BS: Cuts or taxes (UK)

Subject: BS: Cuts or taxes (UK)
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 01 Aug 11 - 03:38 AM

In a bizarre echo of the Tea Potty motivations behind the US debt ceiling crisis Norman Lamont (a disaster of a former conservative chancellor) and Boris "Bloody Stupid" Johnson have together called this week for a cut in the highest UK personal tax rate of 50%.

How nice then to see Daniel Alexander (chief secretary to the Treasury) call this "cloud cuckoo land" (although if people really remember the roots of the expression it is not even as good as that) and Vince Cable (needs no introduction) say that it is economically illiterate.

I'll never like this illegitimate coalition, but it is nice to see that some members of it actually remember some principles and indeed the terms of the coalition agreement.

Indeed it's nice to see Danny Alexander apparently capable of learning.

The worrying thing is that both are Lib Dems so there is every fear that the disgusting Osborne will carry on trying to enrich his "aristocratic" pals at the expense of the rest of us.

Tax cuts for the rich make no sense. The rich have a lower marginal propensity to consumption than the poor, and indeed tend to squirrel money away abroad outside the reach of the UK tax net and to the benefit of other economies than our own. The poor, of necessity spend all they get and so stimulate the domestic economy, although the wisest choice is to garner tax and have the government spend it where it does most good.

Subject: RE: BS: Cuts or taxes (UK)
From: Dave Hanson
Date: 01 Aug 11 - 03:54 AM

It's a coalition in name only, in reallity it's another tory government and they will do what they always do, make the poor subsidise the rich.

Dave H

Subject: RE: BS: Cuts or taxes (UK)
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 01 Aug 11 - 03:57 AM

I fear you may be right

Subject: RE: BS: Cuts or taxes (UK)
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 01 Aug 11 - 04:26 AM

Before the election, I got into fearful bovver with a well-known Mudcat Tory for suggesting that, should the Tories win, and after all the "We're all in it together" rhetoric had died down, they would revert to the practices they learned so well at Public School, and start butt-fucking the lower orders (as, of course, they always do).

So it gives me the greatest of pleasure to say "Told You So", and to express the hope that all those mugs, the Working-Class-Mucky-Toff-Tories, thoroughly enjoy getting what they voted for.

Subject: RE: BS: Cuts or taxes (UK)
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 01 Aug 11 - 05:06 AM

Well, the bankers never were in it with the rest of us.

Subject: RE: BS: Cuts or taxes (UK)
From: Musket
Date: 01 Aug 11 - 05:10 AM

How odd?

Subject: RE: BS: Cuts or taxes (UK)
From: Musket
Date: 01 Aug 11 - 05:14 AM

Sorry, just posted three times and none appeared.

Try again.

I disagree with Lamont and Johnson. Lowering personal taxation will make little difference at all to the overall tax take and won't provide a single extra bit of inward investment. It is a case of dogma of pragmatism. However, Cable and Alexandra have shown that there are advantages of having a coalition if you prefer your politics based on reality rather than philosophy.

All the Tory old guard have managed to do is set the dogs off barking.

Subject: RE: BS: Cuts or taxes (UK)
From: Musket
Date: 01 Aug 11 - 05:15 AM

ruddy computer..

dogma VERSUS pragmatism.

Anybody know how to tell Steve Job's latest pile of of an operating system to stop completing suggested words????

Subject: RE: BS: Cuts or taxes (UK)
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 01 Aug 11 - 05:54 AM

Very odd. I almost agree with Mither.

I suspect Jobs is responsible for the change in Danny Alexander's name too.

Subject: RE: BS: Cuts or taxes (UK)
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 01 Aug 11 - 06:19 AM

Income tax should go up, and indirect taxation down. At least that way the few people who still have jobs will pay more than the OAP's and the unemployed of this world.
As for so called Green Taxes, they are only legitimate if the money paid is hypothecated, and it is all spent on reducing pollution.
Green Taxes are like PAYE, just another label for general taxation.
They could also try not to lose £6Bn worth of MOD equipment.

Subject: RE: BS: Cuts or taxes (UK)
From: Musket
Date: 01 Aug 11 - 06:24 AM

Funnily enough it isn't Jobs, it was me using a spelling I was more used to.

Unlike your Mither nonsense.

Come to think about it, also unlike your having a good word to say about the workings of a coalition.

Hopefully the bit about setting the dogs off barking was noted too...

Subject: RE: BS: Cuts or taxes (UK)
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 01 Aug 11 - 06:33 AM

Well, although the coalition agreement gave Cable and Alexander a peg to hang an argument on, I suspect it will count for nothing when Piggy Osbolleaux decides to screw the poor to help the rich - again. so it's not exactly the WORKINGS of the coalition for which I have an almost good word.

Subject: RE: BS: Cuts or taxes (UK)
From: Wolfhound person
Date: 01 Aug 11 - 06:33 AM

If the minimum wage is just that, the minimum anyone can be expected to "live" (exist?) on, then why is it taxed.......

Raise the threshold, and sharpen the angle. How many super-rich bankers does this country actually need?

Grrr......

Paws

Subject: RE: BS: Cuts or taxes (UK)
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 01 Aug 11 - 08:32 AM

If the minimum wage, which comes to £242 a week for a 40 hour week, isn't sufficient, then WTF is the OA Pension of about £106 supposed to be?

Subject: RE: BS: Cuts or taxes (UK)
From: Ringer
Date: 01 Aug 11 - 09:21 AM

"...the highest UK personal tax rate of 50%."

"[the rich] squirrel money away abroad outside the reach of the UK tax net..."

Could there be any connection between these, do you think?

Subject: RE: BS: Cuts or taxes (UK)
From: Musket
Date: 01 Aug 11 - 10:05 AM

I reckon there is a connection ringer.

That said, getting rid of 50% over £150K and lowering it to 40% isn't going to make anybody change why they do. If they squirrel now they will squirrel then.

If I thought this tax break would encourage inward investment then at the risk of angering a few people, I would say it is a good measure, but I fail to see how this would be so, and the country needs to address other tax issues if growth is to be assured. And considering I would be affected by such a measure, yet disagree with it, it doesn't say much about introducing it for short term popularity either.

Nobody wishes to pay more than they should, regardless of the scale of personal income. John MacKenzie rightly asks about minimum wage and pension, and despite those who would argue a government wants to make everybody poor, the higher the minimum wage, the higher the state pension, the more the government can claw back in indirect taxes to pay for services, so I never buy into the idea of Tory this and Labour that.

Any government needs consumerism in order to make these rich people rich in the first place. Shafting people through hate is generally reserved for socialist governments. Tory governments have to give you spending power in order to shaft you in the first place. Economics 101.

Subject: RE: BS: Cuts or taxes (UK)
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 01 Aug 11 - 03:47 PM

I never trust the people who claim that somehow it is impossible to eliminate tax fraud, masquerading as tax avoidance, by the rich, and that they will always find clever ways to get round the rules, so that raising tax levels is counterproductive, and brings in less money.

Such clever tricks dreamed up by accountants ought to be counted as conspiracy, and punished accordingly.

Subject: RE: BS: Cuts or taxes (UK)
From: akenaton
Date: 01 Aug 11 - 04:12 PM

You all voted for a capitalist economy, that means we must have economic growth or the whole house of cards collapses.
High taxes mean low growth.....deep cuts mean our public services and wages are reduced.......we are totally fucked!

Cuts? Taxes?   neither......the firing squad!

Subject: RE: BS: Cuts or taxes (UK)
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 01 Aug 11 - 05:24 PM

Biggest load of bolleaux I ever read, Mither. The conservatives shaft the less rich every time. Read history. They have no deed to give the poor economic power - all they need to do is to steal from them.

Subject: RE: BS: Cuts or taxes (UK)
From: Musket
Date: 02 Aug 11 - 10:21 AM

When you say conservatives, do you mean "governments?" or didn't NuLabour get on your hate radar?

I have always worked on the principle that Labour would have more thought for the less fortunate in society but couldn't afford to sustainably pay for it. Conservative policy would be prudent enough to sustain it in the long term but rely on non governmental altruism to apply society's sticking plaster.

Other than that, you vote and you get the government.

By the way, talking of bolleaux, which I assume is Kentish for bollocks, you forget that in order to steal from the poor, as your obvious paranoia seems to think always happens, the poor need something worth stealing in the first place. At the risk of quoting Akenaton, they need economic growth, whether to run the country or indeed feather their nest.

No matter. The only time I argue with solicitors is when I scrutinise their latest creative offering, or invoice as they call them. Now if you want a discussion on which group of people set out to shaft ordinary people.....

Subject: RE: BS: Cuts or taxes (UK)
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 02 Aug 11 - 10:38 AM

LOL!!

Subject: RE: BS: Cuts or taxes (UK)
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 02 Aug 11 - 03:44 PM

"WTF is the OA Pension of about £106 supposed to be? "

Why only £106, I will get considerably more than that.

Subject: RE: BS: Cuts or taxes (UK)
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 02 Aug 11 - 05:25 PM

"New Labour" was not (quite) the conservatives. At least they did not try to privatise the NHS. And largely renationalised Railtrack.

As for stealing from the poor, it happens, and if you bother to think, Mither, you'll see that growth in not necessary for that - until all that they have is gone and then they need to accrete in order to be preyed upon.

When all the lawyers are gone - then those who need them to fight for justice in the legal system will regret it. Obviously, Mither, you are not in need (save of brains).

Subject: RE: BS: Cuts or taxes (UK)
From: Musket
Date: 03 Aug 11 - 03:57 AM

Not in need of your services just yet, thanks.

I was appointed by NuLabour to chair a PCT, which I did for five years or so. In that time, we oversaw the introduction of private treatment centres with skewed contracts, the introduction of NHS foundation trusts, the GP contract (QOF) and offering up of community services to the highest bidder.

Kicking and screaming, granted.

But we did as the government told us to do.

Manage the market.

Railtrak? Picking up the pieces is hardly renationalising, just reversing your own failed policies.

Remember Labour? Their last PM was Callaghan.

Subject: RE: BS: Cuts or taxes (UK)
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 03 Aug 11 - 05:11 AM

A drop in the ocean, the PTCs, compared to what the Con-Dems now plan. Beam, mote.

I remember Labour. And I'd like Michael Foot, a scholar and a gentleman, back. If only idiots could be taught the good in him.

Subject: RE: BS: Cuts or taxes (UK)
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 03 Aug 11 - 05:42 AM

Who are these "poor" you keep on about? Are they the ones with a TV dish on the roof, 2 cars and front place in the easyjet queue every month to their Spanish villa?????

Subject: RE: BS: Cuts or taxes (UK)
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 03 Aug 11 - 06:02 AM

NO, I don't live in Essex

Subject: RE: BS: Cuts or taxes (UK)
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 03 Aug 11 - 06:38 AM

"NO, I don't live in Essex"

Very good - I like it!!

Subject: RE: BS: Cuts or taxes (UK)
From: theleveller
Date: 03 Aug 11 - 07:00 AM

Problems are exacerbated when you let accountants run anything. My experience in business has been that if an accountant takes over the running of a company, it's doomed to failure. I suspect that the same is true of the country. Accountants too often have no idea about broad economics or, more importantly, about the value of people. John Maynard Keynes said as much. So did the brilliant economic historian, Tony Judt, in his last book, 'Ill Fares the Land'.

Subject: RE: BS: Cuts or taxes (UK)
From: Musket
Date: 03 Aug 11 - 07:30 AM

As you like to pick me up on typos, try PCT instead of PTC.

Yes, the plans to reinvent PCTs but call them something else (GP commissioning) is an exact rewording of Labour's PCTs, but allowing private businessmen (GP partners) have more say. Labour at least had a hung board of professionals (including GPs) and non executive directors drawn from the local population. (Not representing, but representative of, before anybody starts...) I am amused when I hear independent contractors such as GPs argue against private provision within The NHS when they have been managing to do it since 1948..

Oh, just out of interest, I am against fully opening up provision of healthcare as hospitals, despite their foundation status and competing for business, have to work together to sustain specialist services, emergency infrastructure and clinical networks, something a market economy cannot by definition deliver.

theleveller makes a point regarding accountants that may have some merit, although they can also be a convenient scapegoat. Interestingly, when I was running businesses, the finance director was just that, advising and being accountable for the coffers. In The NHS, I was delighted to find that the role was more about resource than maximising cash-flow. In other words, matching pound notes to what we wish to achieve. I know of examples of where a head of finance has not been able to grow into a finance director's job as the bean counting and resource allocating are two very different roles. Methinks theleveller is correctly noting when one tries to be the other..

Subject: RE: BS: Cuts or taxes (UK)
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 03 Aug 11 - 09:57 AM

something a market economy cannot by definition deliver


Have the courage of your alleged convictions.

Subject: RE: BS: Cuts or taxes (UK)
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 03 Aug 11 - 10:13 AM

The NHS seems to be outsourcing home care to private agencies at the southern edge of Greater London - interesting!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Cuts or taxes (UK)
From: theleveller
Date: 03 Aug 11 - 10:43 AM

It's interesting to note that the national debt, as a proportion of GDP, has been higher than today in 200 of the last 250 years. Higher at the start of the industrial revolution, higher when we ruled a quarter of the globe, higher when we beat the Nazis and higher when we instigated the NHS. So why are we now so drastically cutting spending on essential services?

Up until Bloody Thatcher, governments believed that, as well as a fiscal responsibility, they had a moral responsibility to protect the most vulnerable members of society (and, indeed, they were seen as important members of society and not denigrated automatically as scroungers), such as the elderly, the sick, the disabled and those who, for no fault of their own, were unable to support themselves and their families. For the last 30 years, every government has followed Thatcher's line of 'there is no such thing as society'. Interventionist social and fiscal policies have given way to the free-market and selfishness.

By privatising so much of the support and care for the less-fortunate in society, governments abnegate the very moral responsibilities which are, in fact, what they are put in power to uphold. The financial stupidity or privatising essential service is that, when they get into trouble (as they almost inevitably do) they are deemed 'too important to fail' and are bailed out at far greater expense than they originally cost to run. Network Rail is an excellent case in point. Stupid? Yes, unless, as a government, you are pandering to your rich and powerful mates who. Like you, are simply wanting to get richer and more powerful. Now who can I be thinking of...........

Subject: RE: BS: Cuts or taxes (UK)
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 03 Aug 11 - 11:26 AM

""For the last 30 years, every government has followed Thatcher's line of 'there is no such thing as society'. Interventionist social and fiscal policies have given way to the free-market and selfishness.""

Some very interesting arithmetic there, since Thatcher left office just twenty one years ago.

They must have been following via a wormhole.

Or are we to understand that Thatcher was following herself (probably the same wormhole needed for that too), after having made that, constantly misquoted and almost always taken out of context, comment.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Cuts or taxes (UK)
From: theleveller
Date: 03 Aug 11 - 11:46 AM

"Some very interesting arithmetic there, since Thatcher left office just twenty one years ago."

But she came to office in '79. One would have to assume that the Thatcher government followed Thatcher's line (well, most of the time). Afraid your logic doesn't stack up there. Now, anything pertinent to add to add to the debate?

Subject: RE: BS: Cuts or taxes (UK)
From: Musket
Date: 03 Aug 11 - 11:47 AM

My convictions? Haven't got any.

The nearest I had was for crossing a solid white line on the Stocksbridge bypass but I refused to accept it and went to court instead. Defended myself (of course) and was acquitted. (Sheffield Magistrates Court circa 1992.)

Not sure what you mean by courage of my convictions. Like you, I am a businessman (retired in my case and interfering with health regulation to keep me off the streets) and as a businessman I have views on how to run business. I used to buy in machinery that needed less people and you do the same with IT. However, my fairly capitalist outlook on, in my case, engineering, is very different to how I see a universal healthcare system working. Our rather socialist system has merit, even if efficiency is an issue, as ever it will be in a large operation and they don't get much larger than The NHS...

Real people don't balance everything by with us or against us.   Horses for courses tends to be the view of most people, which may upset a few armchair socialists and blue rinse brigade Tories, but there you go. Can't function on mutual distrust because most of the people in this country are far more pragmatic than that. And when you stop and think, these are the people you would wish to please with your ideas.

So cuts or taxes? Some cuts and some taxes please. But based on pragmatic need rather than dogma, whichever party gets the keys to No.10. We may not be Greece just yet, but in beer tokens, we are actually worse off...