BS: A well balanced fair budget! (UK)

Subject: BS: A well balanced fair budget!
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 22 Jun 10 - 10:20 AM

Something for everyone and something from everyone. It could even be worth having a limited company for a year - don't submit any accounts, Companies House will then dissolve company - HMRC will not chase for tax as they don't have the manpower!!! Good wease eh!!

Subject: RE: BS: A well balanced fair budget!
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 22 Jun 10 - 10:30 AM

Wheeze?

Subject: RE: BS: A well balanced fair budget!
From: GUEST,Sugarfoot Jack who's cookie has gone west
Date: 22 Jun 10 - 10:31 AM

Great for sole traders under the VAT threshold. Not.

Subject: RE: BS: A well balanced fair budget!
From: theleveller
Date: 22 Jun 10 - 10:33 AM

So much for all the Tory shite about fairness - it's inevitable that the VAT increase will hit poorer families harder than Cameron's rich, over-privileged buddies. Still, did we really expect anything different? Bloody Thatcher all over again.

Boko - are you advocating tax evasion? That's illegal. Still, let's face it, it's what the feet-in-the-trough brigade have been doing for years.

Subject: RE: BS: A well balanced fair budget!
From: Amos
Date: 22 Jun 10 - 11:06 AM

I suppose you lot know what you're on about, but does it occur to you that you have started a thread about an ongoing topic, starting in midstream weith no explanation of your provincial references?


A

Subject: RE: BS: A well balanced fair budget!
From: theleveller
Date: 22 Jun 10 - 11:08 AM

"Good wease eh!!"

I think it's short for weasel - a nasty, sneaky way of getting out of your legal and moral obligations. Something Boko professes to be an expert at.

Subject: RE: BS: A well balanced fair budget!
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 22 Jun 10 - 11:16 AM

I think it's short for weasel - a nasty, sneaky way of getting out of your legal and moral obligations. Something Boko professes to be an expert at.

I don't think I'm an expert at anything.

As a result of the mess left by brown's government, HMRC simply do not have the manpower to collect tax due from companies that have been dissolved by Companies House - to quote the tax officer "it's regrettable, but that the way it is."

Subject: RE: BS: A well balanced fair budget!
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 22 Jun 10 - 11:18 AM

Great for sole traders under the VAT threshold. Not.

Then it would be worth registering voluntarily and adopting the Flate Rate Scheme under which there is a litle profit to be made!

Subject: RE: BS: A well balanced fair budget!
From: Arthur_itus
Date: 22 Jun 10 - 11:26 AM

Well I am looking at the budget points and in all honesty, it does not seem as bad as I expected. I am definately not well off and can't even afford a holiday for the second year running. Stopped buying alcohol or going out for meals. We have cut down on luxury spending on food, plus other things.
Already tightened the spending belt. That's what you have to do in times of need.

VAT up to 20% is a bummer, but at least we can see the tax increase clearly, unlike Labour who hid their tax increases.
If I can afford to buy anything, I have no problem paying the VAT. If I can't I go without.

No increase on Alcohol, Ciggies or petrol.

Increase in tax allowance.

Most of the benefit allowances seem to be fair enough.

Here is the link to the main points of the budget.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/politics/10374475.stm

Whoever does a budget will get whinged at by the ones it directly affects. We have a massive debt and we have to face up to it. Everybody will have to play their part.

Subject: RE: BS: A well balanced fair budget!
From: Smokey.
Date: 22 Jun 10 - 01:20 PM

It could have been a lot worse.

Subject: RE: BS: A well balanced fair budget!
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 22 Jun 10 - 01:55 PM

It could have been a lot better.


20% vat hits the poorest sector in the pocket...... to the rich that is a drop in the ocean....

Subject: RE: BS: A well balanced fair budget!
From: Arthur_itus
Date: 22 Jun 10 - 02:01 PM

I am in that poorer sector Georgiansilver, but I accept the VAT rise.

Subject: RE: BS: A well balanced fair budget!
From: Emma B
Date: 22 Jun 10 - 02:40 PM

"Nick Clegg reveals Tories' £13bn VAT bombshell"

'Liberal Democrat Leader Nick Clegg today revealed the £13.4bn VAT bombshell at the heart of the Tories' tax plans.

Analysis of the Conservatives' proposed tax cuts or reversals shows that they will cost over £13.5bn a year in 2011-12 prices – yet just £100m has been specifically identified to fund them.

This leaves a £13.4bn black hole, equivalent to a 3% rise in the standard rate of VAT. This would mean an extra tax of £389 on the average household.

Liberal Democrats have costed, in full, our proposals for tax cuts. We can tell you, penny for penny, pound for pound, who pays for them.
We will not have to raise VAT to deliver our promises. The Conservatives will.
Let me repeat that: Our plans do not require a rise in VAT. The Tory plans do.

"Their tax promises on marriage and jobs may sound appealing. But they come with a secret VAT bombshell close behind."

"So if you're on an ordinary income, you have a choice. If you want your taxes to rise: vote Labour or Conservative. If you want your taxes to fall: choose the Liberal Democrats." '

8th April 2010 Liberal Democrat Voice


"....but I accept the VAT rise."
Like there's a choice?

Oh well .... we were warned back in August last year

'Labour published a dossier accusing the Tories of proposing £22 billion worth of unfunded promises, and warned that the Opposition would increase VAT and "butcher" public services.
"We know the age-old Tory tax hike is a VAT increase," Lord Mandelson said'
The Independent 1 April 2010

Tories deny plan for 20% VAT rate BBC News 9 August 2009

'The Tories have "absolutely no plans" to increase VAT to 20% if they win the next general election, shadow health secretary Andrew Lansley has insisted.
"We have been very clear about that because we don't want to be in a position where we have to have big tax increases, the effect of which is to stifle the economy."

Subject: RE: BS: A well balanced fair budget!
From: Smokey.
Date: 22 Jun 10 - 03:11 PM

It could have been a lot better.

20% vat hits the poorest sector in the pocket...... to the rich that is a drop in the ocean....

The rich buy more stuff, so they pay more VAT - seems straightforward to me. I've always resented and regarded VAT as a form of robbery, but at least there's an aspect of even-handedness to it.

I doubt there has ever been a budget that couldn't have been better for someone.

Subject: RE: BS: A well balanced fair budget!
From: Arthur_itus
Date: 22 Jun 10 - 03:22 PM

>>The rich buy more stuff, so they pay more VAT - seems straightforward to me. I've always resented and regarded VAT as a form of robbery, but at least there's an aspect of even-handedness to it.<<

Exactly my viewpoint Smokey

Subject: RE: BS: A well balanced fair budget!
From: SPB-Cooperator
Date: 22 Jun 10 - 03:28 PM

Subject: RE: BS: A well balanced fair budget!
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 22 Jun 10 - 04:09 PM

No, you do not understand the impact of VAT. It is not rocket science. Try thinking not saluting. The rich have the choice of whether to spend or save. The poor have no choice. They have no margin to save. Therefore apart from zero rated items the entire expenditure of the poor (which equals or exceeds their entire income) is taxed. For the rich the tax on their larger incomes is voluntary. That is why VAT is a regressive tax.

I'm waiting for someone authoritative to do the sums, but I do not see how this budget can achieve the reduction in PSBR that the Cond-Doms were saying was necessary.

Still, at least I can still afford gin.

Subject: RE: BS: A well balanced fair budget!
From: Emma B
Date: 22 Jun 10 - 04:09 PM

'Stuart Adam of the Institute for Fiscal Studies has produced research that shows increases in VAT hits the poorest 20% of society hardest when it comes to wages, unsurprisingly. But looked at by spending, a rise hurts the richest most. Still, this will come as little comfort to poor, big families.

A government that seriously wanted to minimise the harm done to the poor could offset a rise in VAT with increased benefits, although I wouldn't bet on that coming along'

Aditya Chakrabortty writing last Friday

Chakrabortty admits that a VAT "cannot be called progressive" (mainly because it's unambiguously regressive), but defends the tax on the basis that "it is not the most regressive tax I can think of" - identifying VAT exemptions for food and children's clothing as making it less regressive than it might otherwise be, but without actually identifying a tax that is more regressive.

He then argues that because the rich have a lot more money to spend than the poor, "looked at by spending, a rise hurts the richest most".

An interesting alternative view from American Aaron Larson .....

"It would be interesting, by the author's thesis, to crunch the numbers a different way - would the poor be better off if the exemptions were eliminated and the VAT reached food and children's clothes?
It would make the tax, on its face, more regressive - but would it increase the tax burden on the poor to the same degree as the predicted increase "to as much as 20%"?
If not, given the author's argument that the rich buy more stuff - certainly, on the whole, more expensive children's clothing and food - he might even be able to argue that "looked at by spending" the elimination of those exemptions is progressive.

Yes, with a VAT we can not only look forward to higher taxes, and VAT increases as a source of revenue that's perhaps the least offensive to the nation's wealthy interests,

WE CAN LOOK FORWARD TO ANALYSTS TURNING CARTWHEELS TO EXPLAIN HOW LATER INCREASES ARE FAIR BECAUSE THE RICH HAVE SO MUCH MORE MONEY TO SPEND THAN THE POOR."

Subject: RE: BS: A well balanced fair budget!
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 22 Jun 10 - 04:16 PM

The "poor" will simply have to cut back like the rest of us, and not drop so many babies, and not claim so much in benefits, and get on with it.

Subject: RE: BS: A well balanced fair budget!
From: Lox
Date: 22 Jun 10 - 04:19 PM

20% VAT is too much.

Anyone who says that they accept it has no idea what low income means.

Its disgusting.

The idea that 20% VAT hits all equally is an illusion.

For those who spend 100% of their income on essentials it raises the poverty bar that little bit more, so that they have to makke unreasonable basic survival choices on a dily basis.

For those who have a load left over to save or to spend on luxuries, VAT means a choice between a porsche or a BMW Z3.



20% VAT is a deeply unfair tax and I can't wait for Clegg to reap his just desserts in 2015.


I suppose they'll call poor people sinking under the poverty bar somthing unhuman like "Colateral Damage" ...

Subject: RE: BS: A well balanced fair budget!
From: WalkaboutsVerse
Date: 22 Jun 10 - 04:46 PM

How to fix the budget deficit boils down to how much inequality we accept in society - as I've suggested in many a poem, I think our present level is revolting.

Subject: RE: BS: A well balanced fair budget!
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 22 Jun 10 - 04:53 PM

Bonzo, can you read? The poor will not have to cut back "like the rest". They will have to cut back more of their spending because they have no option but to spend all of their income> Can you even add up, much less do subtraction? When the tumbrils come I will enjoy your place in them.

Subject: RE: BS: A well balanced fair budget!
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 22 Jun 10 - 04:58 PM

Touched a nerve again I see!!!

Subject: RE: BS: A well balanced fair budget!
From: Leadfingers
Date: 22 Jun 10 - 06:45 PM

I feel SO sorry for the people who will have to cut back to a Fifty Pound bottle of wine when theyy go out for a meal , instead of the Hunded Pound bottle they are used to .

Subject: RE: BS: A well balanced fair budget!
From: Dave Hanson
Date: 22 Jun 10 - 06:47 PM

All the feckin tory's out in support I see, we already knew who you all are.

Liberals are making sure they will never get elected.

Dave H

Subject: RE: BS: A well balanced fair budget!
From: Tug the Cox
Date: 22 Jun 10 - 08:06 PM

What happened to my message?

Subject: RE: BS: A well balanced fair budget!
From: Tug the Cox
Date: 22 Jun 10 - 08:08 PM

Hmmmmm! will try again
Bonzo....what a Bozo!! Are you just having a laugh, or amusing yourself by pressing buttons that always get a reaction. Why???. Being poor and increasingly hopeless just aint funny.

Subject: RE: BS: A well balanced fair budget!
From: Smokey.
Date: 22 Jun 10 - 09:56 PM

The points made about personal spending as a proportion of income are tediously obvious and very true, but the fact remains that richer people generally spend more, and consequently are a greater source of VAT as individuals than poor people. That's a good thing, as far as I can see. The overall wealth of the individual is a separate issue entirely and not one I expected this budget to address.

Subject: RE: BS: A well balanced fair budget!
From: Dave Hanson
Date: 23 Jun 10 - 02:49 AM

Not a tory budget anyway.

Dave H

Subject: RE: BS: A well balanced fair budget!
From: theleveller
Date: 23 Jun 10 - 03:14 AM

"and not claim so much in benefits, and get on with it."

I assume that, in this spirit of 'let's all pull together' you won't be caliming your benefits - such as tax relief on pension contributions. After all, what's sauce for the goose......

Now what nerve has that touched?

Subject: RE: BS: A well balanced fair budget!
From: akenaton
Date: 23 Jun 10 - 03:19 AM

Here we go again....the blame game....divide and rule.

You all know what went wrong, you were well shafted by the system...they made billions then when it all went arse up you and I paid for their crimes.....and we will be paying for quite a while!

This is not about Labour v Conservative.....Blair and Brown presided over the worst excesses, being fucked by Labour is no more pleasant than being fucked by the Tories.

Anyone with half a brain should be able to see the flaws by now.

In the words of Eric Bogle "It'll all happen again and again and again!"

Subject: RE: BS: A well balanced fair budget!
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 23 Jun 10 - 05:07 AM

Let's see, married with 4 children -

Child tax credits   £12,000
Child Benefit       £ 3,000
Housing benefit    £???
Unemployment benefit £3,400
Undeclared cash income - say £10,000

Free school lunches
Free optician services
Discount on Council tax

42" plasma TV
Nike trainers for the kids
2 weeks in the Canaries

Yes - it's a poor life!!!

Subject: RE: BS: A well balanced fair budget!
From: Arthur_itus
Date: 23 Jun 10 - 05:25 AM

We are all in the fertiliser, whether you are Labour, Conservative, Lib Dem etc.

We have a huge debt and we have to get it sorted as a country. That means we all have to pull together.

Subject: RE: BS: A well balanced fair budget!
From: theleveller
Date: 23 Jun 10 - 05:47 AM

"Undeclared cash income - say £10,000

42" plasma TV
Nike trainers for the kids
2 weeks in the Canaries

Yes - it's a poor life!!! "

You've written some shite in your life Boko, but that beats everything. Get out of your Walter Mitty daydream in your Croydon bedsit now and again and find out the reality of living on a sink estate in an inner city. Twat!

Subject: RE: BS: A well balanced fair budget!
From: Emma B
Date: 23 Jun 10 - 06:31 AM

'That means we all have to pull together.' - well not exactly.....

The Treasury reckons in April 2012 we'll be on AVERAGE about £400 a year worse off as a result of all measures announced in the budget.
That ranges from £200 worse off for the poorest tenth, and £1,600 for the richest tenth.

Another way to look at this: how much people lose as a percentage of their incomes – from the poorest 10 per cent of the population to the richest 10 per cent.

The top 20 per cent of the country, those earning above £38,400 do lose the most as a share of their income – so that's progressive.
BUT it's the bottom 10 per cent – the poorest people in the UK, earning below £14,200, who are the next biggest losers, on the Treasury's own figures

VAT a 'regressive' tax

The richest 10% pay one in every 25 pounds of their income in VAT; the poorest 10% pay one in every seven pounds as VAT (Source: Office of National Statistics)

If however we take instead disposable income (after direct taxes have been levied), the poorest 10% are in fact paying a higher proportion (one pound in six) in VAT - an even more striking impact -while the richest 10% are paying one in nineteen pounds.
That again shows how the impact of VAT is very regressive.

Some items are NOT 'luxuries' a family caring for an elderly incontinent member or young children have as great, if not more need, for a washing machine for example

Benefit changes

What sounds a relatively technical change in how benefits were uprated - using Consumer Price Inflation rather than Retail Price Index - would be a major "stealth cut", saving £6 billion on benefits but significantly increasing income inequality, as those on benefits fall further behind average earnings.
It has the potential to be the most significant welfare change in the budget in the long-term.

"The impact from one year to the next won't be huge, but played out over many years this will have a dramatic effect in increasing inequality in society – just as it did in the 1980s, when Margaret Thatcher broke the earnings link for many benefits.

"Many low-income households are reliant on benefits and tax credits for a significant proportion of their income. Reducing the rate at which these benefits increase means the income of the poorest households will fall further and further behind everyone else."

Tim Horton Fabian Society Research Director

Income Tax

The increase in the income tax threshold will do nothing for the millions who don't earn enough to pay income tax.
Three million households in the poorest quarter of the population will see no gain at all from this tax cut – including pensioners, the sick, the unemployed and parents in low-paid part-time work.

Yet ALL these groups will be hammered by the VAT increase!


Additionally, the budget included the announcement that the Savings Gateway, due to be introduced next month, has been cut.
This actually 'progressive' scheme aimed to support people of working age on lower incomes**. The Government would have added 50 pence for each £1 saved into Saving Gateway accounts.

For a Government that claims to be keen to promote hard work and to reward savers this is a slap in the face

**income support;
jobseeker's allowance;
incapacity benefit and employment and support allowance;
severe disablement allowance;
working tax credit (with income below a specified level);
and child tax credit (with income below a specified level).
Recipients of carer's allowance will also be eligble.

Subject: RE: BS: A well balanced fair budget!
From: Leadfingers
Date: 23 Jun 10 - 06:59 AM

I would like to know where I could get in on that £10,000 Un declared income !
Before the Economic crash , the best year I had as a musician I pulled in nearly £7,000 , ALL declared and tax paid B T W !

Subject: RE: BS: A well balanced fair budget!
From: Arthur_itus
Date: 23 Jun 10 - 07:23 AM

Emma. Stop whinging.
The country has a very serious debt, or hadn't you noticed. That debt was not created by the Condoms, but by Labour.
Consequently we all have to suffer by it.

Subject: RE: BS: A well balanced fair budget!
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 23 Jun 10 - 08:03 AM

"That debt was not created by the Condoms, but by Labour."

Drivel.

It was caused by tha the-government being forced into bailing out huge banking corporations which had been grossly mis-managed by obscenely-paid and -bonused managers. And of which party, I wonder, are those obscenely-paid and -bonused managers and their businesses natural supporters and paymasters?

Short-term, or selective, memory-loss there?

Subject: RE: BS: A well balanced fair budget!
From: Arthur_itus
Date: 23 Jun 10 - 08:29 AM

Maybe I should change that to The Labour party have passed on a huge debt, rather than have created.

However, we are all now suffering the consequences and we have to get on with it. Blame who you like, but it isn't going to get us anywhere.

The country voted the Condoms in, or decided that they had enough of Labour. That is democracy as such. We now have to see if the condoms can turn things around.

Subject: RE: BS: A well balanced fair budget!
From: GUEST,redhorse at work
Date: 23 Jun 10 - 08:34 AM

You won't be able to judge this budget till October. That's when you find out what the (25% over 4 years) cuts mean in terms of money in your pocket. When you find out what you have to pay for that you didn't before. How much extra they'll charge you for your prescriptions. How many services will simply disappear.

nick

Subject: RE: BS: A well balanced fair budget!
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 23 Jun 10 - 09:09 AM

It was caused by tha the-government being forced into bailing out huge banking corporations which had been grossly mis-managed by obscenely-paid and -bonused managers. And of which party, I wonder, are those obscenely-paid and -bonused managers and their businesses natural supporters and paymasters?


Hideous people - and I can tell you that certain banks are paying salaries of £46k for internships - work experience!!!! for Oxbridge students.

Subject: RE: BS: A well balanced fair budget!
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 23 Jun 10 - 09:12 AM

Arthur, I agree that a mess was left and it has to be sorted out.

Just a shame that people like you and I (and others, some much worse-off than us) have to pay for the unholy mess caused by reckless, selfish and greedy people who were already rich by anyone's standards and who, despite being at the top of what should be an honorable and trustworthy profession, proved that they are utterly unscrupulous to the point of criminality.

It's all very well for Tory supporters on here to decry benefits scroungers and gurgle with unbridled joy at the news that those benefits are to be cut, but whose sins are worse - the single mum claiming benefit to pay for her kids' food and clothes, or the banker running his employer (and ultimately the country) into the ground to get millions in bonuses to pay for his luxury yacht or his villa in the West Indies?

Subject: RE: BS: A well balanced fair budget!
From: Arthur_itus
Date: 23 Jun 10 - 09:20 AM

BWM
I agree

Subject: RE: BS: A well balanced fair budget!
From: Arthur_itus
Date: 23 Jun 10 - 09:21 AM

Did I just say that LOL :-)

Subject: RE: BS: A well balanced fair budget!
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 23 Jun 10 - 09:28 AM

Bloody Hell!!
Better get out while we're ahead!   :-) :-)

Subject: RE: BS: A well balanced fair budget!
From: theleveller
Date: 23 Jun 10 - 09:38 AM

Well-said Backwoodsman. The benefits system is there as a safety net to ensure that those who are unable, for whatever reason, to be self-sufficient in terms of income generation, have the basic necessities. The wealthy also enjoy substantial benefits from the tax system. This is paid for by everyone.

I agree that there are a few benefit scroungers but I suspect that there infinitely more who, with the collusion of accountants and tax lawyers, are avoiding/evading paying tax which they can easily afford and are, therefore, defrauding the rest of us. Now, who are the real villains?

Subject: RE: BS: A well balanced fair budget!
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 23 Jun 10 - 11:57 AM

Leveller as usual is talking rubbish.

Subject: RE: BS: A well balanced fair budget!
From: Arthur_itus
Date: 23 Jun 10 - 12:19 PM

I think nobody who trades in the UK should be paid more than the PM. That includes the bwankers.

Subject: RE: BS: A well balanced fair budget!
From: theleveller
Date: 23 Jun 10 - 12:22 PM

Touched a nerve there, did I ,Boko? :)

Subject: RE: BS: A well balanced fair budget!
From: Emma B
Date: 23 Jun 10 - 12:23 PM

Arthur - may I point out that identifying why an increase in VAT is a regressive tax and how it unfairly taxes those on lowest incomes together with looking at the long term implications of the impact of ditching RPI as the measure for indexing benefits is hardly 'whinging'

In most years CPI is lower than RPI and does not include housing costs. The RPI includes changes in mortgage interest payments, council tax and some other housing costs which are not included in the CPI.
It soon starts to make a difference.

For example
If Carers' allowance – paid to people looking after dependents – had been linked to CPI since 2000 instead of RPI it would now be £5 less at £48.64 a week rather than its current level of £53.90.

calculation table


If we're all taking the hit equally, why is corporation tax going to be cut by 1 per cent every year for the next four?

"So we're going to end up before this parliament is out with the extraordinary situation that after offset of all the allowances and reliefs large multinational corporations enjoy they might have an effective tax in his country of somewhat less than 20%.

And that rate is lower than the basic rate of income tax, lower than the rate of VAT and lower than the rate of tax charged on small companies.

What an extraordinary outcome that is: when everyone else is going to be squeezed to pay for the deficits that banks caused their effective rate of tax will be lower than that of any real live living person enjoying anything but the most basic of incomes in the UK."

- Richard Murphy, chartered accountant and visiting fellow at the Centre for Global Political Economy at the University of Sussex, External Research Fellow at the Tax Research Institute, University of Nottingham

Subject: RE: BS: A well balanced fair budget!
From: Arthur_itus
Date: 23 Jun 10 - 12:26 PM

Whatever Emma.

I think I will just enjoy my birthday, whilst I am alive.

Subject: RE: BS: A well balanced fair budget!
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 23 Jun 10 - 12:59 PM

If we're all taking the hit equally, why is corporation tax going to be cut by 1 per cent every year for the next four?


I don't know, ask your accountant!

Subject: RE: BS: A well balanced fair budget!
From: VirginiaTam
Date: 23 Jun 10 - 01:00 PM

Unscrupulous and criminal or fair and balanced.

The top earning council chief executives

David McNulty, Surrey, £200,000 to £230,268
Joanna Killian, Essex, £230,000, £30,000 as shared CEO of Brentwood Borough Council, £15,000 bonus in 2008, £2,000 expenses and allowances.
Derek Myers, Kensington and Chelsea, £220,000 to £230,000
Gerald Jones, Wandsworth, £225,000 to £230,000
Andrea Hill, Suffolk, £218,592
Mark Hammond, West Sussex, £215,000 to £220,000
Andrew Smith, Hampshire, £209,999 to £219,999
Peter Gilroy, Kent, £214,423
John Foster, Islington, £210,000
Ron Hilton, Staffordshire, £206,331
Caroline Tapster, Hertfordshire, £203,427, with £3,659 car allowance
Colin Hilton, Liverpool, £203,048
Chris Duffield, City of London, £200,000 to £226,530 - of which 59 per cent is paid for by taxpayers, the rest from the authority's property and investment earnings
Andrew Kilburn, Waltham Forest, £200,000 to £213,268
Kevin Lavery, Cornwall, £200,000
George Garlick, Durham £200,000
Nick Walkley, Barnet, £200,000
Moira Gibb, Camden, in excess of £200,000

I can only speak as an employee of one of the above councils. I have seen greedy good old boy/girl network get richer while they reduce and sell off (outsource) services, make staff redundant and/or re-evaluate staff at lower grade and award themselves a bonus for "saving" the council so much money. I've seen about 5 of this ilk step stone to greener pastures (outside the county council)after slash and burn of their respective services, in the last 9 months. Do they do this to protect themselves from repercussions of their decisions? What if an audit or the public determines they did wrong? How do you reprimand someone who does not work for the county council any longer? They have now buggered off with the cash and garnered a better job.

Subject: RE: BS: A well balanced fair budget!
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 23 Jun 10 - 01:13 PM

Basically tough titty - it's the way things are. I home that many of the hideous scroungers are persuaded in time that it pays to work - doing anything.

I'm off to work in a coffee bar in Poland!!!!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: A well balanced fair budget!
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 23 Jun 10 - 01:25 PM

Despite criticism of my earlier sentiments re 20% vat hitting the poor the hardest... I stick by what I said..... Many have already had houses re-possessed... many are living on or below the 'bread line' so an increase of vat is a punishment for the poor.. The rich may well pay 20% on vat but at least they can cut back on something... how can people who have nothing to cut back on handle it? The poor!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: A well balanced fair budget!
From: Lox
Date: 23 Jun 10 - 02:41 PM

"Touched a nerve again I see!!! "

No Bonzo.

Though you are desperately trying to.

In fact, your obvious delight that people who have nothing could be ruined does little more than paint you in a very unfavourable light.

I doubt if any tory supporters who read these threads would have much respect for a lowlife like you.

Tere are very poor people in this country who work very hard to keep body and soul together, for whom things have become that bit harder.

That is a source of amusement and satisfaction for Bonzo.

Nothing else need be said.

Subject: RE: BS: A well balanced fair budget!
From: Emma B
Date: 23 Jun 10 - 02:55 PM

Dealing with annual tax avoidance (a course of action designed to conflict with or defeat the evident intention of Parliament) which deliberately exploits loopholes in the law would only be a small part of meeting the debt £375 bn of which has come from bailing out the banks through buying stakes in them and quantitative easing

The best estimate of the annual amount of tax that is avoided by individuals is £13bn and for companies this amount is between £9bn and £12bn.
These are the numbers that HMRC, the Guardian, TUC and the Treasury gave estimated. So anti tax avoidance measures would bring in about £20bn a year.

In 2005 British American Tobacco, the UK-listed cigarette giant, paid just £13 million in corporation tax over the previous five years, despite making pre-tax profits of £9 billion in the same period. by 'choosing' to pay its taxes abroad, dramatically reducing its tax bill in the country where it is headquartered


Tax evasion being illegal is more difficult to calculate
The size of the offshore economy is hard to measure precisely, as a result of its 'fragmented nature, difficulties involved in defining it, and a pervasive culture of secrecy.'

In February 2009 TJN's Richard Murphy produced research for the BBC's Panorama programme estimating conservatively that the UK loses about £18.5 per year to tax havens, including avoidance and evasion.
This, if fully tackled, would be enough to take 4.5p off the basic rate of UK income tax.

In March 2008 HMRC (the UK's Revenue and Customs department) published a report estimating of the UK tax gap - the result of both avoidance and evasion - at between £11bn and £41bn.

Compare this with the DWP report that -

'It is estimated that during 2008/9 around 2.2% or 3.0bn of total benefit expenditure was overpaid due to fraud and error, while around 0.9% or 1.2bn of total benefit expenditure was estimated to have been underpaid

In the 12 months to September 2006, fraud in Income Support and Jobseekers Allowance cost the equivalent of 26p for every £10 that will be spent on the Olympics


In smearing benefit claimants as 'hideous scroungers' perhaps Bozo is doing what psychologists tell us people like 'queer-bashers' notoriously do; that is, they project their own "sins" onto others. -knowing that they themselves are defrauding the economy through tax evasion or avoidance

Perhaps I should ask HIS accountant :)

Subject: RE: BS: A well balanced fair budget!
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 23 Jun 10 - 03:46 PM

Yes, and how much tax is HMRC simply not bothering to collect because 13 years of labour has reduced their workforce to such an extent that they do not have the manpower any more. So with that in mind, people are bound to exploit it, just as the child tax credit system is exploited!

Subject: RE: BS: A well balanced fair budget!
From: VirginiaTam
Date: 23 Jun 10 - 04:48 PM

just as the child tax credit system is exploited

Exploited by whom? Sooo.... people are claiming kids that don't exist?

If anyone is exploiting it, it is the high earners who don't need it. Certainly not the poor who do not earn enough to be taxed.

Subject: RE: BS: A well balanced fair budget!
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 23 Jun 10 - 05:04 PM

But the legislation provides that people with £50k salaries can claim child tax credit, that is what's wrong, not that they are claiming it.

I can assure you that child tax credits are being claimed by people with no children - I have a neighbour who works in the investigations dept!!!

Subject: RE: BS: A well balanced fair budget!
From: Smokey.
Date: 23 Jun 10 - 05:32 PM

Child tax credit benefits poor people much more than it benefits the rich, as it represents a far bigger proportion of their income.

Subject: RE: BS: A well balanced fair budget!
From: Gervase
Date: 23 Jun 10 - 05:50 PM

Hasn't the sad little three-legged troll been fed enough now?
For heaven's sake, he's had you all hook, line and sinker.

Subject: RE: BS: A well balanced fair budget!
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 23 Jun 10 - 07:47 PM

""Nick Clegg reveals Tories' £13bn VAT bombshell"

'Liberal Democrat Leader Nick Clegg today revealed the £13.4bn VAT bombshell at the heart of the Tories' tax plans.

Analysis of the Conservatives' proposed tax cuts or reversals shows that they will cost over £13.5bn a year in 2011-12 prices – yet just £100m has been specifically identified to fund them.""

That's pretty good going Emma.

Three biased untruths in three sentences.

Notwithstanding the individual positions of the parties pre election, all the decisions which have been made, are being made, and will be made, are the decisions and agreed policies of a coalition consisting of Tories and Lib Dems, so your basic sly dig at the Tories is at best poorly thought out.

We gave Blair time to show what he could do, and we gave Brown time to show what he could do, and they both bombed.

Kindly allow the new government considerably more than a month before condemning it for trying to clear up the abysmal mess inherited from those two shysters.

Don T.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: A well balanced fair budget!
From: Leadfingers
Date: 23 Jun 10 - 08:01 PM

Don - Its the Bloody Bankers who stitched the country up , with a LOT of help from the American Ecrapnomic System ! I have NO Brief for New Labour (What Happened to Socialism) but the moves that Gordon Brown had started to make WERE aleviating the situation !

And with regard to the budget , even that terrrible Left Wing Rag The Telegraph says everyone is worse off !

Subject: RE: BS: A well balanced fair budget!
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 23 Jun 10 - 08:16 PM

""We are all in the fertiliser, whether you are Labour, Conservative, Lib Dem etc.

We have a huge debt and we have to get it sorted as a country. That means we all have to pull together.""

Absolutely spot on Arthur, and anybody who thinks it would have been better if New Labour had won is sorely in need of a brain transplant.

Brown and Darling (sounds like an episode of Blackadder) would undoubtedly have wimped out over doing anything about the deficit, while we drifted into greater and greater debt, culminating in the pound in freefall against dollars and euros, a complete loss of confidence in the UK by the financial markets, and probably a similar meltdown of economy to that of Greece.

Talking about 20% VAT as if that were the increase, does nothing to for the credibility of the argument.

The increase is £2.50 on a hundred pound spend.

I'm on a very low income indeed, and my company pension, being public sector, has not risen this year. The rise in state pension is minimal.

The total increase amounts to less than half the increase in inflation.

In spite of that, I am not complaining. If I can raise the money to spend on VAT rated goods, I can raise an extra 2.5 pence for each pound spent without much difficulty.

I have no problem with doing my share of belt tightening in this situation, and as far as I can see, the only ones who do object are the supporters of the stupid sods who generated the mess.

The people I can't stand are the selfish bastards don't give a damn about cuts, as long as they are not affected, and the trades unions who want special treatment for their members, regardless of what gets cut as a result.

Whoever we vote for, we're all going to have to take some pain, and I'm not asking to be exempt. How about all the left wingers?.....Going to dig in and help, or sit on the sidelines and whinge?

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: A well balanced fair budget!
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 23 Jun 10 - 08:25 PM

""Drivel.

It was caused by tha the-government being forced into bailing out huge banking corporations which had been grossly mis-managed by obscenely-paid and -bonused managers. And of which party, I wonder, are those obscenely-paid and -bonused managers and their businesses natural supporters and paymasters?

Short-term, or selective, memory-loss there?""

If Arthur's short term memory isn't perfect, yours is somewhat worse BW.

Bailing out the failing banks would have been easy if New Labour hadn't spent ten years frittering away the reserve funds they inherited in 1997, and Brown hadn't held a "closing down sale" disposal of our gold reserves at rock bottom prices.

So don't try to claim that New Labour was hit by an unavoidable external force, because it just ain't true. It was eminently avoidable, if Brown had been just one tenth as prudent as he claimed to be.

Do T.

Subject: RE: BS: A well balanced fair budget!
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 23 Jun 10 - 08:35 PM

""Don - Its the Bloody Bankers who stitched the country up , with a LOT of help from the American Ecrapnomic System ! I have NO Brief for New Labour (What Happened to Socialism) but the moves that Gordon Brown had started to make WERE aleviating the situation !""

Terry, see my previous response to BWM, re Browns's spendthrift policies pre the bank meltdown.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: A well balanced fair budget!
From: Smokey.
Date: 23 Jun 10 - 09:47 PM

They have actually increased VAT by a seventh, 14.28%, resulting in a price increase of 2.13% on goods. A £100.00 item becomes £102.13 - hardly crippling, and barely noticeable on small items.

I suspect the NewLabs would have increased VAT too.

Subject: RE: BS: A well balanced fair budget!
From: Emma B
Date: 23 Jun 10 - 10:36 PM

"That's pretty good going Emma.
Three biased untruths in three sentences."

May I suggest you refer to my post of
22 Jun 10 - 02:40 PM

The use of quotation marks and the inclusion of the source (8th April 2010 Liberal Democrat Voice) may indicate that these are not actually my words but, in fact, the words of Stephen Tall who was awarded the inaugural Lib Dem 'Blogger of the Year' prize in 2006 and not MY
'basic sly dig at the Tories' 'at best poorly thought out.'

"Liberal Democrat Leader Nick Clegg today revealed the £13.4bn VAT bombshell at the heart of the Tories' tax plans."

Not 'biased'- not 'untrue - simply the heart of the Liberal's election campaign

"Kindly allow the new government considerably more than a month before condemning it for trying to clear up the abysmal mess inherited from those two shysters."

I merely attempted to demonstrate that one part of this rather unequal partnership was quite capable of condemning itself by going back on its election pledge to the very people who voted for them and supporting a very regressive tax.

Subject: RE: BS: A well balanced fair budget!
From: Smokey.
Date: 23 Jun 10 - 11:04 PM

I didn't realise anyone still believed in election pledges.

Subject: RE: BS: A well balanced fair budget!
From: Lox
Date: 24 Jun 10 - 03:47 AM

I've been watching newsnight on BBC these last coupe of nights.

The clear picture that is starting to form is that these cuts, rather than being the prudent sensible option, are in fact the risky option as the economy is likely to shrink.

So the poor get shafted, and the result is a second recession.

There is no sense in this.

Subject: RE: BS: A well balanced fair budget!
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 24 Jun 10 - 04:43 AM

If you want to see "poor", visit some of the out of the way villages in the USA, Argentina, Peru etc. These so called poor people in the UK don't know the meaning of the word.

VAT is much easier at 20% - just 1/6 of the VAT inclusive price - much easier for the dumbed down easyjet, black leggings and Croydon facelift mob!!!

Subject: RE: BS: A well balanced fair budget!
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 24 Jun 10 - 06:41 AM

Bonzo... you talk through your backside... how would you know what anyone else knows.... Many of the poor people in the UK are much more intelligent than you give them credit for. You are however entitled to your opinion even if it is useless and demonstrates your own high opinion of yourself and your knowledge..

Subject: RE: BS: A well balanced fair budget!
From: MikeL2
Date: 24 Jun 10 - 06:42 AM

hi

Hi

Tax avoidance and benefit fraud have been going on for as long as I can remember.

Neither Labour ( of whatever ilk ) nor Conservatives have managed to do anything other than make it worse.

There is nothing that has been demonstrated in Osborne's or Cameron's long-winded explanations that give me any confidence that they will be any more successful than their earlier counterparts.

Can anyone tell me how Mr Osborne intends to find jobs for all the people he says that he is going to take off jobseeker allowance ??

Cheers

MikeL2

Subject: RE: BS: A well balanced fair budget!
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 24 Jun 10 - 08:07 AM

As some of you don't seem to realise it, tax avoidance and tax evasion are completely different things.

Tax avoidance is legal, and an accepted practice followed by every well-advised and well-run business, and also a great many well-advised individuals.

Tax evasion, on the other hand, is illegal.

I think a lot of you are complaining about avoidance when what you actually mean is evasion.

Subject: RE: BS: A well balanced fair budget!
From: Lox
Date: 24 Jun 10 - 08:22 AM

"If you want to see "poor", visit some of the out of the way villages in the USA, Argentina, Peru etc. These so called poor people in the UK don't know the meaning of the word."

I've been all over south Ameica, Asia and Africa and I've seen 'real poverty'.

I am also friends with people who work in charities that work in these places.

They also work with poor people in the UK.


Bonzo,

Just beacuase you are ignorant, it doesn't mean that there is not serious poverty in the UK.

Just because you are ignorant, it doesn't mean that it is easy for them to escape the poverty trap.


Ignorant means that you don't know what you are talking about.


But you come on here trying to tell people how 'it' is.


There is 'real' poverty in the UK.


Poverty is a trap that very few escape.


None escape without some kind of help, except those upon whom providence smiles.


If hard work and wealth correlated, binmen, recycling depot workers, nurses, policemen, firemen, teachers, prison wardens, cleaning staff etc etc would be multi millionaires.


Reading posts by people who are happy that the poor are going to have it a but tougher makes me wonder what exactly we have to hope for.


The next 5 years will be about braving the failings of our ConDemNation and preparing for the next election.


Any Lib-Dem who canvasses me had better wear protective clothing.

Subject: RE: BS: A well balanced fair budget!
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 24 Jun 10 - 09:15 AM

beacuase!!!!

At least write in proper English if you are going to insult. Better English is spoken in Poland!

Subject: RE: BS: A well balanced fair budget!
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 24 Jun 10 - 12:16 PM

Can I just point out Bonzo your simple mistake You suggest English is spoken better in Poland..... How is it written???   as here... on Mudcat.. it is written.   Is that better too???? You're just a wind up merchant who tends to insinuate the we should tolerate diabolic insolence from a microscopic piece of animosity such as yourself. Your presumptions are indubitably incorrect.

Subject: RE: BS: A well balanced fair budget!
From: Emma B
Date: 24 Jun 10 - 12:25 PM

"As some of you don't seem to realise it, tax avoidance and tax evasion are completely different things."

I can't speak for anyone else Backwoodsman but I thought my post of 23 Jun 10 - 02:55 PM was pretty unambiguous about the distinction between tax avoidence (or mitigation as some would prefer to spin it) and tax evasion.

Subject: RE: BS: A well balanced fair budget!
From: The Barden of England
Date: 24 Jun 10 - 01:00 PM

We bought a house in 1980 that we could afford. Not long after that interest rates reached staggering proportions (under a Tory Government). We hung on in there with bailiffs leaving us notes every other week.I had a poorly paid job, and my wife worked at whatever she could, and then MIRAS (mortgage interest relief at source) was stopped, as was the married man's tax allowance, Still we hung on in there. We didn't have tax credits for our children (who are now 32 and 30 years old) but we did have child allowance. I was made redundant 5 times in 10 years, and still we hung on in there. For the last 12 years of my working life (as a temp, so no job security - thanks to New Labour who wouldn't agree to the European way of doing things for Temps) I never had a pay rise, but still we hung on in there.I remember Purchase tax at 33.33% and higher. I've just retired and just wonder what the hell are you all moaning about? Do you think that all this procrastination is going to change things one little bit? All you want to say is 'I told you so!' Maybe you did - but how will any of you change it in the next 5 years, and do you think the last tory government we had (it sure as hell wasn't labour) would have done anything different? Personally I think not!
John Barden

Subject: RE: BS: A well balanced fair budget!
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 24 Jun 10 - 02:45 PM

They'll all be moaning that they have to work until they are 70 next!! Let me tell you that I will be proud to work until I am 70, and I intend to. They will find something to moan about everything, and no doubt get "offended" on behalf of others!

And if my tax specialist associates can save me tax in any way, then I will save it. Thank goodness we had Tuesday afternoon to adjust our exposure to higher Capital Gains Tax!!!

Subject: RE: BS: A well balanced fair budget!
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 24 Jun 10 - 03:07 PM

Emma - just re-read your post, and you are absolutely correct. My bad, and my apologies.

Subject: RE: BS: A well balanced fair budget!
From: theleveller
Date: 24 Jun 10 - 04:09 PM

"much easier for the dumbed down easyjet, black leggings and Croydon facelift mob!!!"

Not a very nice way to talk about your neighbours (I nearly said 'friends' but I can't believe that you actually have any).

"I think a lot of you are complaining about avoidance when what you actually mean is evasion."

Avoidance may be legal but in many cases - such as non-dom status - it is hardly moral.

Subject: RE: BS: A well balanced fair budget!
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 24 Jun 10 - 04:38 PM

Here we go

You inherit the domicile of your father, or your mother in certain circumstances. So if your father has a foreign domicile, you can inherit that foreign domicile from him, even if you were born in the UK and he is living in the UK, as long as you and he don't intend to stay here permanently.

It is also possible to lose your UK domicile if you permanently move abroad and make your home in another country, although proving this to HM Revenue & Customs is difficult.

The advantages of a non-dom status can be considerable for those with large amounts of investment income. Up until April 2008, all non-doms could avoid paying tax on earnings from overseas investments. But since then, you only enjoy this advantage for the first seven years that you live in the UK.

After that, you can opt to avoid paying tax on your offshore income, but you have to pay HMRC £30,000 for the privilege. This effectively means that for the first seven years you are in the UK, claiming non-dom status is worth doing regardless of how much you are earning offshore. But after that period, it is only worth doing if you are going to save more than £30,000 a year.

Non-doms are also allowed to avoid tax on overseas investment income if it does not exceed £2,000 a year, which experts say is likely to cover a large number of people with savings on deposit, given today's low interest rates. If this applies to you, it could be worth opting for an offshore account provided it pays a higher rate of interest than you can get onshore. But check that the compensation scheme offered by the regulator in the jurisdiction your offshore provider is based in is enough to cover you in the event the provider goes bust.

Non-dom status can also help cut your inheritance tax (IHT) bill, because you will only be liable for IHT on your UK assets and not those overseas. However, there is a potential trap for those looking to avoid IHT. If you have lived in this country for any part of 17 years in the last 20, you are deemed domiciled for IHT purposes.

"The well-advised take steps to avoid this, by ensuring their overseas assets are transferred into an offshore trust before they become deemed domiciled," Mr Warburton says.

If you were born in the UK, you are likely to start off with UK domicile and losing it is difficult. However, it may be possible, particularly where people retire to another country with no intention of returning to the UK. The law surrounding this area is complex, so get professional advice.

"You need to leave the UK and settle in a particular state overseas, and show you have made a permanent home over there. After three years it is possible to lose UK domicile, but it is very hard to do so," says Alex Henderson, a tax partner at PricewaterhouseCoopers. "Domicile is largely an accident of birth, so choose your parents wisely."

Q How do I become non-domiciled in the UK?
A Domicile is, in most situations, an accident of birth, rather than a choice. You inherit domicile from your parents, usually your father. If your father is not UK-domiciled when you are born and you don't intend to stay in the UK permanently, you may have a foreign domicile, too: domicile of origin.

Q Can I be a non-dom if I was born in the UK?
AYes. Being born here does not automatically mean that you are domiciled here. You might have been born here to a non-UK-domiciled father and then moved to another country. If you return here and are not planning to stay permanently, you will continue to be domiciled outside the UK.

Q What if I was born abroad, while parents were working overseas?
AYou will not qualify for non-dom status if your father remained domiciled in the UK while overseas.

Q Is domicile always dependent on my father's domicile?
ANo. If your parents divorce when you are a child and you are brought up by your mother you get her domicile. If your parents were not married at your birth, you also acquire her domicile.

Q Can I lose my domicile of origin?
AYes, but it is not easy. To do so you must leave your current country of domicile and settle in another country. You need to provide evidence that you intend to live there permanently or indefinitely. HMRC will take into account factors including intentions, permanent residence, business interests, social and family interests, and ownership of property.

Q What is the difference between ''domicile'' and ''residence''?
A Domicile is where you come from or where you intend to spend the rest of your life. Residence is an issue of where you physically are at a particular time. You become automatically resident in the UK if you spend 183 days here. You also become resident if you spend an average of 90 days a year here. When you are resident here you are liable for tax on UK earnings.

Q What tax can I avoid?
Income tax and capital gains tax on investments and other assets held overseas. You can also avoid inheritance tax on property held overseas, although you will be deemed UK-domiciled for IHT purposes if you are resident in the UK for any part of 17 years in the last 20. This can catch you after 15 years and two days in certain circumstances. Putting property into trust before this time has lapsed will help you avoid IHT.

Q How do I claim non-domiciled status?
A Tick the box on question 8 of your self-assessment tax return. By doing so, you will have more pages to fill in. HMRC may ask for further evidence.

Unfortunately, leveller's opinion stands for nothing against the Taxes Acts.

Subject: RE: BS: A well balanced fair budget!
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 24 Jun 10 - 05:10 PM

I would also say that any accountant that fails to advise his client according to UK Tax Legislation - which according to leveller of course is "not moral", would be failing in his duty of care, and probably in the dole queue in the not too distant future.

Perhaps we should insert a sentence in our Letter of Engagement which we must send to all new clients - "subject to whether leveller thinks it moral or not"!!!!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: A well balanced fair budget!
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 24 Jun 10 - 05:26 PM

""The use of quotation marks and the inclusion of the source (8th April 2010 Liberal Democrat Voice) may indicate that these are not actually my words but, in fact, the words of Stephen Tall who was awarded the inaugural Lib Dem 'Blogger of the Year' prize in 2006 and not MY
'basic sly dig at the Tories' 'at best poorly thought out.'""

He may well have been the author, but it was you who chose to use it in in accusatory fashion against the Tories, who, if I may remind you, are one half of a coalition.

""I merely attempted to demonstrate that one part of this rather unequal partnership was quite capable of condemning itself by going back on its election pledge to the very people who voted for them and supporting a very regressive tax.""

A tax increase which, as has been pointed out, is fairly insignificant, 25p on every ten pounds spent, and that only on goods not zero rated.

I would easily qualify as one of the poorest, and it's not causing me to panic and contemplate suicide.

This budget has absolutely nothing in it which benefits me in any way, quite the reverse in fact, but I'm not complaining.

I'm quite amused that I, a Tory voter am quite prepared to shoulder my share, while those who accused me of self interest are crying their eyes out about having to cough up theirs.

Just shows who are the selfish ones when the chips are down.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: A well balanced fair budget!
From: Dave Hanson
Date: 24 Jun 10 - 05:31 PM

Bonzo, you are so funny I could just shit, may you live in interesting times.

Dave H

Subject: RE: BS: A well balanced fair budget!
From: Emma B
Date: 24 Jun 10 - 05:58 PM

"He may well have been the author, but it was you who chose to use it in in accusatory fashion against the Tories, who, if I may remind you, are one half of a coalition."

Don it's obvious to me that you only read what you want to in your haste to identify and pillory those you suspect of New Labour sympathies

I'm sure that most people will understand that I was in fact criticizing the LibDems for what many of the people who voted for them see as a betrayal' of their Election promises.

However I stand totally by my view that, in response to the title of this thread, the budget is neither fair nor well balanced.

As Seumas Milne observed

'This isn't the first time in Britain's history that politicians with a programme of savage cuts have claimed "we're all in this together". An iconic Labour movement cartoon from the early 30s, when another coalition came to power in the wake of a financial crisis and slump, shows four class stereotypes of the day on a ladder. A cloth-capped unemployed man is standing at the bottom, up to his neck in water. "Equality of sacrifice ? that's the big idea, friends!" says the silk-hatted figure at the top. "Let's all step down one rung"

Strip away the anachronisms and that's exactly the message George Osborne tried to give in his budget, as he unveiled the deepest and fastest cuts in public spending since the same period'

Now I have never claimed to be 'one of the poorest' or to follow your hyperbole 'to panic and contemplate suicide.'

Unfortunately I know many people who are dependent on benefits, not from the fecklessness that some seem to ascribe to 'hideous scroungers' but from long term illness or caring for others

If I am 'crying my eyes out' it would be for these people who bear the disproportionate brunt of Tory 'fairness' and LibDem sell out.

Subject: RE: BS: A well balanced fair budget!
From: Smokey.
Date: 24 Jun 10 - 11:02 PM

I can't help but wonder how the NewLabs would have handled it. The problem with blatantly 'soaking the rich' to raise money is that they have a tendency to leave the country, taking their wealth with them. It's been tried before and it doesn't work. The last thing the economy needs is another drain.

The main reason the country is broke is that we are exploiting foreign labour by importing cheap goods to create the illusion of personal wealth for the masses, and producing next to nothing ourselves. This has been encouraged by both parties (and their voters, by buying said goods) for at least 30 years. (As has VAT..)

I don't pretend to know the solution and I certainly don't support any of the 'parties', but it's obvious to me that if there is more money going out than is coming in, sooner or later we're all in the shit. And yes, the 'poor' will suffer first, whoever is in power. They always do, one way or another. I don't particularly like it, but it's a fact of life - one of the uglier consequences of human nature.

Subject: RE: BS: A well balanced fair budget!
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 25 Jun 10 - 03:06 AM

Bonzo, your defence of tax avoidance is untenable. In case you, allegedly an accountant, did not read the small print of the budget, even your beloved Hitlerjugend and quislings are studying the adoption into UK tax law of a general anti-avoidance provision. That is not only because tax avoidance is the antithesis of the "we're all in this together" principle that you say the poor (who cannot afford it) should adopt while the rich carry on using bent accountants, but because tax specialists whose training was paid for by the inland revenue (I could name some names) jump ship once expert enough, turning from gamekeeper to poacher, so the rich have a steady flow of inside information to help them avoid even the limited burdens placed on them (and intended to be placed on them) by the tax system.

Incidentally, this also belies the Con-Dom assumption that the public sector is overpaid. Those tax specialists jump ship precisely because the private sector will pay more than the private.

Cameron and fags (in the sense of junior publicschoolboys who do errands for senior public schoolboys) may keep repeating "fairness" but beneath that thin mask lurks Thatcherwasm.

Aux barricades! Once again the French show some backbone while the English remain lackeys and lickspittles.


One of the other evil things that the bitch Thatcher did was abolish exchange control - precisely to assist her thieving cronies to take the money and run, rather than staying around because "we're all in this together". It's a one way street, and it's time to stop the traffic.

Subject: RE: BS: A well balanced fair budget!
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 25 Jun 10 - 04:44 AM

From John Barden:

"We bought a house in 1980 that we could afford. Not long after that interest rates reached staggering proportions (under a Tory Government). We hung on in there with bailiffs leaving us notes every other week.I had a poorly paid job, and my wife worked at whatever she could, ..."

In 1982 we also bought a house we could afford, a 2 up 2 down. It cost £26,000 and it was in London Commuter land, Ruislip Manor. Today, that same, tiny terraced house would be in the region of £250,000. The wages we earnt back then would be very little more today....

How the hell are our children EVER going to get on the housing ladder?

Even down here in Torquay, one of the cheaper parts of the West Country, a standard ex-council house will cost you around £130,000.

I can recall being told, when they brought VAT in, that it was a 'Luxury' tax, just on items that weren't really necessary. Now, it seems to be on almost everything you buy or need...and it's nearly TEN times what it was back then, whilst the average wage has risen a fraction of that percentage. VAT has always been an iniquitous tax.

I agree with Child Tax Credit disappearing from those who don't need it...and WTF has it been paid to them for so long anyway??? I agree with the 'Health in Pregnancy' benefits going (didn't even know that daft thing was in existence)..I also agree with parents NOT being given money to invest for their newborns...Hell, we never had any of that, nor would ever have expected The State to pay for any such thing. WTF has all that been about anyway? It's cost us billions of pounds...As has this crazy war we're still in. Why the hell don't we face up to the fact that bankrupt countries CANNOT fight wars in which they should not even be a part of! It'll not only save money but save lives...

Subject: RE: BS: A well balanced fair budget!
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 25 Jun 10 - 05:19 AM

Richard Bridge is spitting hate now - just listen to yourself - I laugh, I laugh!!!

Do you remember the old saying "I'm alright Jack"? Of course to many now it would be [Oim awigh'].

Now, If I had decided to set up a company, I would have drawn a salary up to the National Insurance Threshold - and therefore tax free, and paid myself a dividend such that my total income falls below the amount at which Higher Rate Tax starts - and therefore also tax free.

That is not tax avoidance, it is merely applying the tax legislation which your beloved labour government saw fit not to repeal. And that is used by some of the poorest oiks we have as clients - and believe me it is one hell of a balancing act when considering child tax sodding credits as well!!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: A well balanced fair budget!
From: Dave Hanson
Date: 25 Jun 10 - 12:38 PM

Oiks eh, bonzo did you have to work hard to become a moron or are you gifted.

Dave H

Subject: RE: BS: A well balanced fair budget!
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 25 Jun 10 - 01:08 PM

Hardly call it a gift Dave... he works hard at it for sure!!!! He's proved that on here!

Subject: RE: BS: A well balanced fair budget!
From: Arthur_itus
Date: 25 Jun 10 - 02:12 PM

I made a mistake. Well balanced be buggered.

How come public servants retire at 60 and get pensions that are well beyond anybody on the State Pension.

How come they are not being made to work until they are 66?

Subject: RE: BS: A well balanced fair budget!
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 25 Jun 10 - 04:03 PM

If folks just rely on the state for State Pension, then they are fools. They know it's not enough so ..........

Subject: RE: BS: A well balanced fair budget!
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 25 Jun 10 - 04:36 PM

Bonzo... most of those people who are on state pension never had a choice.... they earned poor wages so were unable to afford to put money away as everything they had was spent on living. With your obvious know how of life... what would you have suggested they do?

Subject: RE: BS: A well balanced fair budget!
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 25 Jun 10 - 05:05 PM

Putting up VAT to 20 per cent is more or less equivalent to putting 3p on the basic income tax rate. Except that unlike income tax it is aimed at those who are poorest, even those who don't earn enough to pay income tax. And it also hits consumer spending, which is not too good an idea in a recession.

Putting 3p on income tax would have been a much better option. Even wiht that it would still have been at a pretty low level, lower than it ever was under Thatcher.

Subject: RE: BS: A well balanced fair budget!
From: Smokey.
Date: 25 Jun 10 - 05:39 PM

And it also hits consumer spending, which is not too good an idea in a recession.

That would be true if the goods were produced here, but that's not the case nowadays, thanks to That Unmentionable Woman and her advisors.

Subject: RE: BS: A well balanced fair budget!
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 25 Jun 10 - 06:15 PM

Not wholly true, Smokey. Even when the goods being bought are imported, the shops selling them are an important part of the local economy. If they are hit, we're all hit.

Subject: RE: BS: A well balanced fair budget!
From: Smokey.
Date: 25 Jun 10 - 06:29 PM

Point taken, McG, but it would be a whole lot better still if the manufacturing of the stuff was providing jobs here.

Subject: RE: BS: A well balanced fair budget!
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 26 Jun 10 - 01:21 PM

Except that unlike income tax it is aimed at those who are poorest, even those who don't earn enough to pay income tax

Not strictly true, the many thousands of builders, plumbers, electricians, car mechanics and even Accountants etc who earn up to £38k from their owned companies as salary/dividend also don't earn enough to pay income tax - and neither they nor their companies pay National Insurance on that income either. The VAT increase is also aimed at these people.

Subject: RE: BS: A well balanced fair budget!
From: Smokey.
Date: 26 Jun 10 - 02:09 PM

'Those who are poorest'

Would that be the tramp in the shop doorway who doesn't owe anything to anyone, or the man in the nice three bedroom detached with all the trappings and a £2-300k mortgage/debt that he might not live long enough to pay?

Subject: RE: BS: A well balanced fair budget!
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 26 Jun 10 - 02:55 PM

It also applies to the man in the nice £2-300K house with no mortgage!

Subject: RE: BS: A well balanced fair budget!
From: Smokey.
Date: 26 Jun 10 - 03:27 PM

It does, indeed.

My point was that net worth and standard of living don't necessarily correlate, and I wasn't sure exactly what McG meant by 'poorest'.

Subject: RE: BS: A well balanced fair budget!
From: Smokey.
Date: 26 Jun 10 - 04:47 PM

The whole idea of reducing one's net worth to negativity in order to increase one's standard of living has always seemed a bit on the Lewis Carroll side to me, yet a huge section of society is perpetually in debt and living quite comfortably on it. I don't judge them or blame them, but even though they are the poorest members of society I don't see why they should be spared VAT. I don't see how the economy can sustain them forever, either.

Subject: RE: BS: A well balanced fair budget!
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 26 Jun 10 - 05:18 PM

It has become obvious to me whilst reading back over this thread that some people have no idea what real poverty is... even in our own country. They pontificate about certain stereotypes they seem to recognise but the truth about poverty is not apparent. When people are living on or below the 'bread line' ... they are the real poor... and any increase in tax of any sort is a punishment for them. They have no reserves to call on to meet an increase. When people are interviewed on TV about the budget and how the increase will affect them.. they are mostly presentable middle or lower middle class people who will have to draw in the purse strings a bit to meet the rise... not those who have nothing left to meet it!!!

Subject: RE: BS: A well balanced fair budget!
From: Smokey.
Date: 26 Jun 10 - 05:32 PM

Absolutely right, but people literally on or below the breadline don't pay income tax and can't afford VAT rated stuff.

Subject: RE: BS: A well balanced fair budget!
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 26 Jun 10 - 05:47 PM

I guess you are doing the same Smokey.. inasmuch as there are people with partners who can't work who they have to support and their 4-5 children to feed and clothe. They maybe need a car to get to work.... on a minimum wage.... and they do pay tax as well as VAT on fuel... those people are classed as poor and they don't necessarily drink or smoke their money away as some of those on benefits do........ Our wonderful coalition have upped the income tax threshold but it aint enough to help the real poor.
To all of you... you seem to have stereotypes of the poor... some of you think they can do something about it but they can't.. they are stuck with their lives and I guess many make the best of it even though they might be in debt.

Subject: RE: BS: A well balanced fair budget!
From: Smokey.
Date: 26 Jun 10 - 05:53 PM

Isn't that just another stereotype?

Subject: RE: BS: A well balanced fair budget!
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 26 Jun 10 - 05:54 PM

Why have 4-5 children then - unbelievable stupidity. Have these people never heard of birth control??

Subject: RE: BS: A well balanced fair budget!
From: Smokey.
Date: 26 Jun 10 - 06:32 PM

Is there VAT on contraception?

Subject: RE: BS: A well balanced fair budget!
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 27 Jun 10 - 03:20 AM

What I was trying to point out Smokey is that there are poor who do pay tax and VAT.. who can't afford the rises.... the ones I described are certainly not the whole picture. as you say they are one stereotype... but was only using to show an example of such.

Subject: RE: BS: A well balanced fair budget!
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 27 Jun 10 - 04:01 AM

Bonzo you ask :-Why have 4-5 children then - unbelievable stupidity. Have these people never heard of birth control??----- I guess they might well have but some maybe Catholic and their beliefs preclude them from using birth control... some may not be able to afford birth control so for them it is a vicious circle...... there may be other reasons too... but you should not sit on your self righteous/judgemental throne and criticise them..

Subject: RE: BS: A well balanced fair budget!
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 27 Jun 10 - 05:48 AM

What planet are you on? Damned stupid beliefs, ah but maybe they have baby dropping disease!

Subject: RE: BS: A well balanced fair budget!
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 27 Jun 10 - 09:07 AM

Bonzo... I believe there is an age limit to be on this site... suggest you stick to childrens chat rooms and forums instead of trying to wind up sensible adults.

Subject: RE: BS: A well balanced fair budget!
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 27 Jun 10 - 11:01 AM

Funny how some people cannot be tolerant of others who hold a different viewpoint - unbelievable!!

[some may not be able to afford birth control]

Surely it's free??

Subject: RE: BS: A well balanced fair budget!
From: Smokey.
Date: 27 Jun 10 - 11:24 AM

What I was trying to point out Smokey is that there are poor who do pay tax and VAT.. who can't afford the rises.... the ones I described are certainly not the whole picture. as you say they are one stereotype... but was only using to show an example of such.

That's all I was doing, Gs. You are right in what you say, there are those people around the threshold who are unfairly affected to a degree, but that's the case with any tax threshold and seems to be unavoidable. I don't think VAT is any less fair than income tax in that respect. They've raised the income tax threshold to try and mitigate the effect, presumably.

Subject: RE: BS: A well balanced fair budget!
From: Smokey.
Date: 27 Jun 10 - 12:24 PM

Instead of raising the threshold it might have been better to have reinstated the 10% income tax band which the NewLabs took off us.

Subject: RE: BS: A well balanced fair budget!
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 27 Jun 10 - 12:31 PM

But you need a VAT rate of 20% so that the nannyed kids at school have nice easy calculations - just divide by 6 now to find the amount of VAT included in the price whereas before it was 7/47 - beyond the brains of many of the ipod generation!!!

Subject: RE: BS: A well balanced fair budget!
From: Smokey.
Date: 27 Jun 10 - 04:16 PM

Have a heart, Bonzo, they still have to learn how to use a calculator either way.

Subject: RE: BS: A well balanced fair budget!
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 27 Jun 10 - 04:44 PM

A calculator to divide by 6?? I give up.

Subject: RE: BS: A well balanced fair budget!
From: Smokey.
Date: 27 Jun 10 - 05:28 PM

Aye, but 50% of school leavers go to university now, so obviously either the teachers are much better at teaching or the kids are much cleverer :-)

Subject: RE: BS: A well balanced fair budget!
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 28 Jun 10 - 03:11 AM

Or A levels are much easier!!!

Subject: RE: BS: A well balanced fair budget!
From: SPB-Cooperator
Date: 28 Jun 10 - 03:26 AM

Remind me not to use you to do my VAT returns, I would prefer to engage someone who would use an excel formula rather than someone who wastes time(and charges more) calculating with pen and paper or takes a chance doing in in their head.

Subject: RE: BS: A well balanced fair budget!
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 28 Jun 10 - 04:59 AM

I've seen a lot of Excel spreadsheets containing formulae that are bollocks. I only trust the ones I make - I always check other peoples' spreadsheet calculations with........my calculator or in my head. (But I come from a generation who didn't have calculators - we did it all by mental arithmetic).

Subject: RE: BS: A well balanced fair budget!
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 28 Jun 10 - 05:38 AM

SUMIF($F$3:INDEX($F:$F,ROW()-1),"Closing Balance:",G$3:INDEX(G:G,ROW()-1))+SUMPRODUCT(--($F$2:$F$11766="Opening Balance:"),--($F$3:$F$11767=""),G2:G11766)

..a formula I devised recently!!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: A well balanced fair budget!
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 28 Jun 10 - 07:37 AM

Me too BWM.... I can add a list of monetary values in my head quicker than anyone I know can do it on a calculator.....

Subject: RE: BS: A well balanced fair budget!
From: GUEST,Graham Bradshaw
Date: 28 Jun 10 - 07:47 AM

Some information about VAT.

As part of the EU, we are subject to many of the tax raising regulations. The minimum rate of VAT any EU country is allowed to levy is 15%, and the only ones on that rate are Cyprus and Luxembourg. The highest are Sweden and Denmark at 25%.

When the Labour government reduced our VAT to 15% last year, they had to get permission from the EU, and were only granted it on a temporary basis.

For some years, all member states have been under pressure to introduce 'tax harmonisation' measures. That means somewhere around the median rate in the range 19 - 22% - Germany & Greece 19%, Ireland 21%, Poland 22%, all the rest around the same level.

It was only a matter of time before we were required to come into line. The 20% rate was bound to happen eventually. Now was a good time to do it - it meant that they could blame it on the deficit as 'a necessary and unavoidable' measure, without having to admit that we are in fact ruled by Brussels and our Parliament has very little power in these matters.

Subject: RE: BS: A well balanced fair budget!
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 28 Jun 10 - 08:42 AM

So that's about the size of it (and we all now know who have 2" because they flew red cross flags from their cars!!!!!)

Subject: RE: BS: A well balanced fair budget!
From: MikeL2
Date: 28 Jun 10 - 09:39 AM

hi

It's all very interesting to see the way in which to calculate the new VAT rate....but......I don't see that has anything to do with the thresd subject eg the fairness/unfairness of the budget.

On this topic has anyone any thoughts about something that seems to have been written into the "small print" of last week's budget.

In raising the income tax rate by £1000 they have pro rate to reduce the minimum rate for the high earners. This will bring some people who currently earn less than the high rate into being taxed at 40%.

This is going to hit some people hard........???

Cheers

MikeL2

Subject: RE: BS: A well balanced fair budget!
From: theleveller
Date: 28 Jun 10 - 10:31 AM

"Unfortunately, leveller's opinion stands for nothing against the Taxes Acts."

""subject to whether leveller thinks it moral or not"!!!!!!!"

"Funny how some people cannot be tolerant of others who hold a different viewpoint - unbelievable!!"

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: A well balanced fair budget!
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 28 Jun 10 - 11:07 AM

MikeL2>>>>>>n raising the income tax rate by £1000 they have pro rate to reduce the minimum rate for the high earners. This will bring some people who currently earn less than the high rate into being taxed at 40%.<<<<, Not sure what you are trying to say here... All tax payers will not pay tax on the extra amount of threshold..... ie everyone who pays tax will pay less! how can anyone be pushed into the 40% bracket?

Subject: RE: BS: A well balanced fair budget!
From: Smokey.
Date: 28 Jun 10 - 05:23 PM

In raising the income tax rate by £1000 they have pro rate to reduce the minimum rate for the high earners. This will bring some people who currently earn less than the high rate into being taxed at 40%.

This is going to hit some people hard........??? (MikeL2)

Sorry to seem a bit thick, Mike, but I'm not sure what your point is there. Have they brought down the 40% threshold, and by how much? I seem to have missed that, but I'll not exactly lose any sleep over it..

Interesting post from Graham Bradshaw - I didn't realise any of that, though as I said earlier, I reckon NewLab would have done about the same with VAT. It certainly isn't aimed at the 'poor', as some would claim. If the budget had been intended to disproportionately hit the 'poor', they'd have increased the duty on fags and booze, same as they always do. Increasing VAT is a fairer way of raising revenue than most.

The main problem seems to be that too many people have expectations way beyond their means - a situation which has been actively encouraged by both main parties for many years. It worries me that more people couldn't/can't/wouldn't/won't see through the scam. True, no-one wants to be poor, but an illusion of wealth is no substitute for the real thing, and sooner or later there has to be a reckoning.

Subject: RE: BS: A well balanced fair budget!
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 29 Jun 10 - 05:26 AM

The personal allowance for those under 65 will rise by £1000 to £7475 for 2011/12. The basic rate limit for 2011/12 will be reduced so that higher rate taxpayers will not beneifit from the increase in the personal allowance - got it?

Subject: RE: BS: A well balanced fair budget!
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 29 Jun 10 - 06:42 AM

A trick for saving Capital Gains Tax on say selling a holiday home (not your main residence), is to make sure that it is in both your and your spouse's names. Then, you may benefit from different tax rates if one is not a higher rate tax payer.

Subject: RE: BS: A well balanced fair budget!
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 29 Jun 10 - 07:47 AM

Bonzo.. that still does not make sense.... everyone gets the increase in the allowance.... how can any basic rate limit change that or its effect.. I guess I must be a bit thick eh??? Maybe you need to spell out exactly what you mean.

Subject: RE: BS: A well balanced fair budget!
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 29 Jun 10 - 09:19 AM

What it means is that the amount of income over which higher rate tax will become payable will be reduced by £500 (I think).

Increased personal allowance of £1000 at 20% = £200 tax reduction for basic rate taxpayers.

Higher rate tax payers will pay tax at 40% on taxable income over £36,901 - the current start amount is £37,401 - so up to an additional £200 tax will be paid (37401-36901 = £500 x 40% =£200)

Subject: RE: BS: A well balanced fair budget!
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 29 Jun 10 - 09:40 AM

I think you will find it will make no difference to the higher rate tax other than allowing the £1000 extra... the same as everyone else. Nothing was said about lowering the higher threshold.

Subject: RE: BS: A well balanced fair budget!
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 29 Jun 10 - 10:08 AM

Ah, the exact figure for basic rate limit will be confirmed later in the year!

From HMRC notice BN01 22/06/10

Legislation will be introduced to provide for the following income tax and National Insurance Contributions (NICs) changes for 2011-12:
• the personal allowance for those aged under 65 will be increased by £1,000 to £7,475;
• the basic rate limit will be reduced so that higher rate taxpayers do not benefit from the increase in the personal allowance. The exact figure will be confirmed when September's Retail Prices Index (RPI) is known;
• the alignment of the Upper Earnings/Profits Limit (UEL/UPL) with the higher rate threshold (the total of the personal allowance for those aged under 65 and the basic rate limit) will be maintained by reducing the UEL/UPL; and
• the secondary threshold, which is the point at which employers start to pay Class 1 NICs, is to be increased by an extra £21 per week above indexation.

Subject: RE: BS: A well balanced fair budget!
From: theleveller
Date: 29 Jun 10 - 10:30 AM

Yes, I'm sure there's a lot that will only become apparent later. The devil is most definitely in the detail - did anyone expect anything else from Bloody Thatcher's spawn?

Subject: RE: BS: A well balanced fair budget!
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 29 Jun 10 - 10:40 AM

Correct - we got it from brown for the past 13 years if you remember - quite normal for a budget whatever the party. In any case it's still only a Finance Bill at the moment and no doubt changes will be made before Royal Assent.

Subject: RE: BS: A well balanced fair budget!
From: Arthur_itus
Date: 29 Jun 10 - 12:11 PM

I have already stated that we are not well off and are just about surviving.
What is really hurting us now, is that the pound has strengthened to the Euro. Most of our income is in Euro's.
My wife has just received a payment of euro's from a company she did work for. The swing in the pound means that if you are being paid a 1000 euros, today it is worth £50 less than a couple of weeks ago.

So if you are an exporter as my wife is, we as a family are being hit even harder. That cannot be good for the economy of the country and exporters.

All our money is spent locally.

Hope that makes sense

Subject: RE: BS: A well balanced fair budget!
From: Smokey.
Date: 29 Jun 10 - 12:53 PM

Thanks for making that clear, Bonzo. I'd have thought it was normally rather uncharacteristic of "Bloody Thatcher's spawn" to take from the rich and give to the poor. I think under the circumstances your initial description of the budget is a pretty accurate one. As I said much earlier, it could have been worse.

Subject: RE: BS: A well balanced fair budget! (UK)
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 30 Jun 10 - 04:45 AM

So if you are an exporter as my wife is, we as a family are being hit even harder. That cannot be good for the economy of the country and exporters.


But currency fluctuations have always been with us, it's just a chance you take. It can work in your favour - look what happened to the US$ a couple of years ago!!

When we booked our hotel in Italy during September a couple of years ago, the Euro was 1.20 to the £. When we had our holiday in the following April, the Euro was 98c to the £!!!

Subject: RE: BS: A well balanced fair budget! (UK)
From: Arthur_itus
Date: 30 Jun 10 - 04:58 AM

I agree Bonzo, but it still hurts the pocket when you least need it.