Are we going to have an Election discussion?

Assumingly your voting for the "Stating the Bleedin Obvious Party" Del Boy you old rebel you.



Fritz Von I want no more Wars either or else

The last thing we need is a strong government. WQe have had one for the last few years, and though some things have got better (NHS, for example), others (PFI rip-offs, Iraq) were disastrous.
What we need is a weak government, better still a hung parliament so that excesses such as ID cards, loss of civil rights, etc are less likely due to the government's fear of losing its majority. The James Callaghan-led government could only operate with the support of the Liberals, and worked well, until some trade union activists decided that their interests came before national ones.
I would welcome a Labour government which had to behave itself. We might get proportional representation, and that could even lead to the UK being a democracy.

quote:

Originally posted by AndyFelin:
I accept that the low incomed (this includes myself) should not pay tax. But a flat rate is still very unfair to the lower paid as the proportion they will have to pay in tax is unduly high compared to the higher earner. For example, consider 20% tax rate for someone on £20K against someone on £100K. It does look equitable until you realise the residual remaining.

Eh? The proportion would be the same - everyone would pay 20% of whatever they earn over £10K so the more you earn the more you pay.

In the above example, the £20K earner would pay £2000 and the £100K earner would pay £18000.

To start looking at the residual remaining is ridiculous - of course higher earners will have more remaining (and will probably have higher outgoings).

Are you seriously suggesting we position the tax system so that everyone ends up with the same take home pay regardless of how much they earn? Isn't that Communism?

Where's the incentive to get on and earn more if the net result is no different?

Matt.

I think Our Mick could answer that for you nicely, and I don't mean Parry !


Fritz Von You can't always get what you want

Andy,
You are patently unable to realise that while compassion has its limits, greed is totally boundless.

Rather good that actually, innit.


Cheers, Fritz Von You learn something new every day

quote:

Originally posted by Matt F:

Eh? The proportion would be the same - everyone would pay 20% of whatever they earn over £10K so the more you earn the more you pay.

In the above example, the £20K earner would pay £2000 and the £100K earner would pay £18000.

To start looking at the residual remaining is ridiculous - of course higher earners will have more remaining (and will probably have higher outgoings).

Are you seriously suggesting we position the tax system so that everyone ends up with the same take home pay regardless of how much they earn? Isn't that Communism?

Where's the incentive to get on and earn more if the net result is no different?

Matt.

Lunch break discussion:

Matt, your maths are worse than mine. It is £4K and £20K respectively. What I was trying to say (not very well it seems) is that paying 20% of £20K in tax is disproportionate compared to what is left after paying 20% of £100K. In my opinion this is unequal. I don't think that is ridiculous.

I've just heard on the radio that we are the 4th largest economy in the world. The better off live, longer healthier lives, can choose where they want to live, etc., etc, and generally live very comfortable lives thank you very much. Isn't that incentive enough. Why do they need even more money?

Matt, greed and envy is a terrible taskmaster.

Sustainability is probably the most important issue facing us and the World today, that is what we really should be discussing.

Andy

quote:

I think we may have hit a fundamental problem. We are now (perhaps) dealing with a significant number of people who do not wish to work (why??? is it too cushy a benefits system? or the lack of values instilled in them as they grow up?).

I might have missed something but can you provide the evidence on which you are basing this assertion? I certainly fly no flag for Blair & Co. and working myself ragged, I have little time for those who can work but refuse to take up such opportunity, but everything I’ve read suggests that whatever problems the UK may have, soaring unemployment, isn’t one of them. I haven’t noticed reports of workshy masses threatening economic stability. The rates are the lowest in decades, and whilst one always has concerns about figures being fiddled let’s not kid ourselves that it hasn’t always been thus and so let's take it that the rates are by and large correct.

There are valid concerns about the substantial societal benefits of many of these jobs but what is one to do when manufacturing capacity has been decimated. Whilst everyone would prefer there to be more plumbers, electricians etc. these jobs can’t be any realistic substitute for the loss of large scale manufacturing.

I really wonder what level of unemployment would satisfy right wing whingers and why they think their policies should be taken seriously when the last time they were given a mandate they presided over the highest rates of unemployment since the 30s and the demise of any real British manufacturing industry?

The interesting thing about the very rare times I’ve been subject to the flat rate tax discussion is that there is a lot of talk about taking the tax burden off the needy and doing away with the burdensome administration of dealing with a complicated tax. Whenever I’ve said I suppose it might be ok if the 0% threshold was set at say £35-£40k and the rate flattened at 50-60% on ALL income, I’ve been met with disbelief. That’s because it’s a regressive tax and the proponents don’t give a rats about the less well-off or the costly burden of administration (reliefs and exemptions could be removed with the existing setup thus reducing the burden), they just want to get the benefits of a developed society which they’ve done well from, on which their business ultimately relies but don’t see why they should contribute accordingly. Against the background of the current rates, I find the notion that one would work harder if one paid less tax incredible. If we lived under a punitive tax regime then sure I’d be disgruntled but with current rates I’d say that someone who withheld effort was nothing more than a slacker and I’d gladly remind him of his brief and the location of the exit. I’ve worked under no tax and low tax regimes where most of my compatriots worked just as hard as they did back home and the few disgruntled slackers there were made the same piss poor effort wherever they were. Most of my peers, and I daresay most working people in the UK work bloody hard and from what I see have more disposable income than ever before and considerably more than many other countries. I don’t recall one person saying if I paid more tax then my productivity would increase because they already work hard and they’re not daft enough to think that services won't suffer and/or the low/middle class won't end up carrying the financial can. Out of interest what would the proponents of this suggest was the ideal flat rate and zero threshold that wouldn’t impact the delivery of services?

The argument that low tax regimes attract certain business from high tax has merit and there have been some successes but history and industrial parks are littered with the shells of global business who arrived in a fanfare promising much, pocketing massive handouts, trundling along for a few years before skipping off to the next easy lay with a cheaper workforce and tax regime. This economic race to the bottom would be a real hoot if it wasn’t diverting cash and resources from training and establishing a truly domestic industry. From what I see, with the odd exception, a sound argument can made for implementing flat rate tax in a developing economy which needs a kickstart and is experiencing difficulties in implementing and collecting tax in any real sense. As reportedly the 4th richest economy in the world, the UK could hardly be said to be in this situation.

In an immediate personal financial sense, I along with most of the contributors on this forum would benefit greatly from the type of flat rate tax being suggested but against the very real range of issues that currently face the people of Britain at large and individually, I struggle to see what pressing problem flat rate tax would be addressing or what benefit it would bring society as whole. And this arguably is the nub of it all, since to the Thatcherite believing that there is no such thing as society has no interest in it's existence let alone it's well-being.

Blair and his chums make my skin crawl but oddly no matter how horrid they are, and Douglas Alexander is all that and more, they’re still at least two leagues below the Tories who seem to have a seemingly bottomless and still pond from which they can haul out chinless sludge, clean it down, put it through a very expensive vampire finishing school and wheel out as a prospective candidate. Letwin….euchhh! The spoof Tory party broadcast on the CH4 website captures it all rather nicely.

I think that there is much merit in what Ken has said in his posts above.

quote:

Originally posted by AndyFelin:
Sustainability is probably the most important issue facing us and the World today, that is what we really should be discussing.

Andy

It might be interesting if Mick's "idle millions of slackers" were offered the straight choice of properly insulating Britain's homes (for a decent allowance) or getting a "proper" job?

The result? A serious rise in the UK's presently pathetic Kyoto status. More comfort and lower heating bills for Britain's millions of cold pensioners and the near-freezing poor. Meaning a real increase in disposable income without increased weekly payments. Improved housing stock. A more cheerful populace? Lower health spending?

What would be the downside? Apart from the cost of the heavily-discounted, bulk-purchased insulating materials purchased from a range of manufacturers against competitive bidding? A mere drop in the ocean compared with yet another dead-in-the-water defense project overspend.
More British pensioners surviving longer on their meagre pensions instead of succumbing to hypothermia and pneumonia? Damn I knew there was a flaw somewhere!

Nime

Some good points there, one would think social work/Care for the elderly (with a view of them retaining quality lives at home, even when widowed)would be an obvious future ztraining 'target' en-mass. Rover's ex taskforce, who'll soon in Mick's eyes be layabouts, should maybe consider a total career turn around. Greta to see the new Airbus fly today on its maiden flight, and to know that N.Wales at least employs 21,000+ plus beating its wings out, innit.

Fritz Von Like Dubya only a minority voted for Blair since 97

quote:

Originally posted by Berlin Fritz:

quote:

Originally posted by Matt F:

Engineering (electrical, civil), electronics, contruction industry, builders, roofers, carpenters, electricians, plasterers, plumbers, mechanics, quantity surveyors... need I go on?

And none of the above services can be imported - we need people here who can do those jobs.

Matt.

Mattt me old diamond, perhaps you could explain to me why these jobs are un-importable mate ?

The people to do the jobs can be imported of course but not the services themselves - if AA Plumbers are based in China then I dread to think what their call out fee would be or how much water would have leaked out of the burst pipe by the time they get here.

So, yes, the point I was making is that these jobs have to be based in and throughout the UK so there must be a need for people to train in these careers (i.e. do apprenticeships) and there will pretty much always be a need for them.

Matt.

quote:

Originally posted by AndyFelin:

Matt, your maths are worse than mine. It is £4K and £20K respectively. What I was trying to say (not very well it seems) is that paying 20% of £20K in tax is disproportionate compared to what is left after paying 20% of £100K. In my opinion this is unequal. I don't think that is ridiculous.

I've just heard on the radio that we are the 4th largest economy in the world. The better off live, longer healthier lives, can choose where they want to live, etc., etc, and generally live very comfortable lives thank you very much. Isn't that incentive enough. Why do they need even more money?

Matt, greed and envy is a terrible taskmaster.

Sustainability is probably the most important issue facing us and the World today, that is what we really should be discussing.

Andy

Andy – my maths isn’t that bad - I was taking the fictitious £10K tax free allowance into account!

As to whether a £20K earner paying £2K in tax and a £100K earner paying £18K in tax is fair is open to debate. If enough tax revenue is raised then I guess it doesn’t matter. In fact if you are able to leave both people with more disposable income then, as long as they spend it instead of save it, it is presumably better for the economy at large.

Of course I moan about paying tax but, coming from fairly normal background (neither parents professionals, comprehensive education, no degree etc) I do appreciate the good financial position I find myself in (along with remembering that this is partly down to my less secure choice of working on a short term contract basis).

I guess I wouldn’t mind paying this extra tax if I could see real improvements e.g. coppers on the beat. I’m sure there have been improvements, many in areas I don’t get to see, I’m just not convinced the tax payer has received good value for money – I’d love to know what percentage of the new jobs created by this government have been front line. You know, why does it take Jamie Oliver to force the government to take feeding the nation’s kids properly – shouldn’t a caring socialist government be doing this anyway?

Agree with you on sustainability and would love to see more done regarding recycling i.e. forcing or ‘incentivising’ people to do it more – and making companies cut down on plastic packaging. Jesus am I starting to sound like a Lib Dem now?

Oh, and to answer an earlier point – no I’ve never claimed benefit – I’ve found myself unemployed in the past but quickly found a manual job for a few weeks to fill in. I was also made redundant in Oct last year but got a reasonable pay off and knew the contract market was good so didn’t feel the need to sign on – not saying others shouldn’t sign on just personally I didn’t think I needed to be a burden – had I not found something after a few months then I would have done – as it was, within a month I was working again.

Matt.

quote:

If enough tax revenue is raised then I guess it doesn’t matter. In fact if you are able to leave both people with more disposable income then, as long as they spend it instead of save it, it is presumably better for the economy at large.

Here's some factual "ifs" to help this along.
If the flat rate was imposed at 22% and the 0% threshold kicked in at a lowly £7.5k then the loss to the revenue would be £29bn per annum. If the threshold kicked in at a more realistic but far from perfect £20k then the loss would be £78bn per annum. Those are quite chunky figures and it would be interesting to see to what degree the much vaunted cuts in administration would reduce this deficit.

quote:

You know, why does it take Jamie Oliver to force the government to take feeding the nation’s kids properly – shouldn’t a caring socialist government be doing this anyway?

They're far from Tory milk snatchers, but "caring socialist"? You're kidding, right?

quote:

Originally posted by Matt F:

As to whether a £20K earner paying £2K in tax and a £100K earner paying £18K in tax is fair is open to debate. If enough tax revenue is raised then I guess it doesn’t matter.

It does matter.
No reason why all taxation can't be worked out on a sliding scale eg
(Salary-tax free amount)*salary multiplier*tax rate
Where salary multiplier >1 eg. 1.1 or 1.2
Its still one simple formula as opposed to the current bloody awful mess but the effective rate increases with salary - probably still too complex for the majoity of imbeciles out there and too simple for the treasury.

Normally, a charismatic leader can turn election apathy into excitement.

Charles K clearly read the JD back-to-front and is pathetically out of his depth;

Michael H is a one-man show that still has more in common with a trailer for "The Return of Dracula Part II", than "The Return of Maggie".

Tony B Liar must have sent his missus out soliciting, to top-up their pension investments in anticipation of Gordon B making a fairly early announcement about moving house.

And God help us when Gordon B does take over - having skilfully killed of the entire nation's pension arrangements in one foul swoop and sold the family silver (ok, half the nation's gold reserves) I shudder to think what future disastrous stings will befall us when he takes control, and he will take Control with a vengeance. IMO he is looking more like an Old Labour Vulture every day.

So, its another case of "best of a bad bunch" or some similar cliche, but hopefully with a significantly reduced majority, so that he (Blair that is) at least has to try to seek consent to most of his policies, thereby reducing his excesses.

Here in Newbury is a guaranteed non-labour vote. It will be another close-run vote between the Conservatives and the Lib-Dem man. Labour never poll more than about 5%

Cheers

Don

MattF said

"Agree with you on sustainability and would love to see more done regarding recycling i.e. forcing or ‘incentivising’ people to do it more .. and making companies cut down on plastic packaging."

At least someone has woken up to part of the global issue. as I said earlier...

"There is very little about how each party would seek to influence the international community, or what subjects we would like the international community to tackle. For my part, I'd like to know each party's detailed proposals for tackling global-over-population, global-sustainability of resources, global-health and global-poverty."

By "global-sustainability of resources" I had in mind a DRAMATIC reduction in use of resources that outstrip their harvest cycle.

Cheers

Don

GB wants TB to lose, MH to win, TB to be ousted as leader and then a quick election putting GB where he wants - no 10.

CK still bleating about how much of an improvement the LDs have had and how much better it would have been under PR.

Roll on Star Wars Episode 3 .................

quote:

Of course I moan about paying tax but, coming from fairly normal background (neither parents professionals, comprehensive education, no degree etc) I do appreciate the good financial position I find myself in (along with remembering that this is partly down to my less secure choice of working on a short term contract basis).

If you work on a short term contract basis then you are effectively taking a gamble on potentially higher earnings against the prospect of not earning at all.

This is the key to the success of a market economy:

Risk

THe risk of a given business venture failing needs to be more than offset by the potential rewards for its success.

Once a punitive tax regime is introduced the delicate balance between risk and reward is disturbed and the economy eventually collapses.

Bimick,

You are correct in saying that it does not matter how hard you works as an employee because employees risk only their jobs.

To an entrepreneur (who may offer gainful and stable employment to many in the event of success of his venture) a high taxation economy means heads the state wins, tails he loses.

Admittedly, if the entrepreneur forms a limited company and draws a salary like any other employee his risk of personal lost is minimised, but does this provide sufficient incentive for him to take the plunge in the first place?

quote:

greed and envy is a terrible taskmaster.

Only if it is so morally wrong to want to improve your lot and take risks - albeit (hopefully) with the odds in your favour.

Those that succeed benefit not just themselves.

The prosperity of everyone depends on a few individuals having the courage and acumen to take risks.

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Toy:
...THe risk of a given business venture failing needs to be more than offset by the potential rewards for its success.

Once a punitive tax regime is introduced the delicate balance between risk and reward is disturbed and the economy eventually collapses...

...The prosperity of everyone depends on a few individuals having the courage and acumen to take risks.

Very well put indeed.

It always astonishes me how many people only look at the rewards made by the minority of successful entrepreneurs and fail to see the risks taken by most.

The very individuals who are prepared to take these risks and run their own businesses and who thus contribute to the prosperity of the country are also those most likely to choose another country if conditions become too difficult in their own. Perhaps this is why so many successful entrepreneurs are immigrants.

Regards
Steve M

How much reward does a one-man company deserve?
He employs no-one but himself.....? Where is the risk which deserves great reward?

Talking of taxation: A colleague is offering an alternative health therapy, part-time, outside his normal 40 hour week as an employee.

He won't be paying his usual 41% minimum Danish tax-rate + contributions to pensions etc.etc.etc.etc. He will now be taxed at 50% on his activities. And you think Britain is over-taxed?

Nime

Steve
I don’t think I said "it does not matter how hard you works as an employee because employees risk only their jobs." My point was that as far as I can see, the UK workforce and employers aren't witholding Labour or investment because they're waiting for a low flat tax to lift them out of a perceived punitive tax regime. My impression is that productivity is high, most people work their arses off, enjoy a comfortable disposable income and contrary to what you infer most employees I know value their jobs for many reasons and don’t care to risk them.

I'm not an employee I am the employer and run 2 businesses. Speaking for myself, friends and clients who are “entrepreneurs” as you put it, I was saying that we are not living under a punitive tax regime that needs rescuing as such by the white knight of flat rate tax. I concede that the tax system is a Byzantine labyrinth but it’s the system that needs a shake out and not the lower/middle class who need a shake down courtesy of the flat rate. Complex system notwithstanding the UK is a business-friendly environment and from what I can see the number of startups is more than healthy, so yet again I have to ask what “problem” flat tax would be addressing.

I fail to see how you can parallel greed and envy with wanting to improve your lot and take risks. There is indeed overlap with some employers and employees but I can’t see how greed and envy are satisfying motivators and if that is what drives your business then I suggest that you are missing out on a lot. Greed and envy are never satisfied, someone will always have a better house and car and in all likelihood you’ll never be happy with your lot. I could easily have run my concerns on a threadbare basis, crappy back offices, shitty wages, no benefits, draconian and inflexible working practices, outsourcing to India and then scooped all of the extra cash into my pocket and briefing my accountants to use any device possible, legal or otherwise to reduce my tax hit, so that I can buy more and bigger houses and cars. My life, I guess like most people on these boards, is a relative dream, and I struggle to say how my lot could be improved, so to accumulate more material goods than I could conceivably need at the expense of my employees, suppliers, clients and indeed society would be sheer insatiable greed, and would have nothing at all to do with improving my lot.

Anybody who bases their business expectations solely on the model of the successful business is indeed for a rude awakening though conversely dwelling simply on the risks leads to stagnation and is why many good ideas wither on the vine.

Still no word on these significant numbers of unemployed? Nothing? Well here’s the rant. What is it about the need of the right wing to vilify and demonize vulnerable sectors of society without feeling the need to evidence their contentions? Is it an intellectual failing or are they just slaves to their own prejudice having the lost the ability to self-check, to recalibrate their moral compass to take account of the evidence. Maybe it’s a Dubya-like certitude that in spite of reality and what they can see and hear, they believe what they believe and God help those who don’t fit neatly in their grid. Is it possible that people start to take on the attributes of the rags that they take in that the Express or the Mail certainly wouldn’t let the truth or facts stand in the way of a good story so it’s all fair game. If there is indeed evidence of these claims then great, let us all know, if not then to snipe and whinge in this manner is a shameful and really unpleasant, nasty trait.

quote:

Originally posted by Nime:
How much reward does a one-man company deserve?
He employs no-one but himself.....? Where is the risk which deserves great reward?

You can't generalise. My own company is currently a one man business, although I expect to employ people in the near future. However, I use a number of sub-contractors for manufacturing so I contribute to their employment. My products also use components that are paid for and my company advertises, exhibits, etc., etc.

A high proportion of business so far has gone overseas and all manufacture is currently in the UK. I like to think that my designs provide enjoyment and pride of ownership to my customers.

Risk? Well, I gave up my old job and sold my house to generate cash for the business and reduce my monthly outgoings. With a wife and two small children to support, that's a risk.

Rewards? Thus far very few. I'm working long hours, driving an 'H' reg Cavalier and we have little money. However, I love what I do.

Prospects? Clearly I think they're very good. With a 40% personal tax rate and the business climate as it is now, I plan to stay in the UK. At 50% I would probably stay. Above that, or if the business climate deteriorated significantly, and I'd almost certainly look to take my business elsewhere.

I'm currently going through the 'early years of hardship'. Going broke and losing everything is unlikely now but was always a possibility before. Why shouldn't I expect financial reward when the business succeeds?

Regards
Steve M

Most eloquently formulated Our Bigmick, innit.


Fritz Von Third Mid-life Crisis here I come

N.B. I had my first when I was 10 !

quote:

Originally posted by Nime:
How much reward does a one-man company deserve?
He employs no-one but himself.....? Where is the risk which deserves great reward?

Unlike 7V, I'm unlikely to employ anyone else to work for my company. It does happen i.e. the company turns into a small consultancy group but it's not common.

However, there is still risk involved. My contract is until the end of Jul and then that could be it for a while. The contracting market is quite good just now but it tends to go in fits and starts so one could easily be out of work for 3 or 6 months in the future.

So the income is anywhere between 2 and 3 times what the permanent salary would be for the same job and part of this is to reward the risks involved and clients are happy to pay more for contract staff as once the project is over they can get rid of them easily and for nothing.

The other reason the rates are good is that clients don't have to provide holiday pay, sick pay, pension contributions and so forth for the contract worker. However, the contact worker himself needs that extra money to provide those benefits himself.

So, yes I get paid a lot more than I do when I was permanent. Part of that money should pay for all the benefits I need to provide that I no longer get because I am free-lance. The extra bit is payment for being a flexible resource that clients can hire and fire at will - and at least some of that extra should ideally be put aside to tide me over any periods when I'm not working.

Matt.

quote:

Originally posted by bigmick:
Complex system notwithstanding the UK is a business-friendly environment....

I think you could also add IR35 to the notwithstanding list. This is the heavy handed piece of legislation New Lab brought in to try to force certain small Ltd Companies to pay 95% of their profits in salary.

It forced a lot of contractors to go back into permanent employment i.e. it reduced the flexibilty of the workforce and reduced the tax take. The majority of those who remained as contractors avoided (and continue to avoid) the legislation through changes to contract wording and other measures.

If ever there was an ill thought out piece of envy driven legislation this was it. They could have been a lot more clever about it but they took the heavy handed approach and failed dismally.

Matt.