 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Nice attack on the rich for you!!!
|
|
|
Subject: BS: Nice attack on the rich for you!!! From: GUEST Date: 22 Mar 12 - 06:27 AM From P62 of the Budget 2012 document: "Following changes made in Finance Act 2011 to restrict the cost of pensions tax relief by reducing the Annual Allowance from £255,000 to £50,000 for the 2011-12 tax year, technical amendments to the legislation will be made through regulations to ensure the rules surrounding scheme pays and deferred members work as intended." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nice attack on the rich for you!!! From: GUEST Date: 22 Mar 12 - 06:31 AM Another hidden gem not mentioned in the budget speech yesterday: "The InHeriTance nil-rate band (NRB) will be frozen until April 2015" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nice attack on the rich for you!!! From: GUEST Date: 22 Mar 12 - 06:39 AM I thought it was a fair enough budget. Glad to see the government clamping down on benefits and handouts. This had to be addressed. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nice attack on the rich for you!!! From: Richard Bridge Date: 22 Mar 12 - 07:58 AM 1. That's a 2011 burden on the rich, not a 2012 one. 2. The IHT threshold freeze is a minor burden on the rich. 3. The loss of the 50% threshold is a MAJOR giveaway to the rich. 4. The reduction in corporation tax is a giveaway to the rich. 5. The general anti-avoidance rule is fuller of holes than Swiss (how apt) cheese. 6. The increase in the personal allowance favours high-mid more than low earners and both more than those too poor to pay tax. Stupid. If he'd been listening to me he'd have introduced a 60% tax rate and kept the 50% one, and introduced a proper anti-avoidance principle, raised the minimum wage across the board, might well have simplified benefits rules but would have made sure that benefits were indeed enough to live on, removed the restrictions on benefits covering mortgage interest on houses open market value in lowest council tax band and tapering, frozen Corporation Tax, introduced new stamp duty bands, sacked A4E, removed slave labour, maybe introduced a wealth tax, doubled tax on premiership footballers just for being louche, introduced compulsory grammar and spelling classes and tests in schools universities and job centres, scrapped road tax on all vehicles over 25 years old doubled tax on lager and halved it on proper beer and I have a few other ideas too - ah yes, reintroduced withholding tax on foreign film and music stars' earnings here and surreptitiously got ready to re-introduce exchange control by an overnight announcement. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nice attack on the rich for you!!! From: GUEST Date: 22 Mar 12 - 08:28 AM The increase in the personal allowance favours high-mid more than low earners and both more than those too poor to pay tax. Or too lazy to find work to pay tax!!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nice attack on the rich for you!!! From: Megan L Date: 22 Mar 12 - 08:30 AM The site policy is that guests must post with a consistant name or risk getting thier posts deleted. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nice attack on the rich for you!!! From: GUEST,redhorse at work Date: 22 Mar 12 - 09:39 AM I thought guests couldn't start threads (with or without a name) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nice attack on the rich for you!!! From: Richard Bridge Date: 22 Mar 12 - 09:41 AM Hello redhorse. Are you connected to Valerie Redhorse, the film producer? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nice attack on the rich for you!!! From: Bonzo3legs Date: 22 Mar 12 - 10:11 AM "The site policy is that guests must post with a consistant name or risk getting thier posts deleted." don't get your knickers in a twist, I hadn't realised the cookie had gone bad! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nice attack on the rich for you!!! From: Bonzo3legs Date: 22 Mar 12 - 10:15 AM Please note that I started this thread - mods to amend |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nice attack on the rich for you!!! From: Musket Date: 22 Mar 12 - 10:16 AM By heck... Good job he didn't listen to you then. The reduction in corporation tax is all well and good, and in the rich versus poor debate is neutral, as corporation tax is nothing to do with personal income. If you pay corporation tax and then benefit personally from the net amount, you either declare it as a benefit in kind (and pay income tax) or break the law. By saying reducing corporation tax benefits the rich is to assume all rich people break the law. Come on, some comments can have a perverse logic to them, but some of the above? Anybody in business, posters above included, knows that in order to contribute it, you have to be generating it. If any of the above got in, we'd be back to banging the rocks together or at the very least drive a black economy that would make Greece cringe. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nice attack on the rich for you!!! From: Bonzo3legs Date: 22 Mar 12 - 10:50 AM Absolutely correct, but I am yet to see any penalties raised for incorrect disclosure of taxable benefits - the potential penalty being £3k per return! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nice attack on the rich for you!!! From: Bonzo3legs Date: 22 Mar 12 - 10:56 AM Figures from HMRC show that, taking inflation into account, this will leave 4.41 million people worse off than they would have expected, by an average of £83 a year in 2013-14. Just £83 - my goodness many think nothing of spending that on booze and cigarettes in a week!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nice attack on the rich for you!!! From: VirginiaTam Date: 22 Mar 12 - 03:02 PM For shame! I think the thread should be removed anyway. It causes me pain. It offends my (maybe pollyannish) perception of humanity. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nice attack on the rich for you!!! From: Richard Bridge Date: 22 Mar 12 - 03:28 PM I have seen penalties raised for incorrect declaration on the P11D. Not by or about me, I hasten to add. There are many and varied ways of using companies to defer or reduce personal taxation. People incorporate businesses to save tax (if it does, for them). I can lend you a dozen different Business Law textbooks that will tell you as much. Only a fool would pretend otherwise. That is one reason why we so much need a wider and more forceful anti-avoidance general principle. It was a budget by millionaires for millionaires. Red quite rightly asked the Con-dem front bench how many of them would benefit from the phasing out of the 50p rate. How much do you spend on booze, baccy and steaks from UK-hating argies, Bozo, even eaten under their flag? What's your favourite Malbec? IFS states regressive nature of budget We need IRC -v- Westminster reversed, and Ramsay restored and indeed strengthened - see expose of Aaronson's recommendation to government here: http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Documents/GAntiP.pdf Incidentally, the vast bulk of Aaronson's practice at the bar lies in advising and helping tax avoiders on a world scale. See http://www.pumptax.com/barristers/640/graham-aaronson Was he REALLY the most balanced choice for a person to advise government on whether a rule that would hurt most of his clients and much of his practice a good thing to do? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nice attack on the rich for you!!! From: banjoman Date: 23 Mar 12 - 07:49 AM Richard - its all a bit too technical for me, but at the end of the day I am one of the people who will lose out. I have been drawing my state pension for several years after a very long and varied work career where I payed taxes and national insurance. My wages were taxed before NI was taken so I contend that I will be taxed twice on any income I may make to supplement my pension. It was a budget for his cronies and paid scant regard to the millions of people struggling to make ends meet. I know that someone will start on about benefit scroungers etc. The vast majority of people of working age are law abiding people. I accept that a few do milk the benefits system, but that will always be so. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nice attack on the rich for you!!! From: Bonzo3legs Date: 23 Mar 12 - 08:13 AM Of course had a labour government reduced the 50% rate to 45% all would be OK I'd wager!!!!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nice attack on the rich for you!!! From: DMcG Date: 23 Mar 12 - 09:20 AM About the only justification I have heard for removing the 50% level is that it signals 'Britain is open for business'. I have not the faintest idea of what that means in practise, rather than as a slogan, and I fail to see how the argument that 5 times as much will be raised from the rich by other means does not then signal '... but not as open as you might think.' |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nice attack on the rich for you!!! From: Richard Bridge Date: 23 Mar 12 - 11:21 AM No Bonzo, I'd ahve opposed that then too. Would you care to do some sums in your accountant capacity? Ignore the "triple lock" (which David Davis was wrong to figure in on Question Time) and show us arithmetically where the crossover point comes applying just the promised increase in basic rate state pension and the reduction in pensioners' additional allowances. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nice attack on the rich for you!!! From: Bonzo3legs Date: 23 Mar 12 - 11:57 AM I'm yet to see any convincing calculations either way, but when I do I'll post them. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nice attack on the rich for you!!! From: Musket Date: 23 Mar 12 - 01:02 PM Being what could be termed as a middle income type, I am aware that any budget will be asking me to contribute more. T'was ever thus. That said, trying to be pragmatic, (and I know Mudcat isn't the place to do that, just the place to wind each other up...) the balance that successive governments try to achieve must include encouraging the wealth generators to contribute to the social program. If they can't generate the wealth, they can't contribute. Seems simple to me. The top 15% of earners contribute 63% of the tax according to latest HMRC figures. There are two ways of increasing that; one is short term until people have had enough and the other is long term by increasing the take from increased productivity. Vilifying everybody who earns a penny or two for being a rich bastard may give gratuitous satisfaction, but the satisfaction can be as shallow as the person getting it. A bit like the bankers. They still don't get it and many deserve the contempt of society. But when we have all finished, bankers may have got us in this mess, but only bankers can get us back out again. Hence the calls for them to release more capital for enterprise and jobs. Nobody said capitalism was fair, but there again, neither is socialism... Realism seems still to be a holy grail but at least recent governments have tried to realise it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nice attack on the rich for you!!! From: Richard Bridge Date: 23 Mar 12 - 01:36 PM Never mind, I have the answer. Ignoring the triple lock, there is NO real terms increase in the pension, so every single pensioner loses out by the granny tax. Source - that rightwing rag the Standard. http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/politics/pm-attacked-over-biggest-ever-pension-rise-claim-7583634.html |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nice attack on the rich for you!!! From: Bonzo3legs Date: 23 Mar 12 - 03:10 PM Remember that it's still only a Bill, and must be voted through parliament yet, but of course the government is perfectly entitled to take U turns as we learned to expect from 13 years of Labour mess, overspending and over-borrowing from which we are trying to recover!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nice attack on the rich for you!!! From: GUEST,Lighter Date: 23 Mar 12 - 04:27 PM Unfortunately he's preaching to the choir. Still brilliant. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nice attack on the rich for you!!! From: GUEST,CS Date: 23 Mar 12 - 04:38 PM There was at least a teensy token effort to bridge the vast disconnect between those on benefit on the one hand and the middle to upper-income on the other, by which I mean - the ever neglected by all parties - working poor. I really don't know how any government (if genuine in it's assertions to desire to do so) hopes to achieve the drive of unemployed back to work, when an already minimal income (if sufficient for essential requirements) is almost inevitably reduced by doing so. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nice attack on the rich for you!!! From: Richard Bridge Date: 23 Mar 12 - 06:25 PM Come on Bozo - want to give us a list of Labour budget announcements that never made it into law? Worst budget since the 20s and 30s. A budget by millionaires for millionaires. Nothing but cuts for anyone who fails to earn enough to pay tax. And if you say people need to get work - that can't happen with no work to get. Osbornomics isn't working. The last government to give us unemployment of 3 million (TRIPLE what they attacked Labour for) was Thatcher's. This one is nicely on target - over 2.7 million already, despite fudging the definitions - to do the same. The stats are out there. It's a very regressive budget. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nice attack on the rich for you!!! From: Richard Bridge Date: 24 Mar 12 - 10:13 AM I have not verified this but it is reported "The average tax reduction given by Osborne to each FTSE CEO is £120,000 - paid for by the disabled sick and pensioners" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nice attack on the rich for you!!! From: Richard Bridge Date: 24 Mar 12 - 10:14 AM Also reported "The tax grab on pensioners was not the only hidden bombshell in the budget. David Cameron and George Osborne have silently taken half a billion pounds from the National Health Service." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nice attack on the rich for you!!! From: Richard Bridge Date: 24 Mar 12 - 10:16 AM The multinational healthcare company Atos makes more than £66m a year in the UK, mostly by offering "independent" advice to the Department for Work and Pensions on whether individual claimants qualify for disability benefit. Answering a written question on Wednesday, the DWP minister, Chris Grayling, disclosed that the number of instances in which Jobcentre staff reckoned Atos's assessors had got it wrong rose from 900 in May 2010 to 3,100 in May 2011. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nice attack on the rich for you!!! From: Richard Bridge Date: 24 Mar 12 - 10:19 AM Oh, and A4E - paid to "help" claimants into work (when there are no real jobs to do) are alleged to have had internal systems and a culture that allowed endemic fraud risks. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nice attack on the rich for you!!! From: Bonzo3legs Date: 24 Mar 12 - 11:04 AM "I have not verified this but it is reported "The average tax reduction given by Osborne to each FTSE CEO is £120,000 - paid for by the disabled sick and pensioners" and what has changed since the labour mess????????? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nice attack on the rich for you!!! From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 24 Mar 12 - 07:21 PM ""Never mind, I have the answer. Ignoring the triple lock, there is NO real terms increase in the pension, so every single pensioner loses out by the granny tax."" Not precisely true (what a surprise)! Our pension increase was set in November based on the then current inflation rate which was over 5%. The inflation rate at the beginning of April will be about 3% and falling. So in fact we have gained in real terms for as long as inflation stays below 5%. Just to inject a little honesty. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nice attack on the rich for you!!! From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 24 Mar 12 - 07:35 PM Incidentally, whatever the government does to the personal allowance will make absolutely no difference to the poorest pensioners. I would number myself among those and with state pension plus the miserable pittance that Gordon Brown left in my company pension, I receive two thousand pounds below my current personal allowance. My wife receives four and a half thousand below hers. If we were fit enough to work (which we are not) and we could find work (at 71, dream on) we could earn between us six and a half thousand pounds per year before we became eligible to pay any tax. Alternatively they could remove two thousand before either of us would be affected. So Mr Clegg (you didn't listen when we told you this), do the math. Not every pensioner has a massive annuity, a fortune tucked away and a fully paid for residence. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nice attack on the rich for you!!! From: Richard Bridge Date: 24 Mar 12 - 08:38 PM No Don. You have got what you were entitled to based on the November rate. You will still lose from subsequent inflation. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nice attack on the rich for you!!! From: Richard Bridge Date: 24 Mar 12 - 08:42 PM Bozo - the alleged "Labour mess" was at least 2 years ago. And in fact the Brown-Darling response to the bank collapse was exactly right. The current mess is the fault of the con-dems. Just when do you think that Labour (or new labour) cut taxes on the richest few in the country from 50% to 45% with a promise of 40%? The tax cut for the rich is a fact. The tax increase for others is a fact. The cuts for those too poor to pay tax are facts. These are not matters of opinion. Why do you lie? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nice attack on the rich for you!!! From: Musket Date: 25 Mar 12 - 07:55 AM Notwithstanding the Granny tax, notwithstanding the government blaming their predecessors is wearing a bit thin... It could have been worse for the majority. I somewhat surprisingly have little to pull Bridge up on in his presentation of statistics, other than statistics can be construed as you wish to portray them. I will, I admit pedantically, point the following out; 3 million jobs may be triple what Labour lost, but there is a difference between real jobs (ones that you can raise a family on) and cheap labour part time unskilled ones, (the ones that Bliar and Broon created.) Th*tcher did lose all the real jobs and nobody yet has found where she put them. Oh, and taking half a billion out of the NHS? You will find that they kept the last government's promise of losing £20Billion out of The NHS. One of the reasons NHS leaders were fearful of the new bill was that it was hard enough delivering £20Billion of savings without having the organisations trying to find savings abolished... Cameron and Osborn are not on my Christmas card list and they are letting dogma get in the way of pragmatism, with the conniving weasel worded Judas mutterings of the disgraced ex political party Lib Dem. But as I said earlier, those who got us in this mess are those who will have to pull us out again, so any chancellor has to present a balanced budget. The alternative would have made a Balls of it? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nice attack on the rich for you!!! From: Bonzo3legs Date: 25 Mar 12 - 08:04 AM One job(s) that seems to have gone at HM Revenue & Customs is that involving the collection of notices of coding, putting them in envelopes and dealing with the posting thereof. My 2011/12 coding notice was printed on 19/02/12 and posted through my letterbox on 24/03/12, unless of course the union blighted postal service has shed jobs as well!!!!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nice attack on the rich for you!!! From: WalkaboutsVerse Date: 25 Mar 12 - 08:49 AM My brief BBC/Sage Gateshead speech "Cut Capitalism". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nice attack on the rich for you!!! From: Kenny B (inactive) Date: 25 Mar 12 - 09:11 AM Last para very subte Ian Just a thought Personal allowance source HMRC personal allowance tables 2010/11 £6,475 2011/12 £7,475 up £1,000 Labour 2012/13 £8,105 up £ 630 Cons/Lib Dem 2013/14 £9,205 up £1,100 Cons/ Lib Dem Cons/ Lib Dem Average Allowance increase £865. Definately not a gift to the low earners. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nice attack on the rich for you!!! From: Bonzo3legs Date: 25 Mar 12 - 11:28 AM "I thought it was a fair enough budget. Glad to see the government clamping down on benefits and handouts. This had to be addressed." As a still working recipiant of State Pension - I couldn't agree more! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nice attack on the rich for you!!! From: SPB-Cooperator Date: 25 Mar 12 - 01:50 PM How much of your salary are you prepared to donate to someone who wants to work but can't get a job? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nice attack on the rich for you!!! From: SPB-Cooperator Date: 25 Mar 12 - 01:58 PM Re: 'Union Blighted postal service; Some time ago I had to go to a sorting office - I arrived when the office was officially closed (it was an to big to go through the letterbox). I worker helped me so I didn't have to go back there again. A manager saw me being helped and shouted at the worker for being helpful. I wish I was quicker on my feet and in turn had the wherewithall to shout at the mnaager for being a complete nasty little shit. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nice attack on the rich for you!!! From: SPB-Cooperator Date: 25 Mar 12 - 02:21 PM A wider issue... When technological advances were being mad ein the 70s we were sold the utopian vision of everyone sharing a life of leisure. The reality is that technology has led to not needing a labour market, (except for supporting the disadvantage - where spend has been cut). The elephant in the room is therefore: (1) That instead of capital controlling labour, capitalism either doesn't need labour, or has trhe choice to purchase labour whwre it is cheapest, even where it is to low to even sustain a minimum level of nutrician. (2) Society needs to make a choice - either that the benefits of technologicval advancement are shared equitably, or that these benfits should be only for those who own the capuiytal, and if capital does not have the need for labour, then the loabour market does not have the entitlement to stay alive. From a philosophical point of view, bith argumnets are probably va;id, the moral point of view surely has only one outcome, |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nice attack on the rich for you!!! From: Bonzo3legs Date: 25 Mar 12 - 02:29 PM How much of your salary are you prepared to donate to someone who wants to work but can't get a job? I don't have a salary - I have fees being self employed!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nice attack on the rich for you!!! From: SPB-Cooperator Date: 25 Mar 12 - 02:33 PM I am on schedule E as I am a director of a CLG. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nice attack on the rich for you!!! From: Richard Bridge Date: 25 Mar 12 - 04:47 PM Typically stupid answer Bozo. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nice attack on the rich for you!!! From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 25 Mar 12 - 06:19 PM ""You will still lose from subsequent inflation."" What subsequent inflation? It's just over half the November figure and still going down going down. By April '13, we will have had five percent more for twelve consecutive months while the cost of living increase will average out at less than 3 percent. We will, at that time be better off in real terms. What happens after will be determined by the inflation rate in Nov '12. Simple arithmatic. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nice attack on the rich for you!!! From: Richard Bridge Date: 26 Mar 12 - 01:18 AM 5% took you back in November simply to catch up with where you were the November before. It's not rocket science, Don. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nice attack on the rich for you!!! From: Nigel Parsons Date: 26 Mar 12 - 08:06 AM Just a thought Personal allowance source HMRC personal allowance tables 2010/11 £6,475 2011/12 £7,475 up £1,000 Labour 2012/13 £8,105 up £ 630 Cons/Lib Dem 2013/14 £9,205 up £1,100 Cons/ Lib Dem Cons/ Lib Dem Average Allowance increase £865. Definately not a gift to the low earners. Comparing 1 year of Labour with two for the coalition? How about 1998-99 £4,195 2010-11 £6,475 Average increase (2280/12) £190 Labour The tables are at: Personal Allowances |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nice attack on the rich for you!!! From: Nigel Parsons Date: 26 Mar 12 - 09:11 AM Also that £1,000 increase for 2011-12 which Kenny B attributed to Labour was actually from George Osborne's first emergency budget. So, to recalculate. Coalition average (£2730/3) £910 p.a. Labour average (£1280/11) £117 p.a. I accept that the Labour figures would improve slightly if shown as percentage increases, due to the lower baseline figures. |
