Bolitics The New Condem Government

[colhint]

the damn lightbulb has gone cant see the keyboard properly, no spare bulb

[thetrees]

It would appear to me that the second half of your claim betrays the Osborneish 'we're all in it together' nature of the first part and leads quite neatly back to the cynical position you take at the beginning of the post.

Hmm, a little bit of a swipe that I will turn a cheek to in deference to one of the more erudite contributors to such threads

Presumably the 'poor' to whom you refer are unemployed and therefore not liable for income tax.

Why do you presume that? Is it so that you can categorize them (as you claim cynically - others may put it in less kind terms) in the way in which you have above?

Why are those earning the minimum wage, for instance, not poor?

I don't know who is classed as 'poor' in our society, that is why I am asking the question.

With regard to the minimum wage, you may recall that I posted a long time ago that there was a danger of any minimum wage becoming *the* wage and being exploited by less scrupulous employers.

In addition there are a large number of foreign workers here who receive minimum wage, and who would not describe themselves as 'poor'

Therefore a straightforward fair model, with a rise in the basic rate of income tax, would ensure that all people who pay income tax on a pay as you earn basis will pay their fair proportion.

Why is this 'fair'?

Simply because everyone pays a proportion. If you don't earn much, you don't pay much. The more that you earn, the more that you pay, but in fair proportion.

I often read on VT about the tax dodgers, who have enough money to pay clever and expensive accountants to help them avoid paying tax. These people should, of course, be pursued and reined in. But I never read on VT about the black economy, the 'cash in hand' workers and dodgy dealings that go on, presumably because these are ordinary 'hard workers' not 'fat cats'?

When you compare the two in the abstract then they probably are pretty similar. When put in context perhaps they are not as much so.

I would suggest that the sympathy amongst a wider audience for those in the black economy at the lower end of the income scale is because it may be that their participation is more likely to be as a result of trying to get by and thus out of necessity rather than the mercenary reasons more prevalent at the other end of the income scale.

Is the black economy a purely low income thing, too, as it would appear that you are suggesting (by contrasting it with groups of 'fat cats')?

Surely the black economy ranges from the person doing a couple of hours foreigner for his mate to the organized gang smuggling in contraband?

Who pays the 'cash in hand' worker? Do the black economy 'employers' not benefit?

I would think that it is definitely not purely a low income thing.There are plenty of extremely well-off builders, electricians, plumbers etc out there who are benefitting from the black economy. But perhaps these are people who would fit the model of ordinary decent working men, rather than 'fat cats'?

My point remains that it needs more than one section of society to fix the problem.

[markavfc40]

I’ll be honest I’m pretty comfortably off and would welcome tax rises for those that can afford it if that ensures that public services are kept to or helped to reach a high standard, pensioners don’t have to choose between keeping warm or going hungry, a disabled person doesn’t have their benefits cut and someone else can keep their job.

It is sickening to see the effects the Governments policies are having now and no one with any morals should be happy with what is happening.

i'm sure you can donate all your salary to worthy causes instead whilst you wait for them to implement it ?

Have Pensioners suddenly had to make this "choice" you speak of since 2010 ..No .. I posted it in a thread years ago about how disgusting it was having to see OAP's buying nothing but cans of Tesco Value Baked Beans for their weekly shop ...

you keep using this "morals" phrase like some form of disguised insult but you'll probably find there is very little between you and 99.9% of the other people in the world irrespective of where they put their "X" in an election ..

I do actually donate a fair bit to charity. What is needed though is the Government to raise taxes for those that can afford it and thus ensure that the I'm alright Jacks and **** everyone else who won't be willing to give are forced to contribute more to those more needy and to ensure we maintain/improve public services.

As for pensioners having to suddenly make the choices I speak of, no its certainly not the case that this choice has suddenly come about. I would say it is now a choice for many more pensioners though and its not helped by the Governments policies. At a time when fuel bills are rising rapidly many pensioners need a lot more help not less.

As for the morals issue it is not a disguised insult. I think this country has far too many I'm all right Jacks in it and **** the more vulnerable/less well off/more needy/those that rely on public services far more. It is also not something I would label any particular political party with either as you will obviously get those that lean to the right or left who couldn't give a **** about anyone but themselves.

[snowychap]

Well are you suggesting the Low Pay Commision advise a rate which would make anuone who earbs it poor? But I do agree there are too many assumptions and grouping of people.

Without getting in to the debate about the appropriateness of the level of the minimum wage (or indeed the benefits or pitfalls of one or this specific one), I'd suggest that the initial National Minimum Wage was set at a higher level than the actual lowest wage previously paid.

According to their second report, the Low Pay Commission said this:

The success of the introduction of the National Minimum Wage stems in part from the prudent nature of our initial recommendations, which were based on what we believed the economy and businesses could manage, and also what we knew would benefit large numbers of low-paid workers.

There may well be more in there (or elsewhere) about their methodology and the precise nature of their remit.

the damn lightbulb has gone cant see the keyboard properly, no spare bulb

We could have a whip round for ya.

[thetrees]

I do actually donate a fair bit to charity. What is needed though is the Government to raise taxes for those that can afford it and thus ensure that the the I'm alright Jacks and **** everyone else who won't willing give are forced to contribute more to those more needy and to ensure we maintain/improve public services.

Why is everyone who earns decent money, or has a lot of money an 'I'm alright Jack'? Just more 'us' versus 'them' which gets the country nowhere.

Raising taxes 'for those that can afford it' doesn't work.

Firstly you have to determine who can afford it. Once you have done that you either find that the taxes are raised for those who can afford to pay the money to avoid paying, or you are penalising hard working people who build businesses, create employment for others, and have all of the worry that goes along with it.

Here's an idea.

Introduce a 10p tax rate for say the first £8000 of taxable income. Reduce the eligibility for that tax rate on a sliding scale for incomes between £16000 and £24000, in a similar way that CT is reduced according to company profit levels.

Raise the basic rate of tax to 22p.

Keep the higher rate threshold as it is, and the level at 40p

Scrap the grab back of personal allowances for people earning in excess of £100k

Either scrap the 50p tax rate or reduce it to 45p, with the proviso that it must be collected.

I'm not a numbers man, as I generate money and pay others to count it, so no doubt this will be torn to pieces by those who are. But I would sign up to something like this, happily paying more in the knowledge that others will be doing their bit.

[snowychap]

Hmm, a little bit of a swipe that I will turn a cheek to...

Apologies. It's rather cruel to compare anyone's comments to the utterings of Osborne so I'll withdraw that.

I don't know who is classed as 'poor' in our society, that is why I am asking the question.

The question appeared to be pointedly worded in order to connect it to your opening gambit.

With regard to the minimum wage, you may recall that I posted a long time ago that there was a danger of any minimum wage becoming *the* wage and being exploited by less scrupulous employers.

I had some sympathy for your point of view then and I still do.

As I went on to explain (better, hopefully) in a later post my use of the min wage was more of a point of reference (and to question why you made the presumption that the poor were just the unemployed).

In addition there are a large number of foreign workers here who receive minimum wage, and who would not describe themselves as 'poor'.

Is that because they have come from more unfortunate circumstances (not just in terms of wages received but also working and living conditions)?

As with my discussion with Michelsen a week or so ago, I think that's not a useful way of determining whether one thinks something is an acceptable income level (or standard of living) in this country.

I would think that it is definitely not purely a low income thing.There are plenty of extremely well-off builders, electricians, plumbers etc out there who are benefitting from the black economy. But perhaps these are people who would fit the model of ordinary decent working men, rather than 'fat cats'?

My point remains that it needs more than one section of society to fix the problem.

Yet your point seems to be returning to 'builders, electricians, plumbers' and so on.

The shadow economy is surely all of those people in it from the bottom to the top.

As suggested before, my sympathy wanes (quite quickly) as one goes up the income scale. Unfortunately (and this isn't aimed at you), I get the impression that 'aspiration' reverses that 'curve' for a lot of people.

I'm not a numbers man, as I generate money and pay others to count it, so no doubt this will be torn to pieces by those who are. But I would sign up to something like this, happily paying more in the knowledge that others will be doing their bit.

Not going to tear it to pieces (it may work out to be fine but that's not really the point) - it surely, however, doesn't fit in with the fairness criteria in your other post? What you were arguing for there was a flat tax, wasn't it?

...with the proviso that it must be collected - surely the proviso would be better worded 'that it must be paid'. ;-)

p.s. The argument for a simplification of the income tax system would be something I'd agree with (most especially reducing the anomalies of the marginal rates along the way). I'd also include NI as part of income tax for a bit of transparency.

EDIT: On second thoughts, I think I was wrong in this especially in the light of the further suggestions by 'advisors' in the news today. Though my suggestion may make things more 'transparent' (i.e. that we may clearly see that national insurance is no such thing - and never really has been), it would probably be more of a paving of the way for privatization in this area for the benefit of Unum and their associates.

[tonyh29]

As for the morals issue it is not a disguised insult.

fair enough , thanks for clearing it up

Think trees commented quite well on the rest of the post so I won't repeat him ... but i'll just add

I worked in the City with a lot of "I'm alright jacks" when one of the admin girls got some from of cancer they all put in together to pay for her pioneering treatment in America ... some just gave money , others arranged a big swimathon in the pool at the office , one bloke bought 2 first class tickets for her and her sister for the initial appointment

so , I just can't subscribe to this rich people don't care "belief" that you have ...

[markavfc40]

so , I just can't subscribe to this rich people don't care "belief" that you have ...

What? Where have I said that? I certainly don't believe that all rich people have an I don't care/I'm all right Jack attitude. You will get people rich/poor and somewhere in between that couldn't give a **** about anyone else but themselves.

I do believe however that there are a fair proportion of people in this country whom the economic downturn/cuts in public services has had relatively little impact on and I'd arguably include myself in that. In fact I'd go as far to say with interest rates so low there are many people who have been better off over the last few years. There will then be those in the above mentioned who will have the attitude well I'm doing OK **** those that are really struggling, losing their jobs, and the effects of the cuts in public services.

What we have now is a situation where middle income earners and the rich should in my opinion give more to help those more needy and to protect/enhance public services.

[kidlewis]

why are newspapers and websites making a hoo ha over Cameron doing a rather pants accent?

seems rather pointless to me.

[markavfc40]

Just watching children in need and it makes you realise just how much public services are under funded. Specialist care for disabled children just isn't there for many. 3.8 million children living in poverty and for every child that the reason is because the mom/dad are just selfish **** there are 3 or 4 times as many where it is down to the parents having passed away, being ill or simply not being able to find work. Whatever way you cut the cake it most definitely isn't the childs fault.

Add to the above a lack of things for many children to do in terms of youth clubs etc ( many closing due to lack of funds ) means many children end up heading down the wrong path.

People will tonight give millions but its not enough is it.

The above has been a disgrace under numerous Governments but it makes it is an absolute disgrace the current Government making cuts to public services and this has a massive impact on the most vulnerable children and adults. If anything more money should be being pump in to them not less alongside targeting it to those most needed.

Many of us will give tonight but those of us that can afford to should be giving far more in taxes to ensure that all that can be done is done to ensure that children are not suffering.

Almost 4 million children living in poverty in the UK is something every one of us should be ashamed of and the Government need to do far more about it not less.

[markavfc40]

Listening to 5 Live this morning and they have done an investigation that has found that there has been a significant increase in students working in the sex trade anything from prostitution to sex chat lines. The result of the cuts in financial support and lack of part time work.

Youth unemployment was up again today as were unemployment figures over all.

Regardless of which party you support its surely time to accept that the way this coalition is going about things is totally wrong. The justification for all their actions has been they are going to wipe out the deficit by 2015 but look at what that is costing. It is also clear that the deficit has been used to justify what are ideological cuts.

At what stage do you say that making cuts in public funding which obviously directly impacts on the service users who are often the most vulnerable in society has gone too far.

The biggest travesty in all this is of course that the justification for these reckless cuts - wiping out the deficit by 2015 won't happen. Far from it has it is predicted to be 100 billion at that time.

This coalition are failing on so many levels its frightening.

[thetrees]

Listening to 5 Live this morning and they have done an investigation that has found that there has been a significant increase in students working in the sex trade anything from prostitution to sex chat lines. The result of the cuts in financial support and lack of part time work.

Perhaps selective listening. They were reporting on a NUS study that came up with these 'shock' findings. I suspect that the 'increase' is negligible, but it makes a nice shock story, nonetheless.

I would think that most young women woud sacrifice their degree before turning to prostitution.

[Amsterdam_Neil_D]

At what stage do you say that making cuts in public funding which obviously directly impacts on the service users who are often the most vulnerable in society has gone too far.

When they bite back I suppose. There must be a tipping point when millions and millions of people have effectively nothing in terms of current assets or future prospects. There is nothing more dangerous in the world than people with nothing to lose, hopefully Cameron will find out one day.

[mjmooney]

Listening to 5 Live this morning and they have done an investigation that has found that there has been a significant increase in students working in the sex trade anything from prostitution to sex chat lines. The result of the cuts in financial support and lack of part time work.

Perhaps selective listening. They were reporting on a NUS study that came up with these 'shock' findings. I suspect that the 'increase' is negligible, but it makes a nice shock story, nonetheless.

I would think that most young women woud sacrifice their degree before turning to prostitution.

Of course - that's what the stats said! It's a minority. But any increase, even a small one, is at the very least, a possible cause for concern.

[tonyh29]

I caught the back end of this , Stringfellow was saying his dancers aren't in the sex trade ... was the study counting his dancers in it's figures ?

that there has been a significant increase in students working in the sex trade anything from prostitution to sex chat lines. The result of the cuts in financial support and lack of part time work.

out of interest did they give evidence to prove the 2 were linked ? we have a society now for example where teenage girls read celeb magazines and "worship" people like Katie Price and see the lifestyle she leads and think to themselves that acting like a slut is a good career choice .. and some evidence does suggest they may have a point ... bed a footballer and then run off to the paper and sell your story etc ..... Now I'm not trying to trivialise the issue here , nor sterotype all these people that feel the sex trade is their only choice I'm just curious to see if it's being used by someone as justification rather than them being forced into it

[TrentVilla]

I've got to say while I'm not in favour of some (quite a lot) of the things this government has done/is doing I heard the story this morning in relation to the students and have to say I thought it was a crock of shit.

I don't agree with the increase in the tuition fee's but how people choose to pay for them if they choose to pay them is entirely their choice. It isn't like Cameron and Gideon are holding a gun to peoples heads demanding they get their tits out, even if Cameron was doing that (I'm sure he would have a Liberal at hand to hold it for him) I'm not entirely convinced that Gideon would be interested.

Times are hard, for some the government are making them harder but what people do about that is and will always be their choice. If people are choosing to get their bits out to improve their lot then that is their choice.

I'm happy to be critical of the government but I think I will stop short of blaming them if attractive students want to strip to earn a bit of easy money.

[markavfc40]

67000 jobs were lost in the public sector over the last 3 months. 5000 were created in the private sector. So much for Osbournes assertion that the private sector would pick up the slack. Another huge fail.

[TrentVilla]

Now that is a stick I'm more than happy to beat Gideon and the boys with, fair enough they inherited mess but their economic policies have simply failed as I think many of us knew they would do.

Unemployment is at its highest in 17 years at something in the region of 2.6m and its only going to get worse in the New Year.

The private sector was never ever going to make up that number of jobs in that timescale and the claims that they would were either deliberate lies or pure stupidity.

[kidlewis]

perhaps that is why they have invested in those infastructure projects to get them started sooner and quicker. But that is only going to be what another 15k jobs MAX?

[colhint]

67000 jobs were lost in the public sector over the last 3 months. 5000 were created in the private sector. So much for Osbournes assertion that the private sector would pick up the slack. Another huge fail.

I think the key word here is decreased. Thats what it says. It doesnt say redundancies.

An organisation that employs 6m people, And if you assume a 40 year working life (20yrs to 60yrs). Wouldnt that make 150,000 people at each age between 20 and 60 roughly. If thats the case wouldn't 150,000 retire each year. So in 3 months wouldn't you expect 37500 to retire. Now I don't know how many people just left to do another job.