Union chief warns of co-ordinated strikes across public and private sectors in low pay battle

Unison general secretary Dave Prentis

Unison general secretary Dave Prentis

First published in News The Northern Echo: Photograph of the Author by , Reporter (Durham)

A UNION boss has threatened a campaign of co-ordinated strikes across public services and the private sector in the ongoing battle over low pay.

Speaking in the North-East today (Friday, April 4), Unison general secretary Dave Prentis said public sector workers had “no alternative” but to take industrial action in response to the Government’s tough stance on below-inflation salary increases.

Referring to Unison’s 1.4m public sector workers, which includes 80,000 in this region, he said: “At the end of the day it’s the Government that decides what pay increases we get and if it takes co-ordinated action across our local community services, health services and all other employers where we’ve got members, we will seek to take co-ordinated action.”

The union chief was speaking ahead of a regional Unison pay conference in Newcastle.

He said local government workers had been offered a “derisory” one per cent pay increase while NHS workers were being asked to give up incremental rises worth around three per cent.

Public sector workers were paying the price for the economic crisis, he added, while chief executives pocket big pay rises and bankers’ bonuses are higher than ever.

“If the Government isn’t standing up for us, we’ve got to think about whether we take industrial action,” he said.

“I think we’ve got no alternative. We’ve got to stand up for ourselves.

“It may well be a long campaign; it could be we take action fairly quickly. But I believe our workers will come together to build that campaign and fight for a pay increase.”

Asked about the impact of strikes on the public, Mr Prentis said Unison did not “go around ringing the bell for industrial action” but he hoped the public would realise the “terrible situation” facing his members and support them.

Chancellor George Osborne committed the Government to continuing pay restraint in the public sector in last month’s Budget, saying it was an essential part of maintaining sound finances and economic stability.

Public sector pay has risen at below the rate of inflation since 2010, although it is still higher than the private sector average.

Comments (54)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

7:16pm Fri 4 Apr 14

laboursfoe says...

More like a coordinated attempt to get Labour back in by causing maximum disruption to the public and laying all of the blame at the Tories.

People will see through it, the unions really should credit the public to make their own minds up.
More like a coordinated attempt to get Labour back in by causing maximum disruption to the public and laying all of the blame at the Tories. People will see through it, the unions really should credit the public to make their own minds up. laboursfoe
  • Score: 3

4:36am Sat 5 Apr 14

bambara says...

People will indeed see through the Tory lies.
The ideological attacks on the poor under the pretence of cutting the deficit, while simultaneously cutting tax for the rich, and selling off assets cheap to their friends and donors.
People will indeed see through the Tory lies. The ideological attacks on the poor under the pretence of cutting the deficit, while simultaneously cutting tax for the rich, and selling off assets cheap to their friends and donors. bambara
  • Score: 3

7:15am Sat 5 Apr 14

laboursfoe says...

£150,000 may be 'rich' here in the north east but it isn't everywhere in he UK. There will be a large amount of people that benefited from the small cut to the tax rise that was shoehorned in during Labours last days that could never be called 'rich'.

The deficit is reducing, if people don't want to be affected by changes to state provided welfare then they should do something that reduces their reliance on the state. That then leaves more money for those that genuinely need help.

And while some shares in Royal Mail were sold to Hedge Funds and Private Investors, a good proportion were sold to Pension Funds and Royal Mail workers. Also the UK still has a 30% stake and that value has risen as a result of the sale.

The Gold however was a disaster and the sell off of UK Government buildings under lease back agreements was shocking.

Hindsight is wonderful thing, but stones and glass houses springs to mind!!!
£150,000 may be 'rich' here in the north east but it isn't everywhere in he UK. There will be a large amount of people that benefited from the small cut to the tax rise that was shoehorned in during Labours last days that could never be called 'rich'. The deficit is reducing, if people don't want to be affected by changes to state provided welfare then they should do something that reduces their reliance on the state. That then leaves more money for those that genuinely need help. And while some shares in Royal Mail were sold to Hedge Funds and Private Investors, a good proportion were sold to Pension Funds and Royal Mail workers. Also the UK still has a 30% stake and that value has risen as a result of the sale. The Gold however was a disaster and the sell off of UK Government buildings under lease back agreements was shocking. Hindsight is wonderful thing, but stones and glass houses springs to mind!!! laboursfoe
  • Score: 2

7:56am Sat 5 Apr 14

Jonn says...

laboursfoe wrote:
More like a coordinated attempt to get Labour back in by causing maximum disruption to the public and laying all of the blame at the Tories.

People will see through it, the unions really should credit the public to make their own minds up.
More like standing up against a Government who 'can't' do anything against their own 11% pay rise recommendation.
[quote][p][bold]laboursfoe[/bold] wrote: More like a coordinated attempt to get Labour back in by causing maximum disruption to the public and laying all of the blame at the Tories. People will see through it, the unions really should credit the public to make their own minds up.[/p][/quote]More like standing up against a Government who 'can't' do anything against their own 11% pay rise recommendation. Jonn
  • Score: 4

9:33am Sat 5 Apr 14

laboursfoe says...

Jonn wrote:
laboursfoe wrote:
More like a coordinated attempt to get Labour back in by causing maximum disruption to the public and laying all of the blame at the Tories.

People will see through it, the unions really should credit the public to make their own minds up.
More like standing up against a Government who 'can't' do anything against their own 11% pay rise recommendation.
I know what you mean Jonn, but it was the decision was independent of all parties.

Mind you the timing did stink, the body didn't give any consideration for public opinion.
[quote][p][bold]Jonn[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]laboursfoe[/bold] wrote: More like a coordinated attempt to get Labour back in by causing maximum disruption to the public and laying all of the blame at the Tories. People will see through it, the unions really should credit the public to make their own minds up.[/p][/quote]More like standing up against a Government who 'can't' do anything against their own 11% pay rise recommendation.[/p][/quote]I know what you mean Jonn, but it was the decision was independent of all parties. Mind you the timing did stink, the body didn't give any consideration for public opinion. laboursfoe
  • Score: 3

11:08am Sat 5 Apr 14

David Lacey says...

The fuss over Royal Mail is quite legitimate and the blame should be laid fairly and squarely at Vince Cable's door. But the "loss" pales into insignificance compared with Brown's sell off of our gold reserves that cost £9 billion. He had no need to sell the gold. He did it to bolster the welfare state - call it the benefit culture if you wish - and rake in votes as a result. He is as big a criminal as Bliar.
The fuss over Royal Mail is quite legitimate and the blame should be laid fairly and squarely at Vince Cable's door. But the "loss" pales into insignificance compared with Brown's sell off of our gold reserves that cost £9 billion. He had no need to sell the gold. He did it to bolster the welfare state - call it the benefit culture if you wish - and rake in votes as a result. He is as big a criminal as Bliar. David Lacey
  • Score: 7

1:28pm Sat 5 Apr 14

loan_star says...

Lots of postal workers and pension funds have benefited from the Royal Mail sell off. Gordon flogging the gold off cheaply cost everyone.
Lots of postal workers and pension funds have benefited from the Royal Mail sell off. Gordon flogging the gold off cheaply cost everyone. loan_star
  • Score: 4

2:43pm Sat 5 Apr 14

bambara says...

"£150,000 may be 'rich' here in the north east but it isn't everywhere in he UK"
The average income in the UK is roughly £25,000. So the £150k level is 6 times the average wage.
I would say 6 times the average wage countrywide is "rich" wherever you happen to live in the UK, or are you suggesting that this is the level of wage that we need to pay all the nurses, teachers and other key workers, if they happen to work in the Southeast? If so I'm sure they would be delighted by the 600% pay rise in place of the 1% that they have been given.
"£150,000 may be 'rich' here in the north east but it isn't everywhere in he UK" The average income in the UK is roughly £25,000. So the £150k level is 6 times the average wage. I would say 6 times the average wage countrywide is "rich" wherever you happen to live in the UK, or are you suggesting that this is the level of wage that we need to pay all the nurses, teachers and other key workers, if they happen to work in the Southeast? If so I'm sure they would be delighted by the 600% pay rise in place of the 1% that they have been given. bambara
  • Score: 3

2:47pm Sat 5 Apr 14

David Lacey says...

Please remember that the top 1% of wage earners pay 30% (and rising) of all income tax before you start asking them for more.
Please remember that the top 1% of wage earners pay 30% (and rising) of all income tax before you start asking them for more. David Lacey
  • Score: 0

2:53pm Sat 5 Apr 14

John Durham says...

Unless people believe that Cable went rogue and suddenly decided cabinet decision- making no longer applied to him I'm not sure how anyone can suggest that the Royal Mail sell-off wasn't anything but a money-making exercise for friends of the Tory party paid for by the British taxpayer.
Government advice from the banks was that the price had to be low to make the sale - all very well but then the problem arises when it turns out that those same bankers are then able to gain from the increase in the share price.
We all know how trustworthy bankers are of course so no doubt their advice was unbiased and had no element of self-interest.
Then you have hedge-fund companies like Lansdown - who's ex-boss give £500,000 to the Tory party - just before he got his knighthood. The same company has Osborne's best man on its board - it got preferential shares which it made a tidy profit on when it dumped them almost immediately.
The whole business stinks.
Meanwhile people who provide the services we need are paid a pittance, have had their pay frozen for years and are continually expected to pay the price of banker greed.
And some people still manage to defend this obvious inequity simply for political point-scoring. That's why governments can continue to treat us all like idiots. We should support Unison regardless of which political party we support because, just for once, right should prevail not dogma.
And by the way Unison represent the workers and lower paid in local government - not those at the top who are indeed over-paid.
Unless people believe that Cable went rogue and suddenly decided cabinet decision- making no longer applied to him I'm not sure how anyone can suggest that the Royal Mail sell-off wasn't anything but a money-making exercise for friends of the Tory party paid for by the British taxpayer. Government advice from the banks was that the price had to be low to make the sale - all very well but then the problem arises when it turns out that those same bankers are then able to gain from the increase in the share price. We all know how trustworthy bankers are of course so no doubt their advice was unbiased and had no element of self-interest. Then you have hedge-fund companies like Lansdown - who's ex-boss give £500,000 to the Tory party - just before he got his knighthood. The same company has Osborne's best man on its board - it got preferential shares which it made a tidy profit on when it dumped them almost immediately. The whole business stinks. Meanwhile people who provide the services we need are paid a pittance, have had their pay frozen for years and are continually expected to pay the price of banker greed. And some people still manage to defend this obvious inequity simply for political point-scoring. That's why governments can continue to treat us all like idiots. We should support Unison regardless of which political party we support because, just for once, right should prevail not dogma. And by the way Unison represent the workers and lower paid in local government - not those at the top who are indeed over-paid. John Durham
  • Score: 6

3:32pm Sat 5 Apr 14

laboursfoe says...

bambara wrote:
"£150,000 may be 'rich' here in the north east but it isn't everywhere in he UK"
The average income in the UK is roughly £25,000. So the £150k level is 6 times the average wage.
I would say 6 times the average wage countrywide is "rich" wherever you happen to live in the UK, or are you suggesting that this is the level of wage that we need to pay all the nurses, teachers and other key workers, if they happen to work in the Southeast? If so I'm sure they would be delighted by the 600% pay rise in place of the 1% that they have been given.
Forget it, I was trying to point out that it is all subjective. Your 'rich' is different to another persons 'rich', surely it must also depend on what someone's outgoings are too.
[quote][p][bold]bambara[/bold] wrote: "£150,000 may be 'rich' here in the north east but it isn't everywhere in he UK" The average income in the UK is roughly £25,000. So the £150k level is 6 times the average wage. I would say 6 times the average wage countrywide is "rich" wherever you happen to live in the UK, or are you suggesting that this is the level of wage that we need to pay all the nurses, teachers and other key workers, if they happen to work in the Southeast? If so I'm sure they would be delighted by the 600% pay rise in place of the 1% that they have been given.[/p][/quote]Forget it, I was trying to point out that it is all subjective. Your 'rich' is different to another persons 'rich', surely it must also depend on what someone's outgoings are too. laboursfoe
  • Score: 0

3:37pm Sat 5 Apr 14

David Lacey says...

Mr D - if you believe that Cable would agree to ANYTHING that could benefit the Tories or their supporters then my dear chap you have completely lost the plot. He hates them, being a closet Labour man - like you.
Mr D - if you believe that Cable would agree to ANYTHING that could benefit the Tories or their supporters then my dear chap you have completely lost the plot. He hates them, being a closet Labour man - like you. David Lacey
  • Score: -8

3:56pm Sat 5 Apr 14

cushybutterfield says...

The *****left wing Daily Shirkers are at it again clobbering and PREVENTING real decent working class people with their warped political strikes,, trying to get to work to EARN an honest living. All this lot think about is ****Stone-Age Dinosaur pathetic ****Strikes and 'Go Slows' (God can some not go any slower ?). Commuters who pay THOUSANDS for Annual Railway Tickets and Families left in the recent Winters Freezing cold in London because of oppressive pathetic strikes. Nigel FARRAGE take note of more dinosaur strikes, we all know who to Vote for Nigel next time around..
The *****left wing Daily Shirkers are at it again clobbering and PREVENTING real decent working class people with their warped political strikes,, trying to get to work to EARN an honest living. All this lot think about is ****Stone-Age Dinosaur pathetic ****Strikes and 'Go Slows' (God can some not go any slower ?). Commuters who pay THOUSANDS for Annual Railway Tickets and Families left in the recent Winters Freezing cold in London because of oppressive pathetic strikes. Nigel FARRAGE take note of more dinosaur strikes, we all know who to Vote for Nigel next time around.. cushybutterfield
  • Score: -6

4:45pm Sat 5 Apr 14

Graeme_r says...

David Lacey wrote:
Please remember that the top 1% of wage earners pay 30% (and rising) of all income tax before you start asking them for more.
A figure which arises because many people are on zero hours or part time contracts. Give me a 150k p.a. job and I,ll gladly pay income tax at 50%.
[quote][p][bold]David Lacey[/bold] wrote: Please remember that the top 1% of wage earners pay 30% (and rising) of all income tax before you start asking them for more.[/p][/quote]A figure which arises because many people are on zero hours or part time contracts. Give me a 150k p.a. job and I,ll gladly pay income tax at 50%. Graeme_r
  • Score: 1

5:21pm Sat 5 Apr 14

David Lacey says...

Go out and get one through hard work and skills that an employer is willing to pay for. If you can't succeed why penalise someone who can?
Go out and get one through hard work and skills that an employer is willing to pay for. If you can't succeed why penalise someone who can? David Lacey
  • Score: -1

5:52pm Sat 5 Apr 14

spottycow says...

UNION BOSSES ARE A LOAD OF T W ... T S
UNION BOSSES ARE A LOAD OF T W ... T S spottycow
  • Score: 0

7:42pm Sat 5 Apr 14

bambara says...

"Please remember that the top 1% of wage earners pay 30% (and rising) of all income tax before you start asking them for more."
Demonstrating very well the increasing gulf between the haves, and the have nots, which cuts to taxes for high earners does nothing to help resolve.

"Go out and get one through hard work and skills that an employer is willing to pay for. If you can't succeed why penalise someone who can?
- I'm working on it, may get there with a couple more promotions. I may not, but you know what. I will happily pay tax at 50% on the income above £150k, just as I had no problem with the rise in tax level when I reached the 40% point some years ago.
I know that I am well off, and I know that my disposable income is far beyond what most people have. I look around me and I see where I came from, and I see people in dire poverty through no fault of their own.
Problem is that for some people, the more they have, the more they want, & worse the more they believe they are entitled to it.
Fact is, the more you have, the bigger your stake in the status quo, and the more you should be expected to pay to protect the society that has enabled your success.(If society falls, you have further to fall than anyone.)
But more than that, the more you have, the greater moral responsibility you have to protect the weak and defenceless. Those who abrogate that responsibility show themselves to be sociopaths. (As in the definition "one who lacks a sense of moral responsibility or social conscience.")
From that I argue that through their constant attacks on the poor, the disabled, the weak and the helpless. By their constant demonising of those on benefits, and attacks on the disabled. The Tory party shows itself to have no social conscience and has defined itself as a party of Sociopaths.
"Please remember that the top 1% of wage earners pay 30% (and rising) of all income tax before you start asking them for more." Demonstrating very well the increasing gulf between the haves, and the have nots, which cuts to taxes for high earners does nothing to help resolve. "Go out and get one through hard work and skills that an employer is willing to pay for. If you can't succeed why penalise someone who can? - I'm working on it, may get there with a couple more promotions. I may not, but you know what. I will happily pay tax at 50% on the income above £150k, just as I had no problem with the rise in tax level when I reached the 40% point some years ago. I know that I am well off, and I know that my disposable income is far beyond what most people have. I look around me and I see where I came from, and I see people in dire poverty through no fault of their own. Problem is that for some people, the more they have, the more they want, & worse the more they believe they are entitled to it. Fact is, the more you have, the bigger your stake in the status quo, and the more you should be expected to pay to protect the society that has enabled your success.(If society falls, you have further to fall than anyone.) But more than that, the more you have, the greater moral responsibility you have to protect the weak and defenceless. Those who abrogate that responsibility show themselves to be sociopaths. (As in the definition "one who lacks a sense of moral responsibility or social conscience.") From that I argue that through their constant attacks on the poor, the disabled, the weak and the helpless. By their constant demonising of those on benefits, and attacks on the disabled. The Tory party shows itself to have no social conscience and has defined itself as a party of Sociopaths. bambara
  • Score: 6

8:01pm Sat 5 Apr 14

cushybutterfield says...

Many of the poor, working class (WORKING and EARNING) 'families and disabled' and the' weak' were LEFT stranded throughout 'London and on the London Underground' during bitter winter conditions recently and NOT caused by so called 'uncaring Tories' but by a pathetic 'left wing orientated 'stone-age Unions' totally irresponsible unnecessary Rail Strike. Many of the real working class (WORKING) people effected are *up ready commute' to and in London at 5.OO and before unlike the north east up, about 8..... if that. Of course this does not include many long term north east 'bone idle free 'A to Z' benefit nanny, nappy state receiving workshy,some of whom do probably not get out of bed until 'mid-afternoon', always backed and supported by 'left wing and political daily shirker *Marxist punters. People WANT REGULAR WORK AND NOT POLITICAL POINT-SCORING STRIKES.
Many of the poor, working class (WORKING and EARNING) 'families and disabled' and the' weak' were LEFT stranded throughout 'London and on the London Underground' during bitter winter conditions recently and NOT caused by so called 'uncaring Tories' but by a pathetic 'left wing orientated 'stone-age Unions' totally irresponsible unnecessary Rail Strike. Many of the real working class (WORKING) people effected are *up ready commute' to and in London at 5.OO and before unlike the north east up, about 8..... if that. Of course this does not include many long term north east 'bone idle free 'A to Z' benefit nanny, nappy state receiving workshy,some of whom do probably not get out of bed until 'mid-afternoon', always backed and supported by 'left wing and political daily shirker *Marxist punters. People WANT REGULAR WORK AND NOT POLITICAL POINT-SCORING STRIKES. cushybutterfield
  • Score: -6

9:21pm Sat 5 Apr 14

bambara says...

People want regular work, A FAIR LEVEL OF PAY, & SAFE WORKING ENVIRONMENTS .
Unfortunately they have very limited power to negotiate that from bosses who are only too happy to award themselves massive pay rises.

As a worker virtually the only negotiating card available is the threat or imposition of a strike. Without that option those in power can and will walk all over you.
It is only through the efforts of unions and the vast majority of working people have gained the rights and privilidges that they have today. Those rights and privildges have not been easily won, and have not been willingly given.

This is not as you call it political point scoring, this is drawing a line and saying, you can push us so far, but push too far and there will be a cost to you as well as to us.

Unfortunate for those impacted by the strike, but they should ask why the management provoked it every bit as much as why the workers took the action.
(And be clear every strike requires a vote of the entire membership, and that vote must result in a majority in favour of the strike, or the strike can not happen.
Every worker who decides to strike will lose a days pay (for each day on strike) as a result of that action.
A strike is a democratic choice by the workers not to let the managers walk all over them, and to fight for theeir rights using the only option available to them )
Every person impacted by the strike knew ahead of the day that it was going to happen.

And respect to those who commute to London every day, who leave home at 5am and get home at 8pm, just so the managers who they work for and who can afford to live in London, don't have to move the company out of central London, and can be close to their exclusive clubs and the exclusive entertainments.
On balance perhaps they should be forming a Union to fight for their rights and ensure that the work they have to commute in to London for actually pays enough to allow them to live in London?
People want regular work, A FAIR LEVEL OF PAY, & SAFE WORKING ENVIRONMENTS . Unfortunately they have very limited power to negotiate that from bosses who are only too happy to award themselves massive pay rises. As a worker virtually the only negotiating card available is the threat or imposition of a strike. Without that option those in power can and will walk all over you. It is only through the efforts of unions and the vast majority of working people have gained the rights and privilidges that they have today. Those rights and privildges have not been easily won, and have not been willingly given. This is not as you call it political point scoring, this is drawing a line and saying, you can push us so far, but push too far and there will be a cost to you as well as to us. Unfortunate for those impacted by the strike, but they should ask why the management provoked it every bit as much as why the workers took the action. (And be clear every strike requires a vote of the entire membership, and that vote must result in a majority in favour of the strike, or the strike can not happen. Every worker who decides to strike will lose a days pay (for each day on strike) as a result of that action. A strike is a democratic choice by the workers not to let the managers walk all over them, and to fight for theeir rights using the only option available to them ) Every person impacted by the strike knew ahead of the day that it was going to happen. And respect to those who commute to London every day, who leave home at 5am and get home at 8pm, just so the managers who they work for and who can afford to live in London, don't have to move the company out of central London, and can be close to their exclusive clubs and the exclusive entertainments. On balance perhaps they should be forming a Union to fight for their rights and ensure that the work they have to commute in to London for actually pays enough to allow them to live in London? bambara
  • Score: 6

10:42am Sun 6 Apr 14

John Durham says...

David Lacey wrote:
The fuss over Royal Mail is quite legitimate and the blame should be laid fairly and squarely at Vince Cable's door. But the "loss" pales into insignificance compared with Brown's sell off of our gold reserves that cost £9 billion. He had no need to sell the gold. He did it to bolster the welfare state - call it the benefit culture if you wish - and rake in votes as a result. He is as big a criminal as Bliar.
You clearly do not have a clue how government operates either in relation to cabinet collective responsibility and decision-making or in terms of how politicians and officials interact.
You are also entirely wrong about Brown's motives for selling off gold so cheaply and how that operation came about.
Lets imagine a scenario in which a Treasury committee meeting is being chaired by Brown who suddenly loses the plot and decides 'lets sell all the gold'. All the senior Treasury officials and advisers nod their heads and go along with that do they?
The official line for selling gold at the time was due to the volatility of its price. The government sold gold to buy up foreign securities and Euros which were steadier and growing in value. This is quite logical but it hid the actual truth.
The real reason was hidden and only became clear afterwards. It was to protect the banks from a crisis. Bailing out two major banks which had fore-shortened on their gold reserves. The Treasury was forced to either bail them out or face the possibility of a banking crash.
That is the reason the Treasury pre-announced the sale - to force the price of gold down in order to help the banks buy up the gold reserves they needed to be able to honour their debt.
The reason this was kept hidden at the time of course is because if the true motives for the government actions had been known then it probably would have led to the very thing it was aimed at avoiding. A banking crash.
It also shows how governments here and abroad have for decades been held to ransom by the actions of bankers and the knowledge that governments here and in the US considered them too important to let fail. Leading in the end to the eventual calamity of 2008.
Of course, this experience should have made Brown realise that structural changes to the banking sector were needed and in that he could be held accountable. But its a brave politician that swims against the power of the financial sector of both the UK and the US.
By the way if you believe that politicians really do know the subject matter of the departments they are responsible for you might like to look at the background and career of George Osborne and tell me what financial or accountancy knowledge he was taught or experienced. Studied Modern History and worked as a researcher for the Tory Party. Never had a proper job outside the party having inherited from his father.
That should make interesting study for a closet - no, real Tory like yourself.
[quote][p][bold]David Lacey[/bold] wrote: The fuss over Royal Mail is quite legitimate and the blame should be laid fairly and squarely at Vince Cable's door. But the "loss" pales into insignificance compared with Brown's sell off of our gold reserves that cost £9 billion. He had no need to sell the gold. He did it to bolster the welfare state - call it the benefit culture if you wish - and rake in votes as a result. He is as big a criminal as Bliar.[/p][/quote]You clearly do not have a clue how government operates either in relation to cabinet collective responsibility and decision-making or in terms of how politicians and officials interact. You are also entirely wrong about Brown's motives for selling off gold so cheaply and how that operation came about. Lets imagine a scenario in which a Treasury committee meeting is being chaired by Brown who suddenly loses the plot and decides 'lets sell all the gold'. All the senior Treasury officials and advisers nod their heads and go along with that do they? The official line for selling gold at the time was due to the volatility of its price. The government sold gold to buy up foreign securities and Euros which were steadier and growing in value. This is quite logical but it hid the actual truth. The real reason was hidden and only became clear afterwards. It was to protect the banks from a crisis. Bailing out two major banks which had fore-shortened on their gold reserves. The Treasury was forced to either bail them out or face the possibility of a banking crash. That is the reason the Treasury pre-announced the sale - to force the price of gold down in order to help the banks buy up the gold reserves they needed to be able to honour their debt. The reason this was kept hidden at the time of course is because if the true motives for the government actions had been known then it probably would have led to the very thing it was aimed at avoiding. A banking crash. It also shows how governments here and abroad have for decades been held to ransom by the actions of bankers and the knowledge that governments here and in the US considered them too important to let fail. Leading in the end to the eventual calamity of 2008. Of course, this experience should have made Brown realise that structural changes to the banking sector were needed and in that he could be held accountable. But its a brave politician that swims against the power of the financial sector of both the UK and the US. By the way if you believe that politicians really do know the subject matter of the departments they are responsible for you might like to look at the background and career of George Osborne and tell me what financial or accountancy knowledge he was taught or experienced. Studied Modern History and worked as a researcher for the Tory Party. Never had a proper job outside the party having inherited from his father. That should make interesting study for a closet - no, real Tory like yourself. John Durham
  • Score: 7

11:56am Sun 6 Apr 14

David Lacey says...

I've read that explanation. It came from the same people who wrote the dodgy dossier and took us into an illegal war costing the lives of tens of thousand people. I don't buy a single word of the twisted story.
.
You are just an apologist for the Labour gangsters who destroyed the economy, our NHS, schools and allowed millions of immigrants to flood in.
I've read that explanation. It came from the same people who wrote the dodgy dossier and took us into an illegal war costing the lives of tens of thousand people. I don't buy a single word of the twisted story. . You are just an apologist for the Labour gangsters who destroyed the economy, our NHS, schools and allowed millions of immigrants to flood in. David Lacey
  • Score: -3

2:05pm Sun 6 Apr 14

John Durham says...

David Lacey wrote:
I've read that explanation. It came from the same people who wrote the dodgy dossier and took us into an illegal war costing the lives of tens of thousand people. I don't buy a single word of the twisted story.
.
You are just an apologist for the Labour gangsters who destroyed the economy, our NHS, schools and allowed millions of immigrants to flood in.
It was reported in both the FT and the Telegraph - hardly Labour supporting papers.
[quote][p][bold]David Lacey[/bold] wrote: I've read that explanation. It came from the same people who wrote the dodgy dossier and took us into an illegal war costing the lives of tens of thousand people. I don't buy a single word of the twisted story. . You are just an apologist for the Labour gangsters who destroyed the economy, our NHS, schools and allowed millions of immigrants to flood in.[/p][/quote]It was reported in both the FT and the Telegraph - hardly Labour supporting papers. John Durham
  • Score: 4

3:53pm Sun 6 Apr 14

cushybutterfield says...

Nigel FARRAGE for Prime Minister, the quicker the better and we can all have our *hijacked Country back from Europe and the new enemies within Britain..
Nigel FARRAGE for Prime Minister, the quicker the better and we can all have our *hijacked Country back from Europe and the new enemies within Britain.. cushybutterfield
  • Score: -6

4:03pm Sun 6 Apr 14

cushybutterfield says...

I want to be able to travel by Public Transport to my place of WORK and EARN money and NOT be faced with pathetic STRIKES and 'Go Slows' (God can some 'go any slower ?), 'day after day and week after week', like they had to endure in London and elsewhere, like the shocking Union 'Grangemouth' strike that nearly finished off by the *skin of its teeth, yet another British Industry and putting thousands of decent working class (WORKING) people on the ***dole-scrapheap with the complete CLOSURE of the plant and affecting numerous other 'feeder industries who DID NOT WANT TO STRIKE The left wing (Grangemouth mockery apparently triggered by ONE UNION member being suspended, clobbering decent working class (WORKING) people who DO NOT want to Strike..
I want to be able to travel by Public Transport to my place of WORK and EARN money and NOT be faced with pathetic STRIKES and 'Go Slows' (God can some 'go any slower ?), 'day after day and week after week', like they had to endure in London and elsewhere, like the shocking Union 'Grangemouth' strike that nearly finished off by the *skin of its teeth, yet another British Industry and putting thousands of decent working class (WORKING) people on the ***dole-scrapheap with the complete CLOSURE of the plant and affecting numerous other 'feeder industries who DID NOT WANT TO STRIKE The left wing (Grangemouth mockery apparently triggered by ONE UNION member being suspended, clobbering decent working class (WORKING) people who DO NOT want to Strike.. cushybutterfield
  • Score: -8

4:12pm Sun 6 Apr 14

cushybutterfield says...

The ***ANTI STRIKE answer, Nigel FARRAGE for Prime Minister who will also get Britain, our oppressed 'Hi-Jacked-begging-k
owtowing European Union' 'brainwashed politically correct country BACK and deal with the 'new subversive enemies' within, political trade union or otherwise..
The ***ANTI STRIKE answer, Nigel FARRAGE for Prime Minister who will also get Britain, our oppressed 'Hi-Jacked-begging-k owtowing European Union' 'brainwashed politically correct country BACK and deal with the 'new subversive enemies' within, political trade union or otherwise.. cushybutterfield
  • Score: -7

4:15pm Sun 6 Apr 14

John Durham says...

cushybutterfield wrote:
The ***ANTI STRIKE answer, Nigel FARRAGE for Prime Minister who will also get Britain, our oppressed 'Hi-Jacked-begging-k

owtowing European Union' 'brainwashed politically correct country BACK and deal with the 'new subversive enemies' within, political trade union or otherwise..
Brilliant Cushy - you are doing wonders for the UKIP cause - keep it up!
[quote][p][bold]cushybutterfield[/bold] wrote: The ***ANTI STRIKE answer, Nigel FARRAGE for Prime Minister who will also get Britain, our oppressed 'Hi-Jacked-begging-k owtowing European Union' 'brainwashed politically correct country BACK and deal with the 'new subversive enemies' within, political trade union or otherwise..[/p][/quote]Brilliant Cushy - you are doing wonders for the UKIP cause - keep it up! John Durham
  • Score: 1

6:23pm Sun 6 Apr 14

David Lacey says...

He doesn't have to try too hard when Europhiles have Clegg.
He doesn't have to try too hard when Europhiles have Clegg. David Lacey
  • Score: -1

8:29am Mon 7 Apr 14

MartinMo says...

Public services should not (like the military) be able to strike. Compared to private sector employment these public servants have niothing to moan about in regards to salaries, I went from a public service job to my current employment in the private and I am worse off by £10k a year.

I don't think the military should stand in when they do carry out strike action and the blame then for any lifes lost during such action action can be put solely on the strikers.

Regardless of level of income, how can any one not be better off through tax cuts, with the exception of those claiming benefits. Its about time we had a government which puts more money back into the pockets of those willing to earn their living, I am tired of struggling to make ends meet whilst the nations freeloaders are molly cuddlede through life.

"Tax cuts benefit everyone except those on benefits, I can live with that, I have worked my whole life and feel it's about time the nation gave something back to me."
Public services should not (like the military) be able to strike. Compared to private sector employment these public servants have niothing to moan about in regards to salaries, I went from a public service job to my current employment in the private and I am worse off by £10k a year. I don't think the military should stand in when they do carry out strike action and the blame then for any lifes lost during such action action can be put solely on the strikers. Regardless of level of income, how can any one not be better off through tax cuts, with the exception of those claiming benefits. Its about time we had a government which puts more money back into the pockets of those willing to earn their living, I am tired of struggling to make ends meet whilst the nations freeloaders are molly cuddlede through life. "Tax cuts benefit everyone except those on benefits, I can live with that, I have worked my whole life and feel it's about time the nation gave something back to me." MartinMo
  • Score: -1

10:10am Mon 7 Apr 14

cushybutterfield says...

David LACEY. **Fair and honest intelligent comment. In the recent debate with Nigel FARRAGE. **** CLEGGS education must have been sadly lacking in certain areas, his knowledge of OUR WORLDWIDE proud BRITISH EMPIRE appears pathetically minimal and any greater knowledge of the our sacred BRITISH COMMONWEALTH of 47, Present and potential WORLDWIDE TRADING NATIONS appears virtually *****non-existent. It certainly begs the question, could CLEGG point out ? for example CANADA and our sacred British Falkland Islands on a world map. CLEGG the pro- corrupt arrogant European Parliament 'Anti-British and Anti decent working class, WORKING,...... British poddle-dog. As much use to the British people as a ***politically correct nonsense' chocolate-fireguard.
David LACEY. **Fair and honest intelligent comment. In the recent debate with Nigel FARRAGE. **** CLEGGS education must have been sadly lacking in certain areas, his knowledge of OUR WORLDWIDE proud BRITISH EMPIRE appears pathetically minimal and any greater knowledge of the our sacred BRITISH COMMONWEALTH of 47, Present and potential WORLDWIDE TRADING NATIONS appears virtually *****non-existent. It certainly begs the question, could CLEGG point out ? for example CANADA and our sacred British Falkland Islands on a world map. CLEGG the pro- corrupt arrogant European Parliament 'Anti-British and Anti decent working class, WORKING,...... British poddle-dog. As much use to the British people as a ***politically correct nonsense' chocolate-fireguard. cushybutterfield
  • Score: -5

10:29am Mon 7 Apr 14

bambara says...

Some interesting numbers for everyone to consider...
Tax contribution figures:

the top 10% of earners contribute 55.3%
the top 50% of earners contribute 89.2%
the bottom 50% contribute 10.8%
the bottom 10% contribute 0.5%

Sounds like the rich pay a lot of tax doesn't it, until you understand the distribution of wealth.

Top 10% have assets of 850 times the value of the assets of the bottom 50%
Per person the ordinary hard working person has less than 1/8th of a percent of the wealth of the top 10%

Now there are 5 x as many in the bottom 50% compared to the top 10% (50% to 10%) so in total the top 10% owns 850/5 = 170 x as much of the country as the combined total owned by everyone in the bottom 50% added together.

I will repeat that because it is a startling fact. The bottom 50% own approximately 0.6% of the assets that the top 10% have!

Yet the top 10% pay only 5 x as much tax.
On a share of the ownership of UK PLC per £1 of assets the poor average sod is paying 34 x as much tax.

So UK PLC is broken, there is a bill to fix it, and dividing up that bill by the amount that they own,the average person is being asked to pay 34 times as much as the rich.

Anyone still think the rich are overburdened with taxes?
Some interesting numbers for everyone to consider... Tax contribution figures: the top 10% of earners contribute 55.3% the top 50% of earners contribute 89.2% the bottom 50% contribute 10.8% the bottom 10% contribute 0.5% Sounds like the rich pay a lot of tax doesn't it, until you understand the distribution of wealth. Top 10% have assets of 850 times the value of the assets of the bottom 50% Per person the ordinary hard working person has less than 1/8th of a percent of the wealth of the top 10% Now there are 5 x as many in the bottom 50% compared to the top 10% (50% to 10%) so in total the top 10% owns 850/5 = 170 x as much of the country as the combined total owned by everyone in the bottom 50% added together. I will repeat that because it is a startling fact. The bottom 50% own approximately 0.6% of the assets that the top 10% have! Yet the top 10% pay only 5 x as much tax. On a share of the ownership of UK PLC per £1 of assets the poor average sod is paying 34 x as much tax. So UK PLC is broken, there is a bill to fix it, and dividing up that bill by the amount that they own,the average person is being asked to pay 34 times as much as the rich. Anyone still think the rich are overburdened with taxes? bambara
  • Score: 1

12:05pm Mon 7 Apr 14

laboursfoe says...

bambara wrote:
Some interesting numbers for everyone to consider...
Tax contribution figures:

the top 10% of earners contribute 55.3%
the top 50% of earners contribute 89.2%
the bottom 50% contribute 10.8%
the bottom 10% contribute 0.5%

Sounds like the rich pay a lot of tax doesn't it, until you understand the distribution of wealth.

Top 10% have assets of 850 times the value of the assets of the bottom 50%
Per person the ordinary hard working person has less than 1/8th of a percent of the wealth of the top 10%

Now there are 5 x as many in the bottom 50% compared to the top 10% (50% to 10%) so in total the top 10% owns 850/5 = 170 x as much of the country as the combined total owned by everyone in the bottom 50% added together.

I will repeat that because it is a startling fact. The bottom 50% own approximately 0.6% of the assets that the top 10% have!

Yet the top 10% pay only 5 x as much tax.
On a share of the ownership of UK PLC per £1 of assets the poor average sod is paying 34 x as much tax.

So UK PLC is broken, there is a bill to fix it, and dividing up that bill by the amount that they own,the average person is being asked to pay 34 times as much as the rich.

Anyone still think the rich are overburdened with taxes?
That is very interesting.

But the UK Tax system is not based on wealth/ownership it is largely based on income and capital gains. There are other taxes that you don't factor also that affect the rich but are very unlikely to hit the poor.

Capital Gains Tax
Stamp Duty (higher rate)
Inheritance Tax

Based on income alone a person on a £13,500 salary now pays £700 income tax and £665 NI a year. Someone earning £135,000 now pays £47,627 Income tax and £5931 NI a year. The higher earner pays a fair amount, roughly 39 times the amount of the lower earner.

The real issue is, why tax the lower earner in the first place when they will almost certainly receive benefits at a higher amount than they paid in tax??
[quote][p][bold]bambara[/bold] wrote: Some interesting numbers for everyone to consider... Tax contribution figures: the top 10% of earners contribute 55.3% the top 50% of earners contribute 89.2% the bottom 50% contribute 10.8% the bottom 10% contribute 0.5% Sounds like the rich pay a lot of tax doesn't it, until you understand the distribution of wealth. Top 10% have assets of 850 times the value of the assets of the bottom 50% Per person the ordinary hard working person has less than 1/8th of a percent of the wealth of the top 10% Now there are 5 x as many in the bottom 50% compared to the top 10% (50% to 10%) so in total the top 10% owns 850/5 = 170 x as much of the country as the combined total owned by everyone in the bottom 50% added together. I will repeat that because it is a startling fact. The bottom 50% own approximately 0.6% of the assets that the top 10% have! Yet the top 10% pay only 5 x as much tax. On a share of the ownership of UK PLC per £1 of assets the poor average sod is paying 34 x as much tax. So UK PLC is broken, there is a bill to fix it, and dividing up that bill by the amount that they own,the average person is being asked to pay 34 times as much as the rich. Anyone still think the rich are overburdened with taxes?[/p][/quote]That is very interesting. But the UK Tax system is not based on wealth/ownership it is largely based on income and capital gains. There are other taxes that you don't factor also that affect the rich but are very unlikely to hit the poor. Capital Gains Tax Stamp Duty (higher rate) Inheritance Tax Based on income alone a person on a £13,500 salary now pays £700 income tax and £665 NI a year. Someone earning £135,000 now pays £47,627 Income tax and £5931 NI a year. The higher earner pays a fair amount, roughly 39 times the amount of the lower earner. The real issue is, why tax the lower earner in the first place when they will almost certainly receive benefits at a higher amount than they paid in tax?? laboursfoe
  • Score: 1

12:25pm Mon 7 Apr 14

David Lacey says...

You have put the matter into proper perspective there Laboursfoe. The answer is simple - it was Gordon Brown's way to lock the lower paid into a benefits culture and secure their votes. We need to have massive tax cuts all round with the focus at the bottom end. We need to have "benefits" eliminated as far as possible. We need to protect the vulnerable, sick and genuinely unemployed.
.
The line taken by bambara above is farcical. If this person won the eurolottery and suddenly became ultra rich, his/her line of thinking would have the prize stolen. Very silly.
You have put the matter into proper perspective there Laboursfoe. The answer is simple - it was Gordon Brown's way to lock the lower paid into a benefits culture and secure their votes. We need to have massive tax cuts all round with the focus at the bottom end. We need to have "benefits" eliminated as far as possible. We need to protect the vulnerable, sick and genuinely unemployed. . The line taken by bambara above is farcical. If this person won the eurolottery and suddenly became ultra rich, his/her line of thinking would have the prize stolen. Very silly. David Lacey
  • Score: -5

1:44pm Mon 7 Apr 14

John Durham says...

laboursfoe wrote:
bambara wrote:
Some interesting numbers for everyone to consider...
Tax contribution figures:

the top 10% of earners contribute 55.3%
the top 50% of earners contribute 89.2%
the bottom 50% contribute 10.8%
the bottom 10% contribute 0.5%

Sounds like the rich pay a lot of tax doesn't it, until you understand the distribution of wealth.

Top 10% have assets of 850 times the value of the assets of the bottom 50%
Per person the ordinary hard working person has less than 1/8th of a percent of the wealth of the top 10%

Now there are 5 x as many in the bottom 50% compared to the top 10% (50% to 10%) so in total the top 10% owns 850/5 = 170 x as much of the country as the combined total owned by everyone in the bottom 50% added together.

I will repeat that because it is a startling fact. The bottom 50% own approximately 0.6% of the assets that the top 10% have!

Yet the top 10% pay only 5 x as much tax.
On a share of the ownership of UK PLC per £1 of assets the poor average sod is paying 34 x as much tax.

So UK PLC is broken, there is a bill to fix it, and dividing up that bill by the amount that they own,the average person is being asked to pay 34 times as much as the rich.

Anyone still think the rich are overburdened with taxes?
That is very interesting.

But the UK Tax system is not based on wealth/ownership it is largely based on income and capital gains. There are other taxes that you don't factor also that affect the rich but are very unlikely to hit the poor.

Capital Gains Tax
Stamp Duty (higher rate)
Inheritance Tax

Based on income alone a person on a £13,500 salary now pays £700 income tax and £665 NI a year. Someone earning £135,000 now pays £47,627 Income tax and £5931 NI a year. The higher earner pays a fair amount, roughly 39 times the amount of the lower earner.

The real issue is, why tax the lower earner in the first place when they will almost certainly receive benefits at a higher amount than they paid in tax??
Nicely omitting the effect of VAT which has a more significant impact on the disposable income of the lower paid than the wealthy.
Once again though we have people who seem to want to defend the rich who earn disproportionately higher salaries than they are worth and punish the low paid or those without jobs.
Whilst bankers get their massive bonuses to spend on the latest flash car the average taxpayer is using his or her savings to pay their bills for power, food and rent or mortgage.
But some on here would rather ignore that and bleat on about the poor (a laugh) millionaires in society who supposedly pay more tax than they should - yeh, right - if you believe that you'll believe anything. If you can afford an accountant you will not be paying the tax your income demands that's for sure.
For four years now certain parts of our working population have had their pay frozen - which obviously means efectively reduced. They are not bankers or financial whizzkids whose greed caused the problems we have in the first place but the nurses, fireman, bin-men, adult or children's care workers we need.
Priorities all wrong folks - stop bleating on about the share of tax paid by the top 1% of earners - they can look after themselves - and do!
[quote][p][bold]laboursfoe[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bambara[/bold] wrote: Some interesting numbers for everyone to consider... Tax contribution figures: the top 10% of earners contribute 55.3% the top 50% of earners contribute 89.2% the bottom 50% contribute 10.8% the bottom 10% contribute 0.5% Sounds like the rich pay a lot of tax doesn't it, until you understand the distribution of wealth. Top 10% have assets of 850 times the value of the assets of the bottom 50% Per person the ordinary hard working person has less than 1/8th of a percent of the wealth of the top 10% Now there are 5 x as many in the bottom 50% compared to the top 10% (50% to 10%) so in total the top 10% owns 850/5 = 170 x as much of the country as the combined total owned by everyone in the bottom 50% added together. I will repeat that because it is a startling fact. The bottom 50% own approximately 0.6% of the assets that the top 10% have! Yet the top 10% pay only 5 x as much tax. On a share of the ownership of UK PLC per £1 of assets the poor average sod is paying 34 x as much tax. So UK PLC is broken, there is a bill to fix it, and dividing up that bill by the amount that they own,the average person is being asked to pay 34 times as much as the rich. Anyone still think the rich are overburdened with taxes?[/p][/quote]That is very interesting. But the UK Tax system is not based on wealth/ownership it is largely based on income and capital gains. There are other taxes that you don't factor also that affect the rich but are very unlikely to hit the poor. Capital Gains Tax Stamp Duty (higher rate) Inheritance Tax Based on income alone a person on a £13,500 salary now pays £700 income tax and £665 NI a year. Someone earning £135,000 now pays £47,627 Income tax and £5931 NI a year. The higher earner pays a fair amount, roughly 39 times the amount of the lower earner. The real issue is, why tax the lower earner in the first place when they will almost certainly receive benefits at a higher amount than they paid in tax??[/p][/quote]Nicely omitting the effect of VAT which has a more significant impact on the disposable income of the lower paid than the wealthy. Once again though we have people who seem to want to defend the rich who earn disproportionately higher salaries than they are worth and punish the low paid or those without jobs. Whilst bankers get their massive bonuses to spend on the latest flash car the average taxpayer is using his or her savings to pay their bills for power, food and rent or mortgage. But some on here would rather ignore that and bleat on about the poor (a laugh) millionaires in society who supposedly pay more tax than they should - yeh, right - if you believe that you'll believe anything. If you can afford an accountant you will not be paying the tax your income demands that's for sure. For four years now certain parts of our working population have had their pay frozen - which obviously means efectively reduced. They are not bankers or financial whizzkids whose greed caused the problems we have in the first place but the nurses, fireman, bin-men, adult or children's care workers we need. Priorities all wrong folks - stop bleating on about the share of tax paid by the top 1% of earners - they can look after themselves - and do! John Durham
  • Score: 2

2:23pm Mon 7 Apr 14

laboursfoe says...

John Durham wrote:
laboursfoe wrote:
bambara wrote:
Some interesting numbers for everyone to consider...
Tax contribution figures:

the top 10% of earners contribute 55.3%
the top 50% of earners contribute 89.2%
the bottom 50% contribute 10.8%
the bottom 10% contribute 0.5%

Sounds like the rich pay a lot of tax doesn't it, until you understand the distribution of wealth.

Top 10% have assets of 850 times the value of the assets of the bottom 50%
Per person the ordinary hard working person has less than 1/8th of a percent of the wealth of the top 10%

Now there are 5 x as many in the bottom 50% compared to the top 10% (50% to 10%) so in total the top 10% owns 850/5 = 170 x as much of the country as the combined total owned by everyone in the bottom 50% added together.

I will repeat that because it is a startling fact. The bottom 50% own approximately 0.6% of the assets that the top 10% have!

Yet the top 10% pay only 5 x as much tax.
On a share of the ownership of UK PLC per £1 of assets the poor average sod is paying 34 x as much tax.

So UK PLC is broken, there is a bill to fix it, and dividing up that bill by the amount that they own,the average person is being asked to pay 34 times as much as the rich.

Anyone still think the rich are overburdened with taxes?
That is very interesting.

But the UK Tax system is not based on wealth/ownership it is largely based on income and capital gains. There are other taxes that you don't factor also that affect the rich but are very unlikely to hit the poor.

Capital Gains Tax
Stamp Duty (higher rate)
Inheritance Tax

Based on income alone a person on a £13,500 salary now pays £700 income tax and £665 NI a year. Someone earning £135,000 now pays £47,627 Income tax and £5931 NI a year. The higher earner pays a fair amount, roughly 39 times the amount of the lower earner.

The real issue is, why tax the lower earner in the first place when they will almost certainly receive benefits at a higher amount than they paid in tax??
Nicely omitting the effect of VAT which has a more significant impact on the disposable income of the lower paid than the wealthy.
Once again though we have people who seem to want to defend the rich who earn disproportionately higher salaries than they are worth and punish the low paid or those without jobs.
Whilst bankers get their massive bonuses to spend on the latest flash car the average taxpayer is using his or her savings to pay their bills for power, food and rent or mortgage.
But some on here would rather ignore that and bleat on about the poor (a laugh) millionaires in society who supposedly pay more tax than they should - yeh, right - if you believe that you'll believe anything. If you can afford an accountant you will not be paying the tax your income demands that's for sure.
For four years now certain parts of our working population have had their pay frozen - which obviously means efectively reduced. They are not bankers or financial whizzkids whose greed caused the problems we have in the first place but the nurses, fireman, bin-men, adult or children's care workers we need.
Priorities all wrong folks - stop bleating on about the share of tax paid by the top 1% of earners - they can look after themselves - and do!
VAT is VAT, and that is on spending not earnings. That's why it was omitted, because the reply didn't cover spending!!!

What do to expect now, a new VAT subsidy??

I have an accountant, because of the need to comply with Corporate Tax Rules and Payroll not to swerve tax responsibilities.

The current tax system is fair, probably the best it has been in decades. The next issue to tackle is the administration of the tax rules, it is cumbersome and an industry in itself. If you have too many layers in the process then it requires more money to run the system, Labours ideals of taxing for the sake of taxing will only further bloat the Public Sector and cause companies to be bogged down further.
[quote][p][bold]John Durham[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]laboursfoe[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bambara[/bold] wrote: Some interesting numbers for everyone to consider... Tax contribution figures: the top 10% of earners contribute 55.3% the top 50% of earners contribute 89.2% the bottom 50% contribute 10.8% the bottom 10% contribute 0.5% Sounds like the rich pay a lot of tax doesn't it, until you understand the distribution of wealth. Top 10% have assets of 850 times the value of the assets of the bottom 50% Per person the ordinary hard working person has less than 1/8th of a percent of the wealth of the top 10% Now there are 5 x as many in the bottom 50% compared to the top 10% (50% to 10%) so in total the top 10% owns 850/5 = 170 x as much of the country as the combined total owned by everyone in the bottom 50% added together. I will repeat that because it is a startling fact. The bottom 50% own approximately 0.6% of the assets that the top 10% have! Yet the top 10% pay only 5 x as much tax. On a share of the ownership of UK PLC per £1 of assets the poor average sod is paying 34 x as much tax. So UK PLC is broken, there is a bill to fix it, and dividing up that bill by the amount that they own,the average person is being asked to pay 34 times as much as the rich. Anyone still think the rich are overburdened with taxes?[/p][/quote]That is very interesting. But the UK Tax system is not based on wealth/ownership it is largely based on income and capital gains. There are other taxes that you don't factor also that affect the rich but are very unlikely to hit the poor. Capital Gains Tax Stamp Duty (higher rate) Inheritance Tax Based on income alone a person on a £13,500 salary now pays £700 income tax and £665 NI a year. Someone earning £135,000 now pays £47,627 Income tax and £5931 NI a year. The higher earner pays a fair amount, roughly 39 times the amount of the lower earner. The real issue is, why tax the lower earner in the first place when they will almost certainly receive benefits at a higher amount than they paid in tax??[/p][/quote]Nicely omitting the effect of VAT which has a more significant impact on the disposable income of the lower paid than the wealthy. Once again though we have people who seem to want to defend the rich who earn disproportionately higher salaries than they are worth and punish the low paid or those without jobs. Whilst bankers get their massive bonuses to spend on the latest flash car the average taxpayer is using his or her savings to pay their bills for power, food and rent or mortgage. But some on here would rather ignore that and bleat on about the poor (a laugh) millionaires in society who supposedly pay more tax than they should - yeh, right - if you believe that you'll believe anything. If you can afford an accountant you will not be paying the tax your income demands that's for sure. For four years now certain parts of our working population have had their pay frozen - which obviously means efectively reduced. They are not bankers or financial whizzkids whose greed caused the problems we have in the first place but the nurses, fireman, bin-men, adult or children's care workers we need. Priorities all wrong folks - stop bleating on about the share of tax paid by the top 1% of earners - they can look after themselves - and do![/p][/quote]VAT is VAT, and that is on spending not earnings. That's why it was omitted, because the reply didn't cover spending!!! What do to expect now, a new VAT subsidy?? I have an accountant, because of the need to comply with Corporate Tax Rules and Payroll not to swerve tax responsibilities. The current tax system is fair, probably the best it has been in decades. The next issue to tackle is the administration of the tax rules, it is cumbersome and an industry in itself. If you have too many layers in the process then it requires more money to run the system, Labours ideals of taxing for the sake of taxing will only further bloat the Public Sector and cause companies to be bogged down further. laboursfoe
  • Score: -1

2:56pm Mon 7 Apr 14

John Durham says...

laboursfoe wrote:
John Durham wrote:
laboursfoe wrote:
bambara wrote:
Some interesting numbers for everyone to consider...
Tax contribution figures:

the top 10% of earners contribute 55.3%
the top 50% of earners contribute 89.2%
the bottom 50% contribute 10.8%
the bottom 10% contribute 0.5%

Sounds like the rich pay a lot of tax doesn't it, until you understand the distribution of wealth.

Top 10% have assets of 850 times the value of the assets of the bottom 50%
Per person the ordinary hard working person has less than 1/8th of a percent of the wealth of the top 10%

Now there are 5 x as many in the bottom 50% compared to the top 10% (50% to 10%) so in total the top 10% owns 850/5 = 170 x as much of the country as the combined total owned by everyone in the bottom 50% added together.

I will repeat that because it is a startling fact. The bottom 50% own approximately 0.6% of the assets that the top 10% have!

Yet the top 10% pay only 5 x as much tax.
On a share of the ownership of UK PLC per £1 of assets the poor average sod is paying 34 x as much tax.

So UK PLC is broken, there is a bill to fix it, and dividing up that bill by the amount that they own,the average person is being asked to pay 34 times as much as the rich.

Anyone still think the rich are overburdened with taxes?
That is very interesting.

But the UK Tax system is not based on wealth/ownership it is largely based on income and capital gains. There are other taxes that you don't factor also that affect the rich but are very unlikely to hit the poor.

Capital Gains Tax
Stamp Duty (higher rate)
Inheritance Tax

Based on income alone a person on a £13,500 salary now pays £700 income tax and £665 NI a year. Someone earning £135,000 now pays £47,627 Income tax and £5931 NI a year. The higher earner pays a fair amount, roughly 39 times the amount of the lower earner.

The real issue is, why tax the lower earner in the first place when they will almost certainly receive benefits at a higher amount than they paid in tax??
Nicely omitting the effect of VAT which has a more significant impact on the disposable income of the lower paid than the wealthy.
Once again though we have people who seem to want to defend the rich who earn disproportionately higher salaries than they are worth and punish the low paid or those without jobs.
Whilst bankers get their massive bonuses to spend on the latest flash car the average taxpayer is using his or her savings to pay their bills for power, food and rent or mortgage.
But some on here would rather ignore that and bleat on about the poor (a laugh) millionaires in society who supposedly pay more tax than they should - yeh, right - if you believe that you'll believe anything. If you can afford an accountant you will not be paying the tax your income demands that's for sure.
For four years now certain parts of our working population have had their pay frozen - which obviously means efectively reduced. They are not bankers or financial whizzkids whose greed caused the problems we have in the first place but the nurses, fireman, bin-men, adult or children's care workers we need.
Priorities all wrong folks - stop bleating on about the share of tax paid by the top 1% of earners - they can look after themselves - and do!
VAT is VAT, and that is on spending not earnings. That's why it was omitted, because the reply didn't cover spending!!!

What do to expect now, a new VAT subsidy??

I have an accountant, because of the need to comply with Corporate Tax Rules and Payroll not to swerve tax responsibilities.

The current tax system is fair, probably the best it has been in decades. The next issue to tackle is the administration of the tax rules, it is cumbersome and an industry in itself. If you have too many layers in the process then it requires more money to run the system, Labours ideals of taxing for the sake of taxing will only further bloat the Public Sector and cause companies to be bogged down further.
That's the point - you didn't include spending - hence VAT - in your argument for how much worse off the rich were. But VAT IS very relevant to this issue because it punishes the poor and low paid disproportionately. And who needs a VAT subsidy - the first thing this government did was to raise the level of VAT to 20%. It needs to be reduced.
[quote][p][bold]laboursfoe[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]John Durham[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]laboursfoe[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bambara[/bold] wrote: Some interesting numbers for everyone to consider... Tax contribution figures: the top 10% of earners contribute 55.3% the top 50% of earners contribute 89.2% the bottom 50% contribute 10.8% the bottom 10% contribute 0.5% Sounds like the rich pay a lot of tax doesn't it, until you understand the distribution of wealth. Top 10% have assets of 850 times the value of the assets of the bottom 50% Per person the ordinary hard working person has less than 1/8th of a percent of the wealth of the top 10% Now there are 5 x as many in the bottom 50% compared to the top 10% (50% to 10%) so in total the top 10% owns 850/5 = 170 x as much of the country as the combined total owned by everyone in the bottom 50% added together. I will repeat that because it is a startling fact. The bottom 50% own approximately 0.6% of the assets that the top 10% have! Yet the top 10% pay only 5 x as much tax. On a share of the ownership of UK PLC per £1 of assets the poor average sod is paying 34 x as much tax. So UK PLC is broken, there is a bill to fix it, and dividing up that bill by the amount that they own,the average person is being asked to pay 34 times as much as the rich. Anyone still think the rich are overburdened with taxes?[/p][/quote]That is very interesting. But the UK Tax system is not based on wealth/ownership it is largely based on income and capital gains. There are other taxes that you don't factor also that affect the rich but are very unlikely to hit the poor. Capital Gains Tax Stamp Duty (higher rate) Inheritance Tax Based on income alone a person on a £13,500 salary now pays £700 income tax and £665 NI a year. Someone earning £135,000 now pays £47,627 Income tax and £5931 NI a year. The higher earner pays a fair amount, roughly 39 times the amount of the lower earner. The real issue is, why tax the lower earner in the first place when they will almost certainly receive benefits at a higher amount than they paid in tax??[/p][/quote]Nicely omitting the effect of VAT which has a more significant impact on the disposable income of the lower paid than the wealthy. Once again though we have people who seem to want to defend the rich who earn disproportionately higher salaries than they are worth and punish the low paid or those without jobs. Whilst bankers get their massive bonuses to spend on the latest flash car the average taxpayer is using his or her savings to pay their bills for power, food and rent or mortgage. But some on here would rather ignore that and bleat on about the poor (a laugh) millionaires in society who supposedly pay more tax than they should - yeh, right - if you believe that you'll believe anything. If you can afford an accountant you will not be paying the tax your income demands that's for sure. For four years now certain parts of our working population have had their pay frozen - which obviously means efectively reduced. They are not bankers or financial whizzkids whose greed caused the problems we have in the first place but the nurses, fireman, bin-men, adult or children's care workers we need. Priorities all wrong folks - stop bleating on about the share of tax paid by the top 1% of earners - they can look after themselves - and do![/p][/quote]VAT is VAT, and that is on spending not earnings. That's why it was omitted, because the reply didn't cover spending!!! What do to expect now, a new VAT subsidy?? I have an accountant, because of the need to comply with Corporate Tax Rules and Payroll not to swerve tax responsibilities. The current tax system is fair, probably the best it has been in decades. The next issue to tackle is the administration of the tax rules, it is cumbersome and an industry in itself. If you have too many layers in the process then it requires more money to run the system, Labours ideals of taxing for the sake of taxing will only further bloat the Public Sector and cause companies to be bogged down further.[/p][/quote]That's the point - you didn't include spending - hence VAT - in your argument for how much worse off the rich were. But VAT IS very relevant to this issue because it punishes the poor and low paid disproportionately. And who needs a VAT subsidy - the first thing this government did was to raise the level of VAT to 20%. It needs to be reduced. John Durham
  • Score: 1

5:25pm Mon 7 Apr 14

cushybutterfield says...

Most people want to KEEP their JOB of WORK and not LOSE it because of some pathetic *Trade Union Political point scoring STRIKES.. They want to continue to EARN a living unlike the pathetic 'learned British state workshy helplessness' of many, many workshy,.... some of whom for not just years...... but decades have both' avoided and turned their back on work at any cost.. Nigel FARRAGE will sort the many of the 'Stone-age' Trade Unions and scrounging *Nanny State Benefit abused system out' and help get our shocking host oppressed ' hi-jacked Country' back when he is elected Prime Minister, then the real WORKING, working decent, ignored class will have a voice..
Most people want to KEEP their JOB of WORK and not LOSE it because of some pathetic *Trade Union Political point scoring STRIKES.. They want to continue to EARN a living unlike the pathetic 'learned British state workshy helplessness' of many, many workshy,.... some of whom for not just years...... but decades have both' avoided and turned their back on work at any cost.. Nigel FARRAGE will sort the many of the 'Stone-age' Trade Unions and scrounging *Nanny State Benefit abused system out' and help get our shocking host oppressed ' hi-jacked Country' back when he is elected Prime Minister, then the real WORKING, working decent, ignored class will have a voice.. cushybutterfield
  • Score: -5

7:12pm Mon 7 Apr 14

David Lacey says...

Absolutely nuts. Food is free of VAT. The lowest paid do not pay VAT on their grub. They pay 5% VAT on their energy bills. These two big spend items that have the biggest impact on the lowest paid get special treatment in terms of VAT. Quite rightly.
.
Whilst this government increased VAT, have we forgotten that Labour did the same? Mr D seems to have done so. In December 2009, Darling announced that the standard rate of VAT would increase from 15% to 17.5% with effect from 1 January 2010. But when Labour increase taxes that is OK in a Labour supporters mind!! Hypocrites all of them.
Absolutely nuts. Food is free of VAT. The lowest paid do not pay VAT on their grub. They pay 5% VAT on their energy bills. These two big spend items that have the biggest impact on the lowest paid get special treatment in terms of VAT. Quite rightly. . Whilst this government increased VAT, have we forgotten that Labour did the same? Mr D seems to have done so. In December 2009, Darling announced that the standard rate of VAT would increase from 15% to 17.5% with effect from 1 January 2010. But when Labour increase taxes that is OK in a Labour supporters mind!! Hypocrites all of them. David Lacey
  • Score: 0

8:43pm Mon 7 Apr 14

John Durham says...

David Lacey wrote:
Absolutely nuts. Food is free of VAT. The lowest paid do not pay VAT on their grub. They pay 5% VAT on their energy bills. These two big spend items that have the biggest impact on the lowest paid get special treatment in terms of VAT. Quite rightly.
.
Whilst this government increased VAT, have we forgotten that Labour did the same? Mr D seems to have done so. In December 2009, Darling announced that the standard rate of VAT would increase from 15% to 17.5% with effect from 1 January 2010. But when Labour increase taxes that is OK in a Labour supporters mind!! Hypocrites all of them.
Labour temporarily reduced VAT in order to stimulate demand - it was a specific policy after the crash given a specific time frame which they held to. The majority of time in power Labour had VAT at 17.5%.
Your hatred of Labour knows no bounds does it? But what worries me more is that you seem determined to support millionaires' lifestyles while putting down ordinary working people or people stuggling to make ends meet.
And because I don't I must be a Labour supporter. You really do see things in an odd way Mr 'I support Tories but hate them and hate UKIP but support them' Lacey.
And you continue to hurl insults at me. I find it amusing that you are continually threatening others with being banned whilst indulging in such behaviour yourself. I wonder if it really is that easy to get someone banned? Perhaps we should test it out soon.
[quote][p][bold]David Lacey[/bold] wrote: Absolutely nuts. Food is free of VAT. The lowest paid do not pay VAT on their grub. They pay 5% VAT on their energy bills. These two big spend items that have the biggest impact on the lowest paid get special treatment in terms of VAT. Quite rightly. . Whilst this government increased VAT, have we forgotten that Labour did the same? Mr D seems to have done so. In December 2009, Darling announced that the standard rate of VAT would increase from 15% to 17.5% with effect from 1 January 2010. But when Labour increase taxes that is OK in a Labour supporters mind!! Hypocrites all of them.[/p][/quote]Labour temporarily reduced VAT in order to stimulate demand - it was a specific policy after the crash given a specific time frame which they held to. The majority of time in power Labour had VAT at 17.5%. Your hatred of Labour knows no bounds does it? But what worries me more is that you seem determined to support millionaires' lifestyles while putting down ordinary working people or people stuggling to make ends meet. And because I don't I must be a Labour supporter. You really do see things in an odd way Mr 'I support Tories but hate them and hate UKIP but support them' Lacey. And you continue to hurl insults at me. I find it amusing that you are continually threatening others with being banned whilst indulging in such behaviour yourself. I wonder if it really is that easy to get someone banned? Perhaps we should test it out soon. John Durham
  • Score: 3

8:07am Tue 8 Apr 14

laboursfoe says...

John Durham wrote:
laboursfoe wrote:
John Durham wrote:
laboursfoe wrote:
bambara wrote:
Some interesting numbers for everyone to consider...
Tax contribution figures:

the top 10% of earners contribute 55.3%
the top 50% of earners contribute 89.2%
the bottom 50% contribute 10.8%
the bottom 10% contribute 0.5%

Sounds like the rich pay a lot of tax doesn't it, until you understand the distribution of wealth.

Top 10% have assets of 850 times the value of the assets of the bottom 50%
Per person the ordinary hard working person has less than 1/8th of a percent of the wealth of the top 10%

Now there are 5 x as many in the bottom 50% compared to the top 10% (50% to 10%) so in total the top 10% owns 850/5 = 170 x as much of the country as the combined total owned by everyone in the bottom 50% added together.

I will repeat that because it is a startling fact. The bottom 50% own approximately 0.6% of the assets that the top 10% have!

Yet the top 10% pay only 5 x as much tax.
On a share of the ownership of UK PLC per £1 of assets the poor average sod is paying 34 x as much tax.

So UK PLC is broken, there is a bill to fix it, and dividing up that bill by the amount that they own,the average person is being asked to pay 34 times as much as the rich.

Anyone still think the rich are overburdened with taxes?
That is very interesting.

But the UK Tax system is not based on wealth/ownership it is largely based on income and capital gains. There are other taxes that you don't factor also that affect the rich but are very unlikely to hit the poor.

Capital Gains Tax
Stamp Duty (higher rate)
Inheritance Tax

Based on income alone a person on a £13,500 salary now pays £700 income tax and £665 NI a year. Someone earning £135,000 now pays £47,627 Income tax and £5931 NI a year. The higher earner pays a fair amount, roughly 39 times the amount of the lower earner.

The real issue is, why tax the lower earner in the first place when they will almost certainly receive benefits at a higher amount than they paid in tax??
Nicely omitting the effect of VAT which has a more significant impact on the disposable income of the lower paid than the wealthy.
Once again though we have people who seem to want to defend the rich who earn disproportionately higher salaries than they are worth and punish the low paid or those without jobs.
Whilst bankers get their massive bonuses to spend on the latest flash car the average taxpayer is using his or her savings to pay their bills for power, food and rent or mortgage.
But some on here would rather ignore that and bleat on about the poor (a laugh) millionaires in society who supposedly pay more tax than they should - yeh, right - if you believe that you'll believe anything. If you can afford an accountant you will not be paying the tax your income demands that's for sure.
For four years now certain parts of our working population have had their pay frozen - which obviously means efectively reduced. They are not bankers or financial whizzkids whose greed caused the problems we have in the first place but the nurses, fireman, bin-men, adult or children's care workers we need.
Priorities all wrong folks - stop bleating on about the share of tax paid by the top 1% of earners - they can look after themselves - and do!
VAT is VAT, and that is on spending not earnings. That's why it was omitted, because the reply didn't cover spending!!!

What do to expect now, a new VAT subsidy??

I have an accountant, because of the need to comply with Corporate Tax Rules and Payroll not to swerve tax responsibilities.

The current tax system is fair, probably the best it has been in decades. The next issue to tackle is the administration of the tax rules, it is cumbersome and an industry in itself. If you have too many layers in the process then it requires more money to run the system, Labours ideals of taxing for the sake of taxing will only further bloat the Public Sector and cause companies to be bogged down further.
That's the point - you didn't include spending - hence VAT - in your argument for how much worse off the rich were. But VAT IS very relevant to this issue because it punishes the poor and low paid disproportionately. And who needs a VAT subsidy - the first thing this government did was to raise the level of VAT to 20%. It needs to be reduced.
How have you read comments like 'The higher earner pays a fair amount' and 'The current tax system is fair, probably the best it has been in decades' and decide that I am making an 'argument for how much worse off the rich were'.

I'll say again, the rich will be better off, because they earn more and don't have to be within the limits of the welfare pot.

The government did raise VAT, that was to bring in some immediate revenue I guess following the there is no money left note!! Let's hope they can drop it back to 17.5% for the next parliament eh.
[quote][p][bold]John Durham[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]laboursfoe[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]John Durham[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]laboursfoe[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bambara[/bold] wrote: Some interesting numbers for everyone to consider... Tax contribution figures: the top 10% of earners contribute 55.3% the top 50% of earners contribute 89.2% the bottom 50% contribute 10.8% the bottom 10% contribute 0.5% Sounds like the rich pay a lot of tax doesn't it, until you understand the distribution of wealth. Top 10% have assets of 850 times the value of the assets of the bottom 50% Per person the ordinary hard working person has less than 1/8th of a percent of the wealth of the top 10% Now there are 5 x as many in the bottom 50% compared to the top 10% (50% to 10%) so in total the top 10% owns 850/5 = 170 x as much of the country as the combined total owned by everyone in the bottom 50% added together. I will repeat that because it is a startling fact. The bottom 50% own approximately 0.6% of the assets that the top 10% have! Yet the top 10% pay only 5 x as much tax. On a share of the ownership of UK PLC per £1 of assets the poor average sod is paying 34 x as much tax. So UK PLC is broken, there is a bill to fix it, and dividing up that bill by the amount that they own,the average person is being asked to pay 34 times as much as the rich. Anyone still think the rich are overburdened with taxes?[/p][/quote]That is very interesting. But the UK Tax system is not based on wealth/ownership it is largely based on income and capital gains. There are other taxes that you don't factor also that affect the rich but are very unlikely to hit the poor. Capital Gains Tax Stamp Duty (higher rate) Inheritance Tax Based on income alone a person on a £13,500 salary now pays £700 income tax and £665 NI a year. Someone earning £135,000 now pays £47,627 Income tax and £5931 NI a year. The higher earner pays a fair amount, roughly 39 times the amount of the lower earner. The real issue is, why tax the lower earner in the first place when they will almost certainly receive benefits at a higher amount than they paid in tax??[/p][/quote]Nicely omitting the effect of VAT which has a more significant impact on the disposable income of the lower paid than the wealthy. Once again though we have people who seem to want to defend the rich who earn disproportionately higher salaries than they are worth and punish the low paid or those without jobs. Whilst bankers get their massive bonuses to spend on the latest flash car the average taxpayer is using his or her savings to pay their bills for power, food and rent or mortgage. But some on here would rather ignore that and bleat on about the poor (a laugh) millionaires in society who supposedly pay more tax than they should - yeh, right - if you believe that you'll believe anything. If you can afford an accountant you will not be paying the tax your income demands that's for sure. For four years now certain parts of our working population have had their pay frozen - which obviously means efectively reduced. They are not bankers or financial whizzkids whose greed caused the problems we have in the first place but the nurses, fireman, bin-men, adult or children's care workers we need. Priorities all wrong folks - stop bleating on about the share of tax paid by the top 1% of earners - they can look after themselves - and do![/p][/quote]VAT is VAT, and that is on spending not earnings. That's why it was omitted, because the reply didn't cover spending!!! What do to expect now, a new VAT subsidy?? I have an accountant, because of the need to comply with Corporate Tax Rules and Payroll not to swerve tax responsibilities. The current tax system is fair, probably the best it has been in decades. The next issue to tackle is the administration of the tax rules, it is cumbersome and an industry in itself. If you have too many layers in the process then it requires more money to run the system, Labours ideals of taxing for the sake of taxing will only further bloat the Public Sector and cause companies to be bogged down further.[/p][/quote]That's the point - you didn't include spending - hence VAT - in your argument for how much worse off the rich were. But VAT IS very relevant to this issue because it punishes the poor and low paid disproportionately. And who needs a VAT subsidy - the first thing this government did was to raise the level of VAT to 20%. It needs to be reduced.[/p][/quote]How have you read comments like 'The higher earner pays a fair amount' and 'The current tax system is fair, probably the best it has been in decades' and decide that I am making an 'argument for how much worse off the rich were'. I'll say again, the rich will be better off, because they earn more and don't have to be within the limits of the welfare pot. The government did raise VAT, that was to bring in some immediate revenue I guess following the there is no money left note!! Let's hope they can drop it back to 17.5% for the next parliament eh. laboursfoe
  • Score: 1

9:10am Tue 8 Apr 14

David Lacey says...

I don't hurl insults Mr D. I deal in facts. You may not like them. So be it. And please do your best to get me banned after all when I speak the truth about Labour it hurts their supporters because they know I'm right.
I don't hurl insults Mr D. I deal in facts. You may not like them. So be it. And please do your best to get me banned after all when I speak the truth about Labour it hurts their supporters because they know I'm right. David Lacey
  • Score: -2

10:49am Tue 8 Apr 14

John Durham says...

A version of events that is always anti-Labour whatever the subject backed up by specifically chosen partial information is not what I would call 'facts'.
Your last assertion for example is typical. That Labour increased VAT to 17.5% in Jan 2010 is a fact but you know that from 1997 to 2008 VAT was 17.5% then temporarily reduced ( the government announced the time frame) to stimulate demand.
This government increased VAT to 20% and it has remained so throughout the parliament.
Your spending figures are always partial and are again facts but they never tell the full story or provide the correct context - they are aimed only at supporting your biased agenda.
Thats OK - not really a problem, its what politicians do too all the time. But they know they are doing it. And if challenged its no use resorting to abuse as a response. Its the point that is being challenged not the person.
As to your insults - since January when I joined the site I have from the very beginning been called various things by you - I could re-post them for you if you've forgotten - all without any provocation or abuse from me simply because my views are not in alignment with yours.
If I make comments on this site I accept others will disagree - sometimes vigorously - I know a significant number on here disagree with mine. But it is a sign of a lack of belief in one's own argument to respond to a view by calling someone a moron, thick, nuts or a hypocrite.
Its the prerogative of others to disagree with any opinion put - but we are all, for the most part, just giving opinions and no one opinion is any better than any other or more right than any other.
I have seen you challenge others to obey the site rules - so it would seem only fair and proper that you would observe them too.
A version of events that is always anti-Labour whatever the subject backed up by specifically chosen partial information is not what I would call 'facts'. Your last assertion for example is typical. That Labour increased VAT to 17.5% in Jan 2010 is a fact but you know that from 1997 to 2008 VAT was 17.5% then temporarily reduced ( the government announced the time frame) to stimulate demand. This government increased VAT to 20% and it has remained so throughout the parliament. Your spending figures are always partial and are again facts but they never tell the full story or provide the correct context - they are aimed only at supporting your biased agenda. Thats OK - not really a problem, its what politicians do too all the time. But they know they are doing it. And if challenged its no use resorting to abuse as a response. Its the point that is being challenged not the person. As to your insults - since January when I joined the site I have from the very beginning been called various things by you - I could re-post them for you if you've forgotten - all without any provocation or abuse from me simply because my views are not in alignment with yours. If I make comments on this site I accept others will disagree - sometimes vigorously - I know a significant number on here disagree with mine. But it is a sign of a lack of belief in one's own argument to respond to a view by calling someone a moron, thick, nuts or a hypocrite. Its the prerogative of others to disagree with any opinion put - but we are all, for the most part, just giving opinions and no one opinion is any better than any other or more right than any other. I have seen you challenge others to obey the site rules - so it would seem only fair and proper that you would observe them too. John Durham
  • Score: 4

12:36pm Tue 8 Apr 14

David Lacey says...

I am having computer trouble so I am posting this message again.
.
Mr Durham, I wish to apologise unreservedly for any distasteful comments, words or phrases I may have used in the context of our debates. They are not necessary and add nothing to the subject at hand. In turn I hope you will accept that you have made snide and derogatory remarks from time to time about me. Your apology will be gratefully received.
I am having computer trouble so I am posting this message again. . Mr Durham, I wish to apologise unreservedly for any distasteful comments, words or phrases I may have used in the context of our debates. They are not necessary and add nothing to the subject at hand. In turn I hope you will accept that you have made snide and derogatory remarks from time to time about me. Your apology will be gratefully received. David Lacey
  • Score: -2

12:40am Wed 9 Apr 14

robbersdog says...

David Lacey wrote:
I don't hurl insults Mr D. I deal in facts. You may not like them. So be it. And please do your best to get me banned after all when I speak the truth about Labour it hurts their supporters because they know I'm right.
John Durham, you sound like a man with an open mind and unfortunately, faced with omniscience, both you and I seem to have nothing to offer.

I commend you for engaging but it's pointless exercise as many contributors to this site seem unable or unwilling to to interrogate the provenance of their sources of information and therefore can offer very little.

I wish you luck.

For Mr or Mrs Butterfield , the word 'Provenance' comes from the French verb 'provenir' , meaning to 'come or stem from'.
[quote][p][bold]David Lacey[/bold] wrote: I don't hurl insults Mr D. I deal in facts. You may not like them. So be it. And please do your best to get me banned after all when I speak the truth about Labour it hurts their supporters because they know I'm right.[/p][/quote]John Durham, you sound like a man with an open mind and unfortunately, faced with omniscience, both you and I seem to have nothing to offer. I commend you for engaging but it's pointless exercise as many contributors to this site seem unable or unwilling to to interrogate the provenance of their sources of information and therefore can offer very little. I wish you luck. For Mr or Mrs Butterfield , the word 'Provenance' comes from the French verb 'provenir' , meaning to 'come or stem from'. robbersdog
  • Score: 0

11:15am Wed 9 Apr 14

theWorkerScum says...

The solution stop subbing the unions. Everyone wins. They a waste of time and similar to taking out a warranty against a new appliance, u don't need it.
The solution stop subbing the unions. Everyone wins. They a waste of time and similar to taking out a warranty against a new appliance, u don't need it. theWorkerScum
  • Score: -1

6:08pm Wed 9 Apr 14

behonest says...

bambara wrote:
Some interesting numbers for everyone to consider...
Tax contribution figures:

the top 10% of earners contribute 55.3%
the top 50% of earners contribute 89.2%
the bottom 50% contribute 10.8%
the bottom 10% contribute 0.5%

Sounds like the rich pay a lot of tax doesn't it, until you understand the distribution of wealth.

Top 10% have assets of 850 times the value of the assets of the bottom 50%
Per person the ordinary hard working person has less than 1/8th of a percent of the wealth of the top 10%

Now there are 5 x as many in the bottom 50% compared to the top 10% (50% to 10%) so in total the top 10% owns 850/5 = 170 x as much of the country as the combined total owned by everyone in the bottom 50% added together.

I will repeat that because it is a startling fact. The bottom 50% own approximately 0.6% of the assets that the top 10% have!

Yet the top 10% pay only 5 x as much tax.
On a share of the ownership of UK PLC per £1 of assets the poor average sod is paying 34 x as much tax.

So UK PLC is broken, there is a bill to fix it, and dividing up that bill by the amount that they own,the average person is being asked to pay 34 times as much as the rich.

Anyone still think the rich are overburdened with taxes?
Yes, this is completely flawed as it is based on 'wealth' not income. No party is proposing a 'redistribution of wealth' policy, are they? So surely what is important to the lower paid (perhaps all of us) is whether we have job security, annual wage increases and get to keep an increasing amount of the wages we earn. Wage increases have clearly not been good enough since the recession, but this is understandable and is improving.

A senior (but not too senior) police officer, or head teacher, or NHS nursing manager could earn £60k a year, perhaps a little more or a little less. On £60k a year, if they had a partner who earned nothing (because they chose to stay at home and look after their 3 kids, say) then they have lost nearly £200 per month in take home money, due to the Tories taking all their child benefit. The threshold for higher level tax has not been increased in recent years either.

Now we may not have too much sympathy for someone earning £60k a year, but this is not a massive wage and having £200 a month taken from your disposable income is quite a 'contribution' I would say. Those earning £50k or less kept all of their child benefit.

Perhaps bambara (or John Durham) could point out one income-related tax that has been increased (or income-related benefit that has been cut) by the Tories on those earning less than £20k per year. As a starter, Income Tax and National Insurance have not been increased for low earners. Has any?

Indirect taxes such as VAT have been around for years and only tweaked by the main parties, and none of them are proposing to get rid of VAT; so any takers on increases to direct taxes for the low paid?
[quote][p][bold]bambara[/bold] wrote: Some interesting numbers for everyone to consider... Tax contribution figures: the top 10% of earners contribute 55.3% the top 50% of earners contribute 89.2% the bottom 50% contribute 10.8% the bottom 10% contribute 0.5% Sounds like the rich pay a lot of tax doesn't it, until you understand the distribution of wealth. Top 10% have assets of 850 times the value of the assets of the bottom 50% Per person the ordinary hard working person has less than 1/8th of a percent of the wealth of the top 10% Now there are 5 x as many in the bottom 50% compared to the top 10% (50% to 10%) so in total the top 10% owns 850/5 = 170 x as much of the country as the combined total owned by everyone in the bottom 50% added together. I will repeat that because it is a startling fact. The bottom 50% own approximately 0.6% of the assets that the top 10% have! Yet the top 10% pay only 5 x as much tax. On a share of the ownership of UK PLC per £1 of assets the poor average sod is paying 34 x as much tax. So UK PLC is broken, there is a bill to fix it, and dividing up that bill by the amount that they own,the average person is being asked to pay 34 times as much as the rich. Anyone still think the rich are overburdened with taxes?[/p][/quote]Yes, this is completely flawed as it is based on 'wealth' not income. No party is proposing a 'redistribution of wealth' policy, are they? So surely what is important to the lower paid (perhaps all of us) is whether we have job security, annual wage increases and get to keep an increasing amount of the wages we earn. Wage increases have clearly not been good enough since the recession, but this is understandable and is improving. A senior (but not too senior) police officer, or head teacher, or NHS nursing manager could earn £60k a year, perhaps a little more or a little less. On £60k a year, if they had a partner who earned nothing (because they chose to stay at home and look after their 3 kids, say) then they have lost nearly £200 per month in take home money, due to the Tories taking all their child benefit. The threshold for higher level tax has not been increased in recent years either. Now we may not have too much sympathy for someone earning £60k a year, but this is not a massive wage and having £200 a month taken from your disposable income is quite a 'contribution' I would say. Those earning £50k or less kept all of their child benefit. Perhaps bambara (or John Durham) could point out one income-related tax that has been increased (or income-related benefit that has been cut) by the Tories on those earning less than £20k per year. As a starter, Income Tax and National Insurance have not been increased for low earners. Has any? Indirect taxes such as VAT have been around for years and only tweaked by the main parties, and none of them are proposing to get rid of VAT; so any takers on increases to direct taxes for the low paid? behonest
  • Score: 1

11:14pm Wed 9 Apr 14

John Durham says...

behonest wrote:
bambara wrote:
Some interesting numbers for everyone to consider...
Tax contribution figures:

the top 10% of earners contribute 55.3%
the top 50% of earners contribute 89.2%
the bottom 50% contribute 10.8%
the bottom 10% contribute 0.5%

Sounds like the rich pay a lot of tax doesn't it, until you understand the distribution of wealth.

Top 10% have assets of 850 times the value of the assets of the bottom 50%
Per person the ordinary hard working person has less than 1/8th of a percent of the wealth of the top 10%

Now there are 5 x as many in the bottom 50% compared to the top 10% (50% to 10%) so in total the top 10% owns 850/5 = 170 x as much of the country as the combined total owned by everyone in the bottom 50% added together.

I will repeat that because it is a startling fact. The bottom 50% own approximately 0.6% of the assets that the top 10% have!

Yet the top 10% pay only 5 x as much tax.
On a share of the ownership of UK PLC per £1 of assets the poor average sod is paying 34 x as much tax.

So UK PLC is broken, there is a bill to fix it, and dividing up that bill by the amount that they own,the average person is being asked to pay 34 times as much as the rich.

Anyone still think the rich are overburdened with taxes?
Yes, this is completely flawed as it is based on 'wealth' not income. No party is proposing a 'redistribution of wealth' policy, are they? So surely what is important to the lower paid (perhaps all of us) is whether we have job security, annual wage increases and get to keep an increasing amount of the wages we earn. Wage increases have clearly not been good enough since the recession, but this is understandable and is improving.

A senior (but not too senior) police officer, or head teacher, or NHS nursing manager could earn £60k a year, perhaps a little more or a little less. On £60k a year, if they had a partner who earned nothing (because they chose to stay at home and look after their 3 kids, say) then they have lost nearly £200 per month in take home money, due to the Tories taking all their child benefit. The threshold for higher level tax has not been increased in recent years either.

Now we may not have too much sympathy for someone earning £60k a year, but this is not a massive wage and having £200 a month taken from your disposable income is quite a 'contribution' I would say. Those earning £50k or less kept all of their child benefit.

Perhaps bambara (or John Durham) could point out one income-related tax that has been increased (or income-related benefit that has been cut) by the Tories on those earning less than £20k per year. As a starter, Income Tax and National Insurance have not been increased for low earners. Has any?

Indirect taxes such as VAT have been around for years and only tweaked by the main parties, and none of them are proposing to get rid of VAT; so any takers on increases to direct taxes for the low paid?
Its no use being selective about which taxes you want to include though. Its a proven fact that VAT and other indirect taxes eg tobacco duty and alcohol duties are regressive forms of taxation and hit those on the lowest income level disproportionately more. And in January 2011 this government increased the rate of VAT and has increased other indirect taxes too at different times.
On top of that millions of low paid workers in the public sector and elsewhere have had their wages frozen, effectively reduced for over five years now.
I understand where you are coming from with the so-called squeezed middle but the real point is that those top echelons of the income scale do not appear to have suffered at all under this 'we're all in this together' period. In fact some have ended up even better off in relative terms.
So I have little sympathy for the tax levels of the top 1% of earners and we all, regardless of politics, should support giving those who provide services we need at least a living wage and if it means taxing some at the top more to do so than so be it.
[quote][p][bold]behonest[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bambara[/bold] wrote: Some interesting numbers for everyone to consider... Tax contribution figures: the top 10% of earners contribute 55.3% the top 50% of earners contribute 89.2% the bottom 50% contribute 10.8% the bottom 10% contribute 0.5% Sounds like the rich pay a lot of tax doesn't it, until you understand the distribution of wealth. Top 10% have assets of 850 times the value of the assets of the bottom 50% Per person the ordinary hard working person has less than 1/8th of a percent of the wealth of the top 10% Now there are 5 x as many in the bottom 50% compared to the top 10% (50% to 10%) so in total the top 10% owns 850/5 = 170 x as much of the country as the combined total owned by everyone in the bottom 50% added together. I will repeat that because it is a startling fact. The bottom 50% own approximately 0.6% of the assets that the top 10% have! Yet the top 10% pay only 5 x as much tax. On a share of the ownership of UK PLC per £1 of assets the poor average sod is paying 34 x as much tax. So UK PLC is broken, there is a bill to fix it, and dividing up that bill by the amount that they own,the average person is being asked to pay 34 times as much as the rich. Anyone still think the rich are overburdened with taxes?[/p][/quote]Yes, this is completely flawed as it is based on 'wealth' not income. No party is proposing a 'redistribution of wealth' policy, are they? So surely what is important to the lower paid (perhaps all of us) is whether we have job security, annual wage increases and get to keep an increasing amount of the wages we earn. Wage increases have clearly not been good enough since the recession, but this is understandable and is improving. A senior (but not too senior) police officer, or head teacher, or NHS nursing manager could earn £60k a year, perhaps a little more or a little less. On £60k a year, if they had a partner who earned nothing (because they chose to stay at home and look after their 3 kids, say) then they have lost nearly £200 per month in take home money, due to the Tories taking all their child benefit. The threshold for higher level tax has not been increased in recent years either. Now we may not have too much sympathy for someone earning £60k a year, but this is not a massive wage and having £200 a month taken from your disposable income is quite a 'contribution' I would say. Those earning £50k or less kept all of their child benefit. Perhaps bambara (or John Durham) could point out one income-related tax that has been increased (or income-related benefit that has been cut) by the Tories on those earning less than £20k per year. As a starter, Income Tax and National Insurance have not been increased for low earners. Has any? Indirect taxes such as VAT have been around for years and only tweaked by the main parties, and none of them are proposing to get rid of VAT; so any takers on increases to direct taxes for the low paid?[/p][/quote]Its no use being selective about which taxes you want to include though. Its a proven fact that VAT and other indirect taxes eg tobacco duty and alcohol duties are regressive forms of taxation and hit those on the lowest income level disproportionately more. And in January 2011 this government increased the rate of VAT and has increased other indirect taxes too at different times. On top of that millions of low paid workers in the public sector and elsewhere have had their wages frozen, effectively reduced for over five years now. I understand where you are coming from with the so-called squeezed middle but the real point is that those top echelons of the income scale do not appear to have suffered at all under this 'we're all in this together' period. In fact some have ended up even better off in relative terms. So I have little sympathy for the tax levels of the top 1% of earners and we all, regardless of politics, should support giving those who provide services we need at least a living wage and if it means taxing some at the top more to do so than so be it. John Durham
  • Score: 1

11:19am Thu 10 Apr 14

i dont believe it!!! says...

Hey cushy, you rant on about people getting up at 5 to use public transport but what time do those workers in those industries get up to provide said public transport?

Plus I don't see any public transport available for those working in it!
Hey cushy, you rant on about people getting up at 5 to use public transport but what time do those workers in those industries get up to provide said public transport? Plus I don't see any public transport available for those working in it! i dont believe it!!!
  • Score: 2

11:24am Thu 10 Apr 14

i dont believe it!!! says...

Play the capitalists at their own game. That's what my union has done. Surely the bosses cannot complain when the cards they use against us are used on them. Why race to the bottom? There's always some poor sod ready to undercut you when you reach there!
Play the capitalists at their own game. That's what my union has done. Surely the bosses cannot complain when the cards they use against us are used on them. Why race to the bottom? There's always some poor sod ready to undercut you when you reach there! i dont believe it!!!
  • Score: 2

11:28am Thu 10 Apr 14

i dont believe it!!! says...

theWorkerScum wrote:
The solution stop subbing the unions. Everyone wins. They a waste of time and similar to taking out a warranty against a new appliance, u don't need it.
Yeah cos every employer is enlightened arent they?

Who's gonna watch your back seeing as you can't even get legal redress anymore without paying for it?
[quote][p][bold]theWorkerScum[/bold] wrote: The solution stop subbing the unions. Everyone wins. They a waste of time and similar to taking out a warranty against a new appliance, u don't need it.[/p][/quote]Yeah cos every employer is enlightened arent they? Who's gonna watch your back seeing as you can't even get legal redress anymore without paying for it? i dont believe it!!!
  • Score: 2

12:47pm Thu 10 Apr 14

behonest says...

John Durham says:
"Its a proven fact that VAT and other indirect taxes eg tobacco duty and alcohol duties are regressive forms of taxation and hit those on the lowest income level disproportionately more."

I suspect we all know this, and I specifically referred to VAT. None of the main parties propose to remove VAT, they may tinker with the % but it's here to stay no matter who wins the election. Same with tobacco and alcohol duties. And this is also why I oppose the minimum price of alcohol tax, which the Tories have thankfully backed away from - will Labour?

The middle certainly have been squeezed, particularly if they have lost child benefit for a couple of kids or more. Unlike those at the very top (which is a tiny percentage) the middle have had the same pay restraint too, as well as no income tax reduction that the lower paid have had.

So I stand by my view that the lowest paid have actually suffered the least over the last 4 years, and phrases like 'ideological attacks on the poor' are themselves ideological, designed to con the poorest people into thinking they are the target, when the reality is completely different.

Locally, we've all been hit with a council tax increase, which increases our cost of living of course, but this is a Darlington Labour council decision, not a government one.
John Durham says: "Its a proven fact that VAT and other indirect taxes eg tobacco duty and alcohol duties are regressive forms of taxation and hit those on the lowest income level disproportionately more." I suspect we all know this, and I specifically referred to VAT. None of the main parties propose to remove VAT, they may tinker with the % but it's here to stay no matter who wins the election. Same with tobacco and alcohol duties. And this is also why I oppose the minimum price of alcohol tax, which the Tories have thankfully backed away from - will Labour? The middle certainly have been squeezed, particularly if they have lost child benefit for a couple of kids or more. Unlike those at the very top (which is a tiny percentage) the middle have had the same pay restraint too, as well as no income tax reduction that the lower paid have had. So I stand by my view that the lowest paid have actually suffered the least over the last 4 years, and phrases like 'ideological attacks on the poor' are themselves ideological, designed to con the poorest people into thinking they are the target, when the reality is completely different. Locally, we've all been hit with a council tax increase, which increases our cost of living of course, but this is a Darlington Labour council decision, not a government one. behonest
  • Score: 0

4:05pm Thu 10 Apr 14

David Lacey says...

And petrol taxes have been frozen again. The option to freeze council tax was there for enlightened councils to take. The idea that because fags and booze have increased in price the poorest have been hit hardest is beyond a joke. They are LUXURIES. If you are poor then by definition you can't afford luxuries. Warped thinking from a socialist. As usual.
And petrol taxes have been frozen again. The option to freeze council tax was there for enlightened councils to take. The idea that because fags and booze have increased in price the poorest have been hit hardest is beyond a joke. They are LUXURIES. If you are poor then by definition you can't afford luxuries. Warped thinking from a socialist. As usual. David Lacey
  • Score: 0

5:30pm Thu 10 Apr 14

John Durham says...

behonest wrote:
John Durham says:
"Its a proven fact that VAT and other indirect taxes eg tobacco duty and alcohol duties are regressive forms of taxation and hit those on the lowest income level disproportionately more."

I suspect we all know this, and I specifically referred to VAT. None of the main parties propose to remove VAT, they may tinker with the % but it's here to stay no matter who wins the election. Same with tobacco and alcohol duties. And this is also why I oppose the minimum price of alcohol tax, which the Tories have thankfully backed away from - will Labour?

The middle certainly have been squeezed, particularly if they have lost child benefit for a couple of kids or more. Unlike those at the very top (which is a tiny percentage) the middle have had the same pay restraint too, as well as no income tax reduction that the lower paid have had.

So I stand by my view that the lowest paid have actually suffered the least over the last 4 years, and phrases like 'ideological attacks on the poor' are themselves ideological, designed to con the poorest people into thinking they are the target, when the reality is completely different.

Locally, we've all been hit with a council tax increase, which increases our cost of living of course, but this is a Darlington Labour council decision, not a government one.
I did not use the phrase 'ideological attack on the poor' Behonest. But it is a fact - provided by ONS if you wish to check - that the lowest 10% income range have been hit hardest by the overall taxation regime in this country under this government - despite increases in levels at which tax kicks in.
However, if you are a banker - even in a bank that is failing - you can still be confident of getting your nice fat bonus.
All I am saying is that if we want a fairer society and a socially healthier one we need to value those people who provide vital services. I do not believe we are doing that at present. In fact, if anything, we are doing the opposite.
Cheers.
[quote][p][bold]behonest[/bold] wrote: John Durham says: "Its a proven fact that VAT and other indirect taxes eg tobacco duty and alcohol duties are regressive forms of taxation and hit those on the lowest income level disproportionately more." I suspect we all know this, and I specifically referred to VAT. None of the main parties propose to remove VAT, they may tinker with the % but it's here to stay no matter who wins the election. Same with tobacco and alcohol duties. And this is also why I oppose the minimum price of alcohol tax, which the Tories have thankfully backed away from - will Labour? The middle certainly have been squeezed, particularly if they have lost child benefit for a couple of kids or more. Unlike those at the very top (which is a tiny percentage) the middle have had the same pay restraint too, as well as no income tax reduction that the lower paid have had. So I stand by my view that the lowest paid have actually suffered the least over the last 4 years, and phrases like 'ideological attacks on the poor' are themselves ideological, designed to con the poorest people into thinking they are the target, when the reality is completely different. Locally, we've all been hit with a council tax increase, which increases our cost of living of course, but this is a Darlington Labour council decision, not a government one.[/p][/quote]I did not use the phrase 'ideological attack on the poor' Behonest. But it is a fact - provided by ONS if you wish to check - that the lowest 10% income range have been hit hardest by the overall taxation regime in this country under this government - despite increases in levels at which tax kicks in. However, if you are a banker - even in a bank that is failing - you can still be confident of getting your nice fat bonus. All I am saying is that if we want a fairer society and a socially healthier one we need to value those people who provide vital services. I do not believe we are doing that at present. In fact, if anything, we are doing the opposite. Cheers. John Durham
  • Score: 0

8:12pm Thu 10 Apr 14

LUSTARD says...

you have to sympathise with low paid workers going on strike, the staff from the following will be in full support and out on the day or month it takes to get a rise , petrol pump attendants, binns staff morrisons cleaners and shelf packers, same for aldi, sainsburies , tesco, and every other supermarket across the uk,,, care home workers,thestaff from every shop in the high st the lengh and breadth of england, now im sure ive missed someone or other,, aghh yes our necassary services like hospital staff from all departments, firemen and women, police, school teachers council employees etc the ones held to ransom by the government hahahahahahahahaha,
you have to sympathise with low paid workers going on strike, the staff from the following will be in full support and out on the day or month it takes to get a rise , petrol pump attendants, binns staff morrisons cleaners and shelf packers, same for aldi, sainsburies , tesco, and every other supermarket across the uk,,, care home workers,thestaff from every shop in the high st the lengh and breadth of england, now im sure ive missed someone or other,, aghh yes our necassary services like hospital staff from all departments, firemen and women, police, school teachers council employees etc the ones held to ransom by the government hahahahahahahahaha, LUSTARD
  • Score: 12

1:08pm Fri 11 Apr 14

bambara says...

Why should the taxation system take a greater % of money that is actually earned by the ordinary hard working person than it takes of unearned income from those who are sitting on their huge assets, and simply watching the money roll in?

A response to my flagging up the disparity in how much the haves don't pay in comparisson to how much of the coutries wealth they own was :

"That is very interesting.

But the UK Tax system is not based on wealth/ownership it is largely based on income and capital gains. There are other taxes that you don't factor also that affect the rich but are very unlikely to hit the poor.

Capital Gains Tax
Stamp Duty (higher rate)
Inheritance Tax"

Now I'm sorry I have been away working to earn my income so not been able to respond, but here goes...

The UK system is indeed not based on wealth/ownership. But then it was developed by those who have plenty of both.

If we were to look at a system similar to that in Switzerland, that does include at least an element of tax on assets. (So the bigger your stake in society, the more you pay, and that payment remains proportional to your total net worth), then perhaps we could significantly reduce taxes on income that is actually earned.

Now for the "other" taxes:
Capital Gains Tax - A tax on what exactly? A. Any gains made when you sell or otherwise dispose of assets which have appreciated in value from the point at which you bought them. (2nd homes, shares etc...) So it is a tax on the gain in value. On income you got without raising a finger to work for. & what is the rate for that tax? 18% for basic and 28% for higher rate. So the tax rate for sitting on your backside and watching as investments grow is lower than the rate for the money you get for getting off your backside and working for it, and at the higher rate it is 12% lower. (not counting the NI element which isn't paid on capital gains either)
Stamp Duty (higher rate) - Only paid on the buying and selling of big posh houses. So not paid if you sit in your big posh house and don't move.

Inheritance Tax - Couple of issues with this one. Firstly lets point out that the first £325,000 is absolutely free of any Tax, and the tories want to increase that to a round million. They want people to be able to inherrit a million £ free of any tax liability! Most of us would have to buy a lottery ticket to even have a chance at that sort of money.
Second - AGAIN This is unearned income, income that the recipient gets without ever lifting a finger to earn it. Paying 40% tax on this unearned income is not something the rich can complain about. So uncle chinless poped his clogs and left you a fortune. How sad you have to pay a portion of that (on the amount above £325,000) in tax. And this from the people who charge those on benefits with wanting "something for nothing".

No doubt the response will return "but uncle chinless paid tax on what he earned, so this is double taxation" - Uncle chinless died, he no longer exists, the money he left is unearned income for the person who inherits it. Not an hours work, or a bead of sweat expended. Free money, something for nothing.

Now I don't know about anyone else, but I don't imagine that a single mother on benefits bringing up her kids in a rented flat would complain at paying 40% tax on every penny of a £1 million pound inheritance. The chance would be a fine thing.
Why should the taxation system take a greater % of money that is actually earned by the ordinary hard working person than it takes of unearned income from those who are sitting on their huge assets, and simply watching the money roll in? A response to my flagging up the disparity in how much the haves don't pay in comparisson to how much of the coutries wealth they own was : "That is very interesting. But the UK Tax system is not based on wealth/ownership it is largely based on income and capital gains. There are other taxes that you don't factor also that affect the rich but are very unlikely to hit the poor. Capital Gains Tax Stamp Duty (higher rate) Inheritance Tax" Now I'm sorry I have been away working to earn my income so not been able to respond, but here goes... The UK system is indeed not based on wealth/ownership. But then it was developed by those who have plenty of both. If we were to look at a system similar to that in Switzerland, that does include at least an element of tax on assets. (So the bigger your stake in society, the more you pay, and that payment remains proportional to your total net worth), then perhaps we could significantly reduce taxes on income that is actually earned. Now for the "other" taxes: Capital Gains Tax - A tax on what exactly? A. Any gains made when you sell or otherwise dispose of assets which have appreciated in value from the point at which you bought them. (2nd homes, shares etc...) So it is a tax on the gain in value. On income you got without raising a finger to work for. & what is the rate for that tax? 18% for basic and 28% for higher rate. So the tax rate for sitting on your backside and watching as investments grow is lower than the rate for the money you get for getting off your backside and working for it, and at the higher rate it is 12% lower. (not counting the NI element which isn't paid on capital gains either) Stamp Duty (higher rate) - Only paid on the buying and selling of big posh houses. So not paid if you sit in your big posh house and don't move. Inheritance Tax - Couple of issues with this one. Firstly lets point out that the first £325,000 is absolutely free of any Tax, and the tories want to increase that to a round million. They want people to be able to inherrit a million £ free of any tax liability! Most of us would have to buy a lottery ticket to even have a chance at that sort of money. Second - AGAIN This is unearned income, income that the recipient gets without ever lifting a finger to earn it. Paying 40% tax on this unearned income is not something the rich can complain about. So uncle chinless poped his clogs and left you a fortune. How sad you have to pay a portion of that (on the amount above £325,000) in tax. And this from the people who charge those on benefits with wanting "something for nothing". No doubt the response will return "but uncle chinless paid tax on what he earned, so this is double taxation" - Uncle chinless died, he no longer exists, the money he left is unearned income for the person who inherits it. Not an hours work, or a bead of sweat expended. Free money, something for nothing. Now I don't know about anyone else, but I don't imagine that a single mother on benefits bringing up her kids in a rented flat would complain at paying 40% tax on every penny of a £1 million pound inheritance. The chance would be a fine thing. bambara
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree