
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 15 May 10 - 04:17 AM

Well said Don. Something that must and I'm sure will be done is raising the incentive to work for benefit claimants in order to help eliminate the "state owes me" syndrome. Perhaps Child Tax Credits should be limited to the first three children only for instance - not unreasonable.

HM Revenue & Customs also need to get their act in order - they are a shambles, with Companies House a close second. I have filed accounts within the last month which I have since discovered do not fully comply with Companies Act requirements, but they were not rejected!!!

Subject: RE: Premier David Cameron
From: Silas
Date: 15 May 10 - 04:35 AM

OK Joe, though having posts deleted on mudcat can be something of a 'badge of honour', I will endeavour to bite my tongue when the loonies and trolls are on a wind up mission.

Cheers

Subject: RE: Premier David Cameron
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 15 May 10 - 05:22 AM

It doesn't help us loonies and trolls to find out what your point of view is, if we don't get to see your posts though.

Don T.

Subject: RE: Premier David Cameron
From: Silas
Date: 15 May 10 - 05:47 AM

Hey Don!

I disagree with most of what you write, but you do at least express yourself properly (no matter how wrong you are ;-)) I would never consider you a loony or a troll.

Cheers

Subject: RE: Premier David Cameron
From: mandotim
Date: 15 May 10 - 06:04 AM

Hey Bozo; ever read 'The Bonfire of the Vanities?'

Subject: RE: Premier David Cameron
From: Acorn4
Date: 15 May 10 - 07:45 AM

I find the problem is that no one really knows what David Cameron believes in if anything, and hence it tends to make one fear the worst. Robert Peel and Disraeli both took the Conservative party in new directions, and he'd need to do something special to make a mark.

With the election of a new labour leader, there will probably be a media friendly "pretty boy" in charge of each of the parties, which would all cancel each other out.

Subject: RE: Premier David Cameron
From: Lox
Date: 15 May 10 - 07:58 AM

Don,

I would like to feel confident about Cameron.

I am encouraged by his apparent willingness to negotiate and compromise for the good of the country.

I would feel more so if his Cabinet reflected a new outlook, but with Clarke, Hague, Duncan-Smith and Letwin in there I can't help but wonder if the very vague Cameron is much more than the charismatic mask of the Thatcherite old guard.

As you say though, time will reveal all.

Subject: RE: Premier David Cameron
From: SPB-Cooperator
Date: 15 May 10 - 10:12 AM

Within 50 days there will be an emergency budget, and at this pint we will see where the £6Billion in cuts will be wielded.

There are some positives from the coalition - the new £10K tax band, but this will be little help to those who work part-time and are already earning below the tax threshold.

For example carers.

What will be the impact on the voluntary and charity sector? How many charities that help those most disadvantaged will go to the wall?

What will be the impact upon tax credits?

I am glad that raising the inheritance tax threshold has been scrapped. Would someone only getting £730,000 out of a million pound inhertiance really be thrown into poverty.

To be honest, what proportion of inheritances come anywhere close to that?

Subject: RE: Premier David Cameron
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 15 May 10 - 11:33 AM

What will be the impact upon tax credits?

As the system is in such a complete shambles - ever tried speaking to folks in that department? We had a client who had been overpaid in excess of £4k for whom we were desperately trying arrange a repayment set off against current year credits - oh no, we can't do that sir, we were told, a separate assessment must be ishyooed - that was November 2009 and we are still waiting for it.

As I said earlier, it should be limited to say children with a far lower salary ceiling.

I suggest the following VAT increases

leave standard rate at 17.5%
new 25% rate on alchohol and tobacco products - hits accross the board
5% rate on dental charges - hits accross the board

problem solved??

Subject: RE: Premier David Cameron
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 15 May 10 - 11:48 AM

The tax credits argument has rather been done to death.

Although, of course, things have taken a different turn with the coalition, this particular media red rag wasn't anything like as bad as it sounded.

Cameron initially said that this particular benefit woud be cut for families earning over £50,000 per annum, and that would seem sensible, as anyone on that level of income or more should not be thrown into poverty by it.

I can't help but agree that there are areas of benefits which might usefully be restricted to those in most need.

The New Labour concept that if anybody gets it, all should get it, regardless of financial status, seems to me a complete nonsense.

It must make better sense to help only those who need help, and if that is the basis upon which the decision is made, those most in need would receive a larger portion of the available pot.

That alone would start to reverse the gap (steadily widening under Blair/Brown) between haves and have nots.

Incidentally, I am one of those who won't receive any beneficial effects from the £10,000 personal allowance, and neither will my wife.

Our incomes aren't high enough, but hell, those are the breaks, and I'm not inclined to cry about it. I am altruistic enough to take comfort in the fact that for a lot of low earners it will be a lifeline.

I'm just grateful that I don't face the incompetence and dishonesty of another five years of Gordon Brown.

Don T.

Subject: RE: Premier David Cameron
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 May 10 - 12:53 PM

True enough that on £50,000 and above you should be able to get along without child tax credits - but rather than have poor people have to fill in forms to get it, which would inevitably mean some didn't get it, I think it's better to pay them universally, and have people above the limit pay it back.

Again it ought to be possible to work out a method to ensure that people earning more than £1000 didn't benefit from a tax change supposedly designed to help people below that level.

Subject: RE: Premier David Cameron
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 15 May 10 - 12:57 PM

£1000?

Subject: RE: Premier David Cameron
From: Silas
Date: 15 May 10 - 01:00 PM

"We professionals"?

Subject: RE: Premier David Cameron
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 May 10 - 02:21 PM

£10,000 - amazing the difference a nought makes...

Subject: RE: Premier David Cameron
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 May 10 - 02:52 PM

Mind, I can remember when £1000 a year was pretty good money.

Subject: RE: Premier David Cameron
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 16 May 10 - 05:42 AM

I'm not clear how this £10,000 "tax free" band will work. Will the personal allowance be raised to £10k or will it be a mixture of increased personal allowance and nil rate tax band?

I'm not convinced that doubling Capital Gains will achieve much, people will simply not sell their assets surely?

I think a super tax on higher sports income would be welcome, and a wealth tax on overseas property.

Subject: RE: Premier David Cameron
From: Arthur_itus
Date: 16 May 10 - 05:45 AM

I think for 2011 they are going to increse the tax allowance by £1000. If that is correct, seems like it will be phased in over time.

Subject: RE: Premier David Cameron
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 16 May 10 - 05:48 AM

That is to say a wealth tax on overseas property owned by folks ordinarily resident in the UK for tax purposes - another can of worms all together.

You will have noticed that when leaving the UK, your passport is scanned and upon your return it is scanned again. There is more to that than meets the eye more than terrorism prevention - it's HM Revenue & Customs after all and departments are beginning to talk to one another - perish the thought - whereas Spain just waves you through!!

Subject: RE: Premier David Cameron
From: Lox
Date: 16 May 10 - 02:11 PM

Remember as well that apart from introducing the internal market into the health service under thatcher, Kenneth Clarke was Also Chancellor of the exchequer when John Majors Government was being accused of 'sleaze'.

Blairs administration allegedly replaced Majors dishonest sleazy one.

And now the sleazy chancellor is back as justice secretary as we kick out the dishonest Brown ...

... I don't see a new era of honesty here, the idea that this is a new era is in itself dishonest.

So criticize Brown for whatever reason you like, but don't delude yourself into believing that Browns departure spells an end to government dishonesty. It is in fact a mix of sleazy devils we know and a charismatic devil we don't know.

Subject: RE: Premier David Cameron
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 16 May 10 - 04:15 PM

But then my glass is one and a half times full! Name one country in the world where sleaze in some form does not exist in their government.

Subject: RE: Premier David Cameron
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 17 May 10 - 04:25 AM

Introducing means tested benefits increases unnecessary administration. It makes more sense to pay benefits universally and make them taxable - there is already a sophisticated bureaucracy there to do those assessments.

To reduce the brain drain out of HMRC (gamekeepers) to "tax advisers" (poachers) HMRC employees should be subject to restrictive covenants that increased in length automatically with pay grade.

There should be an effective benefits advisory service to ensure that those in need of benefits get the most effective benefits - I know some who really suffer but I don't know enough to be able to help them, so how someone with suicidal depression or limited understanding (etc) is supposed to master the huge volume of regulations that governs the benefits system (and indeed constantly changing regulations) is quite baffling.    I know one person who attempted suicide while receiving working tax credit, but was obviously therefore unable to apply for the optimum replacement benefit - yet no-one in the benefits system took any steps to note the availability of a more approproate benefit so now the recipient is being pestered by bailiffs for repayment of the tax credit yet told that because of the delay no substitute benefit is available. Great cure for suicidal depression, that and the absence of any follow-up counselling.

I know another person who has been screwed out of many thousands of pounds in overpaid tax, and is trying to start a business, but while entitled to working tax credit is getting the total runaround from housing benefits people.

Then there is the spiteful restriction of housing benefit to 85% of the interest on one's mortgage. That was pure Thatcher - it got her target, welfare recipients with large mortgages, but it got the rest of them as well. Well, what's a little collateral damage, they were only poor people weren't they?

So far I can see two good things probably coming out of the Con-Dims - we will not get identity cards, and HIPS will be scrapped. The rest is going to be a nightmare, except for the few at the top of the pecking order.

Subject: RE: Premier David Cameron
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 17 May 10 - 09:33 AM

That won't bother the working-class-tory types. They enjoy the feeling of superiority that being buggered by the Real Toffs gives them.

Subject: RE: Premier David Cameron
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 17 May 10 - 09:58 AM

That won't bother the working-class-tory types. They enjoy the feeling of superiority that being buggered by the Real Toffs gives them.

A worthless post, full of hate as usual!

Subject: RE: Premier David Cameron
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 17 May 10 - 10:01 AM

I'm realy worried now. Just worked out the anagram of "David Cameron / Nick Clegg" and got "A Cracked Con Giving Meld".

Very prophetic I expect...

DeG

Subject: RE: Premier David Cameron
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 17 May 10 - 10:27 AM

"A worthless post, full of hate as usual"

Not at all Bozo, I hate no one. But I am full of astonishment that there are those who are so bewitched as to keep waving the flag and voting for a party who cares so little for them. I can only put it down to a strange, vicarious feeling of well-being that they get from the notion that, by voting for the party of the upper-class they achieve a kinship with that class. Either that or they really to like it up 'em! :-)

Turkeys and Christmas spring to mind.

Subject: RE: Premier David Cameron
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 17 May 10 - 10:33 AM

And I am hacked off that, having voted Lib-Dem in an effort to rid our constituency of our long-sitting, and completely useless, Tory -one-time-Thatcher-Toyboy MP, the buggers have jumped in to bed with the Tories - so I got exactly what I voted against - I might as well have voted bloody Labour.

After a lifetime of voting Liberal and Lib-Dem, pretty much exclusively, this was the last time.

Subject: RE: Premier David Cameron
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 17 May 10 - 10:39 AM

""Not at all Bozo, I hate no one. But I am full of astonishment that there are those who are so bewitched as to keep waving the flag and voting for a party who cares so little for them. I can only put it down to a strange, vicarious feeling of well-being that they get from the notion that, by voting for the party of the upper-class they achieve a kinship with that class. Either that or they really to like it up 'em! :-)""

Same old tired rhetoric.

And I suppose you think that New Labour cared for the working class?

My pension at one third of what it should be says different.

Say what you like about the Tories, they never got round to stealing pension money.

Don T.

Subject: RE: Premier David Cameron
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 17 May 10 - 10:51 AM

Never voted Labour in my life Don. (See above).

Subject: RE: Premier David Cameron
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 17 May 10 - 10:53 AM

BTW, how did they steal your pension money?

Subject: RE: Premier David Cameron
From: Acorn4
Date: 17 May 10 - 02:05 PM

Apparently, oil had just been discovered off the Falklands - I have a shrewd feeling where this might be going!

Subject: RE: Premier David Cameron
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 17 May 10 - 02:56 PM

Las Malvinas belong to Argentina.

Subject: RE: Premier David Cameron
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 17 May 10 - 06:40 PM

Try to catch up BW. Gordon Brown's five billion pound raid on the pension funds is very old, but well documented, news.

It affected everybody with a company pension, but, as should be obvious, it hurt those of us on low incomes most of all.

It reduced my income to the point that I haven't had any kind of holiday since 2006, and when my car needed repairs last September, it ended up in my garage U/S for over seven months. It would have been much longer if I hadn't rceived a small legacy.

As to your not voting New Labour, I assume that means you voted liberal, which hasn't meant anything at all except a hung parliament.

Thank God two party leaders had the sense to start talking to their political opponents, or we'd be facing five years of no improvement, along with total loss of credibility as one of the World's foremost financial markets. And that, my friend, is a bloody big slice off our GDP.

Don T.

Subject: RE: Premier David Cameron
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 17 May 10 - 06:54 PM

If you want a way of increasing revenue, how about giving motorists a break, and sticking a good solid windfall tax on gambling (on and offline).

For donkeys years we have given a loophole to winners by allowing them to prepay a small sum on the bet, so that they avoid all tax on the winnings.

Virtually all other unearned income attracts considerable tax, but win 84 million on the Euromillions lottery, as a UK citizen did this week, and you pay tax only on the interest that money accrues when you invest or bank it.

Casinos have been springing up like mushrooms under the laisser faire oversight of the unlamented Brown government, so the volume of tax revenue there for the taking must be immense.

Time they paid their way.

I believe that the United States IRS tax even winners of cars and furniture, based on the market value.

Seems pretty fair to me. Others' mileage may differ, especially if they like a flutter, something that many of us can't afford.

Don T.

Subject: RE: Premier David Cameron
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 17 May 10 - 07:45 PM

Er - who abolished the Graduated National Pension, introduced by Barbara Castle (Labour)?

I'll give you a clue. Her surname began with "T".

Subject: RE: Premier David Cameron
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 18 May 10 - 05:02 AM

Las Malvinas belong to Argentina.

Not according to your high-priestess, Bonzo!

For donkeys years we have given a loophole to winners by allowing them to prepay a small sum on the bet, so that they avoid all tax on the winnings.

Not true, Don. You did not pay a tax on the bet. You increased the bet by the amount of the tax. Without paying it, if you had a £1 bet and it came in at 100 to one you won £100 and paid, if tax was 10% for the sake of ease, £10 tax giving you winnings of £90.

What you did by paying it on the bet, was increase your winnings to cover the tax so if you bet £1.00 and paid 10% tax - Ie a £1.10 bet - you won £110 and the extra £10 weant to the taxman. No tax was avoided as the bookie gave your extra £10 to the taxman.

(It was actualy 6.75% paid by the bookmakers passed on as a 9% charge to the punters. But 10% is easier to work with :-) )

However - It is no longer so. There is no tax on winnings at all but bookmakers are still taxed on gross profits. The measure was introduced by the, then, chancellor, Gordon Brown in a well received change to bring offshore betting operations back to the UK.

I'm no gambler, BTW, but I know about this because I helped set up, and bring back, offshore computer systems on the Isle of Man and Antigua for a big bookmakers organisation. Funny it only took 3 days to sort the IOM one out and 2 weeks in Antigua...

Cheers

DeG

Subject: RE: Premier David Cameron
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 18 May 10 - 05:21 AM

BTW - The way it actualy worked did give the the taxman revenue on bets as well as wins - If your £1.10 bet lost, the 10p still went to the taxman so it was not so much a winnings tax as a betting tax.

Or, seeing as it is easy enough to show in this case - You put £1.09 on. 6.75p went to the taxman. The extra 2.25p went to the bookies profits on which they were taxed as well.

D.

Subject: RE: Premier David Cameron
From: The Sandman
Date: 18 May 10 - 07:34 AM

betting tax should be introduced,there is no betting tax in ireland.
i believe this is because people can bet online without paying tax.

Subject: RE: Premier David Cameron
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 18 May 10 - 08:20 AM

The changes on regulation of lotteries were almost wholly wrong, but were driven by the controllers of the mass communication media, as you can see by looking at the huge number of what would have been unlawful lotteries between television programmes. Gambling is a habit without virtue but fraught with many dangers, and largely controlled by the unscrupulous.

Subject: RE: Premier David Cameron
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 18 May 10 - 08:23 AM

Las Malvinas belong to Argentina.

Not according to your high-priestess, Bonzo!

You mean thatcher??? On the very ground she walks on, may the grass refuse to grow - I despise the woman.

Subject: RE: Premier David Cameron
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 18 May 10 - 09:11 AM

Blimey! A true blue who does not worship the thatch! There's a turn up for the books. Maybe by the same token you could accept that there are some socialists who do not believe in the church of St Tony?

D.