to not understand why the government couldn't just raise income tax?

[emkana]

I guess that wouldn't help with all the savings that had to be made (or so we're told), but why no tax rise at all?

German newspapers very critical of measures btw, saying it will kill the already ailing British economy.

Who was offering tax rises at the GE Litchick?

If they just raised the basic threshold of tax to about £15,000 and scrapped all tax credits, it would be much more simple. I never understood the logic of taking tax off very low earners, only to give it back again in tax credits?

People did not vote to have the welfare state dismantled; they did not vote to have universal child benefit scrapped (one of Cameron's election promises to keep it); they did not vote to have tuition fees raised sky-high (or raised at all - those voting LD, were after abolition of fees); no-one absolutely no-one voted for a top-down transformation (read: privatisation) of the NHS in any way.

In fact of those who voted, huge numbers voted for neither the Tories or LibDems. And of those who did vote for those parties, they did not vote for a Coalition where one party cast all its policies to the wind and became the Tories' lap-dog.

"but it wont be fixed once implemented it wont ever go back down."

Ah, that is where the '4 year' fixed term is clever - because they are the Tories, and they want to be a party of Tax Cutters. This would allow them to cut it about 6 months before a general election! But they would be immune from charges of 'cutting taxes for the election' because the time had been set now.

People who voted LibDem DID vote for tax rises really - they have always been in favour of higher taxation and progressive budgets. Oh, and the abolition of university fees

Only a minority of people voted for the Tories - perhaps voting for things like retaining child benefit as a universal benefit? That lasted long...

lily - in england i think the majority of people voted tory? they def did in the previous one - labour got in because of the way that boudaries were set and that cities had less voters per MP.

if the gov is hoping the private sector will grow and employ ex public sector workers then increasing tax would discourage the entrepreneurs.

the other issue of concern is that Ireland's austerity cuts, instead of turning the economy around, have appeared to plunge it even deeper into recession.

They used slaves to enrich themselves is the point, Patricia. It's done all over the place. Still is. Slavery often goes hand in hand with genocidal warfare, not always, but often enough.

So as the demented GMM was pointing fingers, she needed to delve into her own nation's imperialist past to discover similar atrocities - these are sadly a part of most nation's histories, however.

Again, neither here nor there with regards to this discussion.

I still agree with the conclusion of the German press that the measures won't work.

ah i meant minority of the country

They received 10 million votes.
Labour & Libdems together (both campaigning under a progressive manifesto of tax rises and more modest spending cuts) received over 15 million votes.

The Germans are doing similar things though - they are drastically shrinking the size of their Army for a start to save money.

The problem is all 3 partys said cuts were necessary but none of them said where they would make them

GollyMissMolly

Dear GMM,

You are a Psychopathic, Hate-Mongering fool.
Please leave the internet for good.

Signed,
Everybody

You're right Expat, I see your point. And even if official slavery is abolished, unofficially it can never be.

The problem with the 1% extra stamp duty is that it really wouldn't raise that much - firstly because there are only about 200,000 properties worth over £1m, so assuming 5% change hands in a year and they are worth an average of £3m that's only raising £200m a year. And many people buying that value of house won't pay stamp duty anyway as they'll buy it through a company and avoid it...(this was offered to us when we bought this last year and we didn't spend £1m either!)

One of the problems is the essentially short-term view of any government; they know that in 4 yrs time they face another election so won't put in place policies that take years to show their worth, as they need results much more quickly than that.

Taxes have gone up substantially

• Top tax rate of 50% for everyone earning over 150k
• Loss of personal allowance for everyone earning over 100k
• Increase in NI contributions. All of this means that the effective top rate of tax is c. 52% currently

In addition, VAT is also going up to 20% next year. Most likely stamp duty for houses over 1 or 2 mill is also going to be increased to 5%.

I suspect that if the personal allowance is increased to 10,000 then the band for the 40% tax rate will also come down.

Revupk, that has already been announced, that as the personal allowance is increased, so the 40% rate of tax comes down so that HRT payers don't benefit from the change. (God forbid that someone on HRT should ever benefit from anything, evil people that they are. )

FriiightAttendant

Of course it's ridiculous to argue that a street sweeper deserves to earn the same salary as a CEO, and that the only difference between them is about the 'good luck' to be born clever.

There are three fundamental factors that affect how the going rate for a job is determined.

1. supply and demand

What percentage of the population is capable of being a street sweeper? Just about all of it, with the exception of those with the most serious disabilities and health issues. You need to be able to hold a broom and walk, or sit inside an electric cart and drive it. That's all.

If he resigns his replacement can be found that day, and no-one will notice the difference. the street gets swept just the same.

What percentages of the population is capable of being a CEO? A tiny tiny percentage. It takes a highly experienced multi-disciplined person with a comprehensive skill-set and in depth industry knowledge. 'Cleverness' is only one factor. Many very clever people are not remotely capable of running empires.

If he resigns his replacement may take 6 months to identify and lure, and the business may flounder in the meantime without strong leadership and vision.

2. Accountability

If a street sweeper is ineffective, a handful of streets get dirty (something that can be sorted out in a matter of days and no long term damage is done) and he may get fired.

If a CEO is ineffective the whole business can collapse, the long term damage can be huge, and many people may lose their jobs.

Who volunteeers for that amount of responsibility and stress for a street sweeper's wage?

The street sweeper puts down his broom at the end of his shift and goes home for tea. If he is required to work longer, he is paid overtime.

The CEO is expected to fulfill his brief on the salary agreed, no matter how long it takes. If he has to work into the early hours, or cancel a holiday at short notice in order to solve a problem or meet a deadline, he will.

The street sweeper doe not receive a phone call at 9.30pm whilst he's on holiday asking him to drop everything and rush back to work because someone has left a Coke can in the middle of Sidcup High street, does he?

Most CEO's are where they are because they have spent years responding to situations by putting their company first and their leisure time second.

3. The ability to add value, or create profit.

A street sweeper can be the best, most committed street sweeper in the world, and his patch can have the cleanest streets in town. But they will always just be streets comprising concrete and tarmac. He cannot turn them into streets of gold, where the sun always shines and there are no exhaust fumes, and the buses always turn upon time. He can't add value. And if you can't add value, you can't make profit. If you can't make profit you can't employ more people, or contribute to the economy, or pay more tax.

I don't think you need me to finish this with how a CEO can add value, do you?

lilybolero - you are completely right about the HRT threshold being changed to stop people earning 45k benefitting from the increase to the personal allowance.

The lib dems said in their manifesto the increase to the personal allowance should be for anyone earning less than 100k. Why is no one bringing them to account for sneakily changing the rules?

Expat, America cease being a colony in 1783, no?
The abolition of slavery was brought about in 1807.
Africa was 'carved up in' in the second half of the C19th. My dates are accurate.

Attention, all Labour supporters

I am pleased to remind you that if you want to pay more tax, you are more than welcome to voluntarily do so. I think cheques have to be made out to Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs.

Personally, I will avoid paying as much tax as I can, by using ISAs, tax-free pension contributions, and other tax avoidance schemes.

However, I look forward to hearing the tales of your generosity on this thread.

GHH (good name by the way!) - well said.
Perhaps taxes should and will rise in the longer term, but the wastefulness in the Public Sector is what has led to the deficit which is why the cuts have to be made.
Inevitably there is bleating, because the previous gvt set it up so it would be this way.
Blame Gordy.

Oh please Molly. How about we decide we are also all raping, pillaging beasts for decimating the heritage and culture of the scots a few hundred years ago as well. Ridiculous thread. I was raised in Germany in the eighties. You cannot even mention the word Nazi as almost all are incredibly ashamed of thier heritage, unfairly as so many who were born then were not involved and most now were mere twinkles in their parents and grandparents eyes.

Ludicrous, predjudiced and ignorant assumptions serve only to pour scorn on the tiny amount of credibility you attempted to have.

I am in the middle income bracket and provided it was going to a fair system I would pay more tax. Fair to me means not providing eighteen year olds with beer money - I would rather it paid for an apprenticeship for one of them. Fair to me means people like Riven et al have the support, equipment and resources they need.

I meant ridiculous post [hblush]

Most people who have mega-income earn it off the backs of the people at the bottom of the pyramid,who are operating their checkouts or working in their factories.

What do you mean, exactly? 'off the backs' implies that they are parasites at the expense of the lowly workers. But it's a symbiotic relationship - always has been. Without the people at the top the company wouldn't exit in the first place, would it?

"the wastefulness in the Public Sector is what has led to the deficit"

I must have missed that memo