BS: A well balanced fair budget! (UK)

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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 - 08:16 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: theleveller
Date: 23 Jun 10 - 12:22 PM

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

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: Bonzo3legs
Date: 23 Jun 10 - 11:57 AM

Leveller as usual is talking rubbish.