BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 25 Oct 10 - 01:40 PM

The url is too long to put in the blickymaker.

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Business/State-Pension-Set-To-Rise-To-140-A-Week-For-Everyone-Under-New-Government-Plans-Says-Daily-Mail/Article/201010415771707

I'd have been more cautious had I known it was an article in the Daily Wail that was the source.

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: mandotim
Date: 25 Oct 10 - 01:49 PM

It seems your only response to careful, informed argument in ridicule and abuse, Ringer. I'm sad that that is the case, but hope that you feel able to read around the subject a little more. I recommended 'The State We're In' as a first reference, but you might also want to read 'The New Industrial State' by that arch-capitalist J.K. Galbraith. It's an old book, but he effectively foreshadows the current problem; that in an era of global corporations and unfettered movement of capital, the actions of elected governments can be rendered irrelevant. This has been demonstrated several times; I for one did not blame Norman Lamont for his financial crisis; that was engineered by George Soros and his cronies in the world of currency speculation, and there was little or nothing the UK government could do. In the same way, what happened recently in America was governed by American regulation, and there is nothing to stop banks worldwide from dabbling in deregulated markets where there is a dollar to be made. It's hard to see how one government alone can act to prevent this kind of thing if the corporations are free to go elsewhere and carry on.
You have a touching faith in the ability of elected governments to control things; if you were Gordon Brown, what would you have done?

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: mandotim
Date: 25 Oct 10 - 01:58 PM

For 'in' read 'is' in the first line above. Sorry.

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 25 Oct 10 - 02:06 PM

Pension income is simply added to all other income and if the total is above the personal allowance, tax will be paid. You will be aware of course that most types of pension plan have the option of taking a tax-free cash lump sum before exchanging the residual fund for a series of payments. Ordinarily up to 25% of the fund may be taken as tax-free cash - hooray....a nice little pot to spend!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 25 Oct 10 - 04:11 PM

Does that haver anyuthing to do with any of the previous posts or the previous discussions, Bonzo? Or have you posted it in the wrong thread?

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Oct 10 - 03:58 AM

I think Bonzo is referring to Richard Bridge's post earlier about the rise in pensions under consideration. Please bear in mind that a government Green Paper means 'we are thinking about this, but no promises'. The statement actually says 'we are thinking about a Green Paper'. This is about spin to soften the cuts in care services for the elderly. Don't hold your breath on this one, it's unlikely to be delivered before the coalition tears itself apart; it's a LibDem idea, and the Tories hate it.

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: Ringer
Date: 26 Oct 10 - 04:28 AM

"It seems your only response to careful, informed argument i[s] ridicule and abuse, Ringer."

I don't know how you can discern that, mandotim, as there has been no "careful, informed argument" -- not, at least argument against the point I made, which was about the responsibility of government.

"[I] hope that you feel able to read around the subject a little more."

Now you're being patronising: you imply that I only take a view contrary to yours out of ignorance.

"You have a touching faith in the ability of elected governments to control things."

What on earth can I have said to make you think that? I have no faith in elected governments to do anything other than generate hot air. I believe, on the contrary, that there is nothing so bad that government interference cannot make it worse.

Nonetheless, when things go tits up, the government, which claims to be in control and sets up regulatory regimes ostensibly to keep businesses on the straight and narrow, must take responsibility.

One thing I'd have done if I had been Gordon Brown would be to have acknowledged I'd got it wrong & apologised. That's why I'll never make a politician.

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 26 Oct 10 - 05:01 AM

This wagged bunch of socialist "let's have a wevolution" weeds burble on and on and on o have they nothing better to do?????

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: Arthur_itus
Date: 26 Oct 10 - 05:04 AM

""One thing I'd have done if I had been Gordon Brown would be to have acknowledged I'd got it wrong & apologised. That's why I'll never make a politician."

I would say that if Gordon Brown had resigned 6 months earlier than he got the boot, Labour may well have stayed in power.

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: Richie Black (misused acct, bad email)
Date: 26 Oct 10 - 06:05 AM

One area the government must re examine is overseas aid. 980 million went out of Britain last year.

Pakistan has a multi-billion dollar nuclear program and a space program FFS. Perhaps they can re-allocate some funds to feed their people.

Africa has been a den of corruption for years. The money doesn't seem to reach those in need and those monies given usually ends up in new military hardware for the government.

France, Germany and Spain give a fraction of what we do in foreign aid, the UK has the highest retirement age and lowest pension, maybe the government could learn from this and look after it's own people first. The EU policies on handouts must also be reviewed.

As Mrs T. once said, something like, "we are not asking for charity, merely for some of our own money back". That was before Ghengis Blair, bless him, signed much of it away again.

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: GUEST,Guest mandotim abroad
Date: 26 Oct 10 - 06:10 AM

Ok Ringer, if you try not to feel patronised, I'll try not to feel frustrated at your refusal or inability to engage with informed debate. I'll ask in simpler terms then; if you had been in Gordon Brown's position at the time the banking crisis hit, what would you have done about it?

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: MikeL2
Date: 26 Oct 10 - 11:22 AM

hi

There are several mentions here about the proposal ( it is no more than that) to simplfy the pension payment structure.

There are no real details yet, only an estimate that a figure of £140 per week for everyone over the pension age. As usual there are no figures or plans of what this might entail or cost are available.

Now that might sound fantastic to some but remember -:

It is only a proposal and mainly by the LibDems !!!
Even if it is agreed by the whole Government;which is doubtful it will not be ready for introduction until the next election in 5 years time.

Many pensioners who also paid into earlier schemes will probably be on nearly £140 per week by then. Winners are likely to be women who did not pay National Insurance for what-ever reason. So this announcement hailed as a fantastic benefit for all pensioners is not quite what it is being made out to be.

There are already murmurs of discontent about the thought of people who haven't contributed getting as much as those who have.

Cheers

MikeL2

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Oct 10 - 11:28 AM

Nobody seems to be talking about the cuts, just about stuff which might (or might not) be interesting. How Thatcher and Brown might have done better is history, along what what would have happened if the Battle of Waterloo had gone the other way. Fascinating stuff,but nothing to do with more immediate matters....

Such as: what cuts (if any) are wrong, what cuts (if any) are right, and what alternatives might exist?

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: Ringer
Date: 26 Oct 10 - 12:45 PM

Or, indeed, what cuts? See my post of 22 Oct 10 - 12:04 PM

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: mandotim
Date: 26 Oct 10 - 01:32 PM

What cuts? Well, for a start the HEFCE budget for funding higher education is being cut by 80% (not a misprint, 80 percent) from 2012-13, meaning the burden of higher education is removed from the government and placed squarely on the student. No-one seems to be asking whether the consequence of this (fewer people in higher education than any of our developed nation competitors and restricted access for those without the funds or ability to bear the debt) is a good or bad thing. There is some window-dressing about students from disadvantaged backgrounds, but early research indicates that this won't make any difference. Given the rise in importance of knowledge economies, it would seem sensible to take a long-term, strategic view and encourage as much access to higher education as possible, and fund bright young people in the same way you would any other strategic asset.

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Oct 10 - 02:06 PM

Ringer refers us to the post where he or she wrote "There are no cuts".

Of course many of the cuts as yet are "proposed cuts" which need parliamentary approval. (Not all - the executive can do a lot of things without asking parliament). But I don't think that was what Ringer meant, in the light of the fact that the post went on "What is reduced is the rate of increase in real terms of public spending!!!" Which of course doesn't in any way remove the fact that within this overall public spending numerous cuts are proposed affecting the lives of people.

Including the one I have telegraphed repeatedly - a proposal to take away from tend of thousands of people who are severely disabled and compelled to live in residential care homes the mobility component of disability living allowance, which has given them a small regular sum which can allow them to have some independent contact with the world about them.

"There are no cuts"... And the earth is flat.

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 26 Oct 10 - 02:11 PM

John Maynard Keynes. Simples! We KNOW it worked before.

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: MikeL2
Date: 27 Oct 10 - 09:11 AM

hi

Of course there are cuts. They are happening here and now.

The special budget last week identified which Government Departments would face cuts in their budget and what these would be as a percentage figure of their last budget figure.

These figures are then passed down to the indivual councils who have to decide how they are going to implement these cuts. This is only just starting to be done.

However make no mistake!!! Cuts are being implemented. In the North West there are reports of council services of all kinds being considered for being cut. This includes police, prison services and other front-line activities. Patient care services are under pressure as the money has not been allocated. Charities are being underfunded etc etc.

I can give you an example of one that has happened to us this week. My wife suffers from glaucoma and has to visit hospital four times a year for tests and treatment. These visits have always been conducted at our local hospital about a mile from our home.

This week we have been informed that my wife's next appointment has been cancelled and a new one made at another hospital some 20 miles from us. We have also been told that all future appointments will be at that hospital. We were told that local services are being cut because of the Government's recent directive.

My understanding of the Financial deficit directive was that the NHS is to be ring-fenced and front-line services will not be affected !!!

The Government speaks with forked tongue....

cheers

M

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 27 Oct 10 - 10:44 AM

RB: "John Maynard Keynes. Simples! We KNOW it worked before."

It might have worked before but what's important is *how many* people "KNOW it worked before"? My guess is the answer to that is 'very few indeed'. I spoke to a bloke the other day who believed that 'double dips' are caused not by cuts but by *investing* in the countries infrastructure. A few days ago I asked on here what economic model was followed after the second world war. I'd never heard of Keynes but by putting two and two together (ie: that *despite* the country being in penury as it is now, much of the welfare state / social housing / NHS etc. was in fact *built* during that period) I realised there must be something up with the idea being forced down our necks that 'austerity measures' are the only possible solution. My grasp of UK history is pretty slight and my grasp of economics even moreso, but I bet it's still better than the average Hello reader. And it's those people that make up the bulk of the electorate.

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 27 Oct 10 - 12:16 PM

Total tax giveaway to Vodafone - 6 BILLION quid

http://blogs.thisismoney.co.uk/2010/10/vodafones-6bn-tax-bill-let-off-and-the-7bn-benefits-cuts.html

I feel that petrol emotion.

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 27 Oct 10 - 08:13 PM

Vodafone are just the tip of the iceberg when it com es to tax dodging - Secrecy deal with Switzerland could let Britons avoid £40bn in taxes

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 28 Oct 10 - 04:12 AM

Well that makes it plain exactly how much "we are all in this together".

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 28 Oct 10 - 05:38 AM

You are twisting the facts to suit your lefty twidging. Nothing wrong with a registering a company in say the BVI.

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 28 Oct 10 - 07:05 AM

MikeL2 asks about the pledge to protect NHS frontline budgets.

NHS frontline budgets are derived from PCT budgets. They have been told to find £15 Billion in savings. The economy drive is known as QUIP, (may not have got that quite right, but google it or visit the HSJ website for more info.)

On top of the £15 Billion direct NHS savings, the Department of Health budget is being slashed by 33%. Many pump priming monies for starting new better ways of delivering NHS services come from this budget.

So.. it is a bit difficult for NHS leaders at present. You have Ministers taking away more money than most of the other government departments, and back benchers crying that the NHS should shoulder more savings.

Delivering that agenda whist Ministers rattle on about cutting out management. My view, based on having chaired a couple of NHS trusts etc etc is that rather than too many managers, (which to be fair, in head count I agree,) there is not enough management capacity to deliver.

On the plus side. 15 years ago, I was asked to look at NHS governance, having been CEO of a group of manufacturing companies, (or fatcat, as some prefer to label us,) and have been involved ever since. I have seen huge improvements, not only in safety / quality / outcomes, but also efficiency, cutting waste, channelling resource to where it can do most good, and importantly, bringing clinicians into managing and taking responsibility for their work. The NHS is in many way a good news story. It is easy to get all Daily Mail and find examples of people being let down, but with 1,000,000 patient to clinician decisions every 36 hours.... if you filled a newspaper every day with examples of genuine fault that is devastating for a patient, that is still a success rate of 99.9998%.

I wish Sheffield Wednesday could achieve that..

Spending cuts? La La Lansley is risking buggering up the one thing that is improving in the public sector, mainly in spite of rather than because of Ministers.

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 28 Oct 10 - 11:35 AM

http://blogs.forbes.com/parmyolson/2010/10/28/behind-vodafones-multi-billion-dollar-tax-flap/

Bonzo, did you say you were an accountant?   The world and its dog knows that the principal reasons for any business (that does not have a large local market) to incorporate in Liechtenstein, the Isle of Man, the Channel Islands, the Caymans, the BVI, the Netherlands Antilles (so that you can do a "Dutch Sandwich") or Delaware or indeed Belize are to avoid tax, to avoid disclosure, and to avoid regulations.

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: theleveller
Date: 28 Oct 10 - 11:47 AM

Oh dear, even arch-Tory Bonkers Boris has come out against the government cuts:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11640219

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: Arthur_itus
Date: 28 Oct 10 - 12:05 PM

Seems like the footballers have found a way of tax avaoidance as well.

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/premier-league/premier-league-stars-using-loophole-to-save-millions-in-tax-2118289.h

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 28 Oct 10 - 12:59 PM

"The world and its dog knows that the principal reasons for any business (that does not have a large local market) to incorporate in Liechtenstein, the Isle of Man, the Channel Islands, the Caymans, the BVI, the Netherlands Antilles (so that you can do a "Dutch Sandwich") or Delaware or indeed Belize are to avoid tax, to avoid disclosure, and to avoid regulations."

Is that all a failed solicitor can muster?? You would certainly be required to advise your clients to incorporate in such places if appropriate.

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: mandotim
Date: 28 Oct 10 - 01:17 PM

Bonzo; when you say 'nothing wrong with registering a company in say the BVI' do you mean legally wrong or morally wrong? I guess you mean legally; in which case you may be a successful accountant, but in my view you are a failed human being. In terms of value to our world, Richard Bridge is worth a hundred of people like you.

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 28 Oct 10 - 01:18 PM

"if appropriate" = to avoid tax, disclosure or regulation.

Condemned out of your own mouth.

As you should know, a solicitor is not required to advise on anything unless it is within his retainer, and I have always refused to advise on tax "mitigation". Indeed a solicitor is required by the SRA not to advise on anything that is not within his competence, and I always make it quite clear that I do not advise on tax at all.

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 28 Oct 10 - 01:32 PM

Registering a company in a tax haven should be re-categorised as tax evasion rather than tax avoidance, and punished accordingly. The same should goes for any artificial contrivance for avoiding tax, if the primary reason for setting it up is to get out of paying tax.

And there is nothing in the least "left-wing" about saying that. In fact it should be implied by any politician venturing to say "We're all in this together".

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 28 Oct 10 - 01:44 PM

PS. I have enough work to do, teach at two or three universities some of the time, am able to deliver what I think are fair charges and don't have to try to skin my clients, have a reasonable size house with a very small remaining mortgage, some other assets, 13 guitars 4 mandolins 2 PA rigs a nice warm sounding old HiFi (although I miss my Radford STA100 valve amp) a big TV and enough money to run my three lovely old volvos and feed Benjamin my border collie cross and go to folk fests in the summer in my little old caravan. I've got the best tree brugmansiae for many many miles around. I'm still fit enough to cut the wood for my logburner.

My accounts department is me when I'm in the dining room. My litigation department is me when I'm in the laundry room with the photocopier. Benjamin is the receptionist and I answer the phone. My conveyancing partner who earns far more than I called it "idyllic". There is absolutely no way I'd go back to central London practice.

Failure? What failure?

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: mandotim
Date: 28 Oct 10 - 01:48 PM

I wonder if any of the Tory numpties in government and on this board have ever read Adam Smith, the great and ancient guru of the right? Smith advocated free market economics, but he wasn't an economist; he was a moral philosopher by both education and inclination. He always qualified his view of markets by saying that they would only be acceptable in what he described as a truly moral society. That's the root of the problem now; the amoral, venal nature of those making decisions in banks, media and government means that markets are truly free; free to ride roughshod over those unable to defend themselves from the excesses of those with power and money. Smith must be turning in his grave to see what has been made of his ideas.

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: Arthur_itus
Date: 28 Oct 10 - 01:53 PM

F****** hell Mandotim, aren't you able to come up with your own ideas, instead of refferring to what, the almighty great this person and that person say. Boring.

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: Arthur_itus
Date: 28 Oct 10 - 01:57 PM

Adam Smith lived in the 1700's.

What relevance does that have to the way the world is today. He would have a nervous breakdown if he had to deal with today's issues.

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 28 Oct 10 - 02:09 PM

Meanwhile, UK boardroom pay leaps 55%

Oh - Arthur - think about it. Adam Smith values no longer apply so there is no point on relying on the free market nostra that others say he proclaimed. Is that simple enough?

Mandotim's comments are rooted in learning and understanding.

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: alanabit
Date: 28 Oct 10 - 02:24 PM

Oddly enough, the sainted Margeret Thatcher declared herself an admirer of Adam Smith. I do not think he was the only writer whom she had a singular interpretation of.

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: theleveller
Date: 29 Oct 10 - 03:45 AM

"Oh dear, even arch-Tory Bonkers Boris has come out against the government cuts:"

Aha, seems I spoke too soon - Bonkers Boris has done a complete about-face (I'd say 'cahnge of mind' but Boris doesn't have one)- seems he can't decide what he wants more: to be re-elected or be seen as a good toe-the-line Tory. Hand up who's suprised about this?

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Oct 10 - 04:11 AM

Arthur itus; it's a pity you don't value history, particularly the history of ideas. I have plenty of ideas of my own, you'll find some of them in this thread if you take the trouble to look. One of the problems with 'having your own ideas' is that some of them just aren't very good. The ratio of good ideas to bad ideas can be improved by learning about what works and what doesn't, and reading the works of important thinkers contributes to this, in combination with experience and mistakes. So much better than just spouting random ideas based on nothing more than blind prejudice, don't you think? A wise friend (a historian) once told me 'History repeats itself; it has to, because nobody listens!'.

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: GUEST,Guest mandotim sans cookie
Date: 29 Oct 10 - 04:18 AM

Sorry; guest above was me.
Tim

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 29 Oct 10 - 04:26 AM

"Failure? What failure?"

Ah, but you see, instead of ridiculously desiring a decent quality of life which suits your personal priorities, you should be aspiring to own a much larger house (preferably a kinda faux mansion thing with "look at me, I'm a very important person" electric gates) with a new 'designer' kitchen and bathroom every three years and you really aught to stop going to those common DIY folk festivals with hippies when you aught to be having power lunches with suits in the city instead. Come to Essex RB, that'll learn you to sharpen up your sloppy attitudes!

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: theleveller
Date: 29 Oct 10 - 04:49 AM

"Is that all a failed solicitor can muster??"

Coming from someone who lives in a shit-hole in Croydon, that is so, so funny!

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 29 Oct 10 - 05:01 AM

It was strict adherence to Adam Smith principles that led to the Irish famine. However, the bit they failed heeding was that flexibility may also mean micro market control. Or in other words, if you see people starving, your particular interpretation of market control is not working.

In the 1840's, Adam Smith principles were revered to the extent that they couldn't possibly be wrong in any given situation, despite the fact that a) they were in many cases, and b) Smith himself spoke of the dangers of lack of pragmatism.

So, for me before I retired and sold my shares, Adam Smith did rather well for me. Now, although I have no needs I cannot sort myself, I am involved in health and social care, and so my thinking, my strategic advice etc most certainly isn't in the Adam Smith mode. Horses for courses. Social equality can only be delivered if the country can afford it. In order to afford it, money has to be a driver.

There is nothing wrong with the noble aims of socialism, nor the noble aims of market economies. I personally feel that you need market economies in order to provide a social policy. I am not convinced this government has got it right with their radical approach, even if fairness is the aim. I don't hold with the idea that there is a sub agenda to make more people poor and miserable, I do accept that there is a culture of not contributing to society as a lifestyle choice, and someone, some time has to address that.

I just think their approach is relying too much on a private sector led revival, when that means selling goods and services to countries with equally large overdrafts. Where will we find the customers? their naivety is concerning, and to make it worse, I also think Labour are pushing too far in the "let the general recovery paper over the cracks" direction. To be fair to Labour, they have the luxury of opposition. If they were in power, it wouldn't be much different...

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: Arthur_itus
Date: 29 Oct 10 - 05:09 AM

MandoTim
Yawn

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: GUEST,Guest mandotim sans cookie
Date: 29 Oct 10 - 07:01 AM

Arthuritis: yawning? I think this little man is tired! Off to beddy-byes for you, and let the grown-ups discuss important things.

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: Ringer
Date: 29 Oct 10 - 07:30 AM

"The same should goes for any artificial contrivance for avoiding tax, if the primary reason for setting it up is to get out of paying tax."

I assume you don'thave any ISAs, then, McGrath?

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: Arthur_itus
Date: 29 Oct 10 - 07:52 AM

MandoTim, I am yawning at you. You are so boring.

Just get real and stop looking back. Start looking forward. Come up with some good sound modern ideas that will work and are what you think and not what others think. Try to be inclusive.

I'll get me walking stick LOL :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: GUEST,Richard Bridge elsewhere
Date: 29 Oct 10 - 08:07 AM

Actually, I'm flirting with the dark side, on a course on corporate insolvency (and bored).

I can't be arsed to go and hunt for it on this tiddly netbook I'm using but I saw, in, I think, yesterdays papers, an economic thinktaknk saying that the UK had started to exit from recesion very quickly, because we had "thrown the kitchen sink at it" but that the recovery was now faltering.

That makes the prime suspect for any looming problems this bunch, and the prime candidate for a sensible policy tax and spend.

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 29 Oct 10 - 08:27 AM

Nothing too exotic or artificial about ISAs, so far as I am aware. I wold hope that the rules operating them ensure that they don't unfairly reduce the amount of tax I pay on my income, and would welcome any changes needed to ensure that that is the case.

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: Ringer
Date: 29 Oct 10 - 09:13 AM

So you do have some ISAs, then?

The whole purpose of ISAs is that no income tax or capital-gains tax is payable on them; they are therefore "artificial" in your sense. I'd have thought that someone who could say (with a straight face), "Registering a company in a tax haven should be re-categorised as tax evasion rather than tax avoidance, and punished accordingly. The same should goes for any artificial contrivance for avoiding tax, if the primary reason for setting it up is to get out of paying tax," would have put his spare cash in a taxable savings vehicle, since he obviously regards tax-paying as so virtuous an activity.

Myself, I think I am a better judge of where my money should be spent than is any politician. When someone takes my money against my wishes I regard it as no less objectionable if he happens to be "the government" than if he is a thief.