Are we going to have an Election discussion?

quote:

Originally posted by Paul Ranson:

quote:

I agree we should tax the poor less.

Good.

But then where would the money come from to pay all the middle class public sector paper pushers on well above average salaries?

Paul

Indeed; it's a self-perpetuating shambles. One of many directly or indirectly linked to central government.

EW

Voting stats

Labour 9,556,183
Conservative 8,772,598
Lib Dem 5,982,045

Enough said

Bhazen,

Interesting what's happening in the US. One of the things I found intriguing about America when I was in Arizona for 4 months is that the newspapers and media seemingly aren't as critical of the President and Government as they are over here. Much as I despise the sleazy behaviour of much of the British press I do think that freedom of the press is important in challenging political leaders on their actions. The danger is that as in the UK it can lead to a vast number of the population concluding that nobody is worth voting for.

I suspect that most politicians are attracted to politics in the UK by a desire to make an improvement in society which at least is a noble intention. The sleaze and corruption is probably no worse in politics than in big business, but it is reported on to a far greater extent.

Jonathan

quote:

Originally posted by MichaelC:
Voting stats

Labour 9,556,183
Conservative 8,772,598
Lib Dem 5,982,045

Enough said

HOW MANY PEOPLE IN UK WERE ELIGIBLE TO VOTE ?

THE ABOVE FIGURES ARE NOT COMPLETE (IRRESPECTIVE OF WINNERS ETC) AS ALL OF THE VOTES STILL HAVEN'T BEEN COUNTED, LET ALONE INCLUDED, innit.


NUFF NOT SAID

I believe turnout was approx 60% (I tried a quick Google for the turnout percentage but could not find the definitive answer). One seat I believe remains to be declared.

quote:

Originally posted by Earwicker:

quote:

Originally posted by Paul Ranson:

quote:

I agree we should tax the poor less.

Good.

But then where would the money come from to pay all the middle class public sector paper pushers on well above average salaries?

Paul

Indeed; it's a self-perpetuating shambles. One of many directly or indirectly linked to central government.

EW

I’ve a couple of college chums working in the service; one is a senior treasury solicitor and another a senior legal advisor in the FCO. I can assure you that I and my colleagues in private practice would be wanting somewhere between 2 to 3 times their salaries to do their jobs. That’s a comment both on their workload and decidely below average salaries. Whilst the Mail/Express readership love to propagate the vague notion that the public sector is some sort of Soviet institution, staffed entirely by highly paid jobsworths doing the kind of work that could be knocked out by a talkative toddler, I think you’ll find that the number of truly highly paid public sector jobs are relatively few and far between, whilst the majority are paid less than their counterparts in the private sector.

If the 2 gents quoted above can provide details of a huge pool of highly paid and cushy public sector jobs then I’ll gladly eat my words and pass the details onto my friends and their colleagues.

Like Jonathan, I think that by and large the election result could not have been better for the majority of the British electorate and I concur entirely with the points made above by Matthew. Mercifully for us all, Blair, for all his manifold failings, has not followed Thatcher’s economic policies. I guess certain people need to tell themselves otherwise, though maybe they could explain why we have so many Tories, even on this thread, whinging on about just how disastrous Labour’s they feel economic policies to be.

quote:

Finally, I can't believe I'm still hearing this tax the rich more nonsense. Haven't you grasped that these people contribute a huge amount in taxes already and yet place little strain on public services. You squeeze them too hard and they'll bugger off. You may not like them but you should appreciate that the country would be screwed without them.

The grand barons of business pay damn all tax as we all know, so who are “the rich”, how do you know how much tax they pay, their opinion on paying more tax and what they’d do if the top rate was increased? If rates were punitive then there may be some worth in your statement but IMO as 50% is the maximum rate being mooted, your suggestion that the nation’s wealthy would up sticks and emigrate is just hyperbolic and hysterical twaddle. If I thought we could see more transparent expenditure and independent, measurable benefits in public services as opposed to baseless tabloid spiel or government spin, I personally wouldn’t be opposed to paying 50%.

quote:

I'd love to know how to pay no tax - I mean I can reduce NI by paying myself dividends

I'm perplexed Matt. If you were able to get away with paying no tax and a reduced NIC then, speaking as someone who is more than happy to pay my societal dues, I struggle to see what real contribution you’d be making to UK plc? How do you see society functioning if nobody accepts that they have a responsibility to make a contribution to the provision of national services?

I think it’s telling of the mood and maturity of the electorate that none of the parties campaigned to any great extent on tax cuts and public service cutbacks.

quote:

If the 2 gents quoted above can provide details of a huge pool of highly paid and cushy public sector jobs then I’ll gladly eat my words and pass the details onto my friends and their colleagues.

This is a strawman, typical of Labour and their apologists.

In 'bigmick's world clearly the direct and indirect public sector hasn't expanded over the last 8 years, taxes haven't risen as a proportion of GDP and people on minimum wage don't pay income tax let alone VAT and other duties.

Paul

If the same rules for billing & recieving dosh from people for their Council Tax were applied to electoral registration and actual voters, we'de know by now exactly how many voted, and how many were eligible to vote, innit.


Fritz Von Obvious Innit Tom, but nobody's at all interested it seems

quote:

Originally posted by Paul Ranson:

quote:

If the 2 gents quoted above can provide details of a huge pool of highly paid and cushy public sector jobs then I’ll gladly eat my words and pass the details onto my friends and their colleagues.

This is a strawman, typical of Labour and their apologists.

Paul

A strawman? You make what appears to be a ridiculous claim and I refute this by reference to some acquaintances who happen to work in senior positions within the public sector. It's quite simple. If you're not rehashing vague tabloid guff why don't you simply indicate where one might find this pool of lucrative sinecures?

quote:

In 'bigmick's world clearly the direct and indirect public sector hasn't expanded over the last 8 years, taxes haven't risen as a proportion of GDP and people on minimum wage don't pay income tax let alone VAT and other duties.

I'm afraid I don't get your point. Why would these not feature in my world? Where have I denied public sector expansion, increase in taxes or the fact that minimum wage earners are subject to the same tax as the rest of us?

What is clear is that I favour an increase in tax on high earners and would be happy to see the tax burden lifted from those on low wages. As I also remarked earlier in this thread I also favour smaller government and a reduction in bureaucracy but am realistic enough to know that none of the current parties are likely to deliver this in any meaningful sense.

quote:

Originally posted by Jonathan Gorse:
One of the things I found intriguing about America when I was in Arizona for 4 months is that the newspapers and media seemingly aren't as critical of the President and Government as they are over here. Much as I despise the sleazy behaviour of much of the British press I do think that freedom of the press is important in challenging political leaders on their actions. The danger is that as in the UK it can lead to a vast number of the population concluding that nobody is worth voting for.

All too true, Jonathan; the press has largely abandoned its mission of informing, let alone criticising, about what's really going on in the world. Also, the major TV networks' news coverage is toothless as well; Goebbels would've been thrilled to have a blatant propaganda outlet like Fox News (which, if there were truth in media, whould be re-named Republican TV).

Whatever you do in Britain, don't allow Murdoch any more outlets, or you'll be on a slippery slope too! (Are his press/media outlets there as pro-Tory as the ones here are pro-Republican?)

Bruce

quote:

You make what appears to be a ridiculous claim and I refute this by reference to some acquaintances who happen to work in senior positions within the public sector.

There is no 'ridiculous claim.

quote:

Where have I denied public sector expansion, increase in taxes or the fact that minimum wage earners are subject to the same tax as the rest of us?

So what's your problem?

quote:

I also favour smaller government and a reduction in bureaucracy

So you voted Conservative?

Paul

Can I be a bridesmaid at you two's wedding ?

To see you in a dress I might be prepared to marry him...

Up to the 'any person here' point anyway.

Paul

Bet you say that to all the boys, you tease you ? though Our Mick's offered to do the catering, so that's a bonus, his speciality of late is pilchard vindaloo.



Fritz Von Semalina custard

quote:

Originally posted by Paul Ranson:

quote:

You make what appears to be a ridiculous claim and I refute this by reference to some acquaintances who happen to work in senior positions within the public sector.

There is no 'ridiculous claim.

quote:

Where have I denied public sector expansion, increase in taxes or the fact that minimum wage earners are subject to the same tax as the rest of us?

So what's your problem?

quote:

I also favour smaller government and a reduction in bureaucracy

So you voted Conservative?

Paul

LOL
You didn't break away from your homework or a game of British Bulldog to post that, did you?

Thanks anyway, I needed a good laugh and Tories and their apologists can be relied on for that, if nothing else.

quote:

Originally posted by Paul Ranson:

quote:

You make what appears to be a ridiculous claim and I refute this by reference to some acquaintances who happen to work in senior positions within the public sector.

There is no 'ridiculous claim.

Well back it up then ... we are all waiting

Taxes have risen, the very poor pay tax, public funded employment has risen, mostly for average wage type people. What exactly are you disputing?

Paul

Are these the same Publically funded projects that 'always now' automatically have to go to the City first to be appraised for the 'PRIVATE INVESTMENT that folllows, or do you live in a different Britain to everybody else John?


Fritz Von PFI Rules, and How many officially were elligible to vote and did in fact vote ?

quote:

Originally posted by bigmick:
The grand barons of business pay damn all tax as we all know, so who are “the rich”, how do you know how much tax they pay, their opinion on paying more tax and what they’d do if the top rate was increased? If rates were punitive then there may be some worth in your statement but IMO as 50% is the maximum rate being mooted, your suggestion that the nation’s wealthy would up sticks and emigrate is just hyperbolic and hysterical twaddle. If I thought we could see more transparent expenditure and independent, measurable benefits in public services as opposed to baseless tabloid spiel or government spin, I personally wouldn’t be opposed to paying 50%.

The point I was making there Mick is that the rich (whoever they are) seem to be held up as the villains in all this when in actual fact they contribute a huge amount in tax compared to someone on average wages and therefore they should be valued accordingly instead of squeezed too much.

Also, for those that avoid tax altogether, putting up the high rate or introducing a higher one is going to have no effect - only the honest, hard working (although I don't think the well off are allowed to be called hard working under New Labour rules ) would be affected and presumably some of them may be tempted to investigate tax avoidance options.

quote:

Originally posted by bigmick:
I'm perplexed Matt. If you were able to get away with paying no tax and a reduced NIC then, speaking as someone who is more than happy to pay my societal dues, I struggle to see what real contribution you’d be making to UK plc? How do you see society functioning if nobody accepts that they have a responsibility to make a contribution to the provision of national services?

Sorry - I was being more inquisitive rather than really wanting to avoid my responsibility. I don't mind paying my dues (honestly) - I'd like to think it's being wisely spent however.

Don't forget mind that even if I paid no direct taxation, I'd be doing my bit to keep hifi dealers in business

quote:

Originally posted by bigmick:
I think it’s telling of the mood and maturity of the electorate that none of the parties campaigned to any great extent on tax cuts and public service cutbacks.

Interestingly enough there was a piece in the Sunday Telegraph by Saachi saying that his suggested strategy for the Tories campaign was rejected as too radical and a big part of that strategy was taking many low earners out of tax altogether.

Matt.

I have said this before but will say it again. There is an optimum level of taxation. We are probably at that level. Whether you like it or not if taxes rise there is a disinsentive to work that extra or simply a disinsentive to declare all earnings. Tax yields will fall. Simple as that. Can this be measured? - probably but I am not anal enough to attempt to prove this empirically. It is, however, the reality though whether you like it or not. Suffice it to say I have heard enough grumblings and and have seen the signs to know, at least in my mind, that this is the reality.

Just an observation.

Under the last 70s pre-Blair Labour government that's exacly what happened.

Taxes were raised above the optimum level for revenue to the exchequer, and each time it was observed that tax receipts had actually fallen they just raised taxes some more.

Inflation hit 27% and the IMF were called in.

A third term under (New) Labour with Gordon Brown possibly becoming Premier I fear it may happen all over again.

What am I disputing? <<groan>>

Ok Paul, let’s try again.

quote:

Originally posted by Paul Ranson:
matthewr said

quote:

I agree we should tax the poor less.

Good.

But then where would the money come from to pay all the middle class public sector paper pushers on well above average salaries?

Paul

quote:

Originally posted by bigmick:
..................I think you’ll find that the number of truly highly paid public sector jobs are relatively few and far between, whilst the majority are paid less than their counterparts in the private sector.

If the 2 gents quoted above can provide details of a huge pool of highly paid and cushy public sector jobs then I’ll gladly eat my words and pass the details onto my friends and their colleagues.

So can you please simply provide the evidence of this job pool and back up your assertion? If you’re correct and these sinecures are so well paid and exist on such a scale that we simply cannot lift the tax burden from the poor then you’re right to flag it up but I want to know the facts.

I’m still baffled at your response when I query your the basis for your depiction of my world – your reply being “So what’s your problem?” This sounds like it’s from the same school as “you lookin’ at my girlfriend?” “What girlfriend?” “You callin’ me a poof?”

So you voted Conservative? No, of course not! I can’t begin to imagine how utterly cack the alternatives would need to be for that happen. As someone said “just because Posh is pissed off with some of David’s antics doesn’t mean she’s going to jump into bed with Anthony Worral Thompson”. TBH the comparison’s a bit unkind to Wozzer.

Maybe this third kicking is what the Tories need for them to realise that a lick of paint, new drapes and some new tenants aren’t going to be enough, though when you hear Liam Fox and others claim that what is need is measured changes you have to be really stunned at the failure to grasp the problem at the very top of the party. IMO the Tories need to start listening to the likes of Alan Duncan “the only way forward is something which is socially and economically liberal” and John Bercow “we must recognise that people expect politicians to offer quality public services… Whether in health or in education, a government can subsidise only a minority to go private. Meanwhile, the majority understandably concludes that the party has given up on them.”

Currently this Labour government is by quite some measure, clearly the best alternative for the UK but it needs to be kept in check by someone other than the Lib Dems and it has incensed me how utterly hopeless and clueless the Tory opposition has been. If one is on the hunt for lucrative sinecures the opposition would provide rich pickings. I don’t take the Telegraph so I didn’t see Saatchi’s article but I think that before any party can move to alleviate the burden on the poorly paid they need to ensure that people experience even more significant improvement in public services from the current tax take.

I have no doubt that there is an optimum level of taxation but beyond being a tax payer and running two businesses I’m not qualified to comment on whether we have reached that point though, as I’ve remarked earlier in this thread I do not get the sense, personally or from peers, that the current regime is particularly onerous or punitive. Indeed this is why I’ve repeatedly queried the calls for lower tax and why there is any case for a flat rate regime. I think that for the vast bulk of tax payers you are probably right, in that the current regime, though stupidly over-complicated, is at an optimum point.

My only point of difference is to come back to the necessity to ease the burden on the lower paid and I still think that the fairest way to pay for this would be a higher rate on high earners. Trust me, by and large the people who are likely to be caught by this rate are not feeling that can’t possibly spare another penny, they are not operating at their financial limit and as such it simply stretches credibility to suggest that if they were asked to pay 45% or 50% they would either emigrate, go on a go slow or suddenly decide to embark on a program of tax evasion. I would suggest that whether you like it or not, this in fact more likely to be the reality under such an incremental rise. Again, just my POV.

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Toy:

Taxes were raised above the optimum level for revenue to the exchequer .

I don’t know what the optimum level was at that point. What was it?

.

quote:

Inflation hit 27% and the IMF were called in. .

What income tax rates were in force at that time?

quote:

A third term under (New) Labour with Gordon Brown possibly becoming Premier I fear it may happen all over again.

What specifically are you basing this assertion on?