George and Ed at each others throats.

[Guest The Ropey HOFF]

George Osborne has said the British economy has "turned a corner" with the latest financial growth figures a vindication of the government's long-term strategy.

 

 

"We held our nerve when many told us to abandon our plan," the Chancellor told an audience of academics, think tank members and business leaders in central London ahead of the Conservative Party Conference later this month.

 

 

Mr Osborne said there were "tentative signs of a balanced, broad based and sustainable recovery," but warned of the need to make "many billions" more in savings after the next election.

 

 

"The plan is working, but the recovery is still in its early stages, plenty of risks remain, and more years of hard decisions lie ahead. Our economy is turning a corner, but we must not take anything for granted," he said.

 

 

But ......

 

 

 

Labour dismissed the Chancellor's speech as a "desperate attempt to rewrite history".

 

 

"Three wasted years of flatlining under George Osborne have left ordinary families worse off and caused long-term damage to our economy," shadow Treasury minister Chris Leslie said.

 

 

"This desperate attempt to rewrite history will not wash when on every test he set himself, this Chancellor's plan A has badly failed - on living standards, growth and the deficit."

 

 

Opposition leader Ed Miliband is expected to use his speech to the TUC conference to lambast the Chancellor for being "out of touch with ordinary families" by celebrating while they face the squeeze.

 

Who's right?

[Guest Andy]

George Osborne has said the British economy has "turned a corner" with the latest financial growth figures a vindication of the government's long-term strategy.

 

 

"We held our nerve when many told us to abandon our plan," the Chancellor told an audience of academics, think tank members and business leaders in central London ahead of the Conservative Party Conference later this month.

 

 

Mr Osborne said there were "tentative signs of a balanced, broad based and sustainable recovery," but warned of the need to make "many billions" more in savings after the next election.

 

 

"The plan is working, but the recovery is still in its early stages, plenty of risks remain, and more years of hard decisions lie ahead. Our economy is turning a corner, but we must not take anything for granted," he said.

 

 

But ......

 

 

 

Labour dismissed the Chancellor's speech as a "desperate attempt to rewrite history".

 

 

"Three wasted years of flatlining under George Osborne have left ordinary families worse off and caused long-term damage to our economy," shadow Treasury minister Chris Leslie said.

 

 

"This desperate attempt to rewrite history will not wash when on every test he set himself, this Chancellor's plan A has badly failed - on living standards, growth and the deficit."

 

 

Opposition leader Ed Miliband is expected to use his speech to the TUC conference to lambast the Chancellor for being "out of touch with ordinary families" by celebrating while they face the squeeze.

 

Who's right?

 

 

Osborne

[Guest The Ropey HOFF]

Osborne

 

 

I detest both of them, but TBH I think there's a bit of truth in what both of them say. The economy is fairing better and it has been helped by the slash and burn tactics by Boy George, but Hopeless Ed has a point, millions of people mostly low earners have suffered, with no pay rises, or pay cuts when at the same time George has given the top earners a reduction in their tax rate.

[Guest Andy]

I detest both of them, but TBH I think there's a bit of truth in what both of them say. The economy is fairing better and it has been helped by the slash and burn tactics by Boy George, but Hopeless Ed has a point, millions of people mostly low earners have suffered, with no pay rises, or pay cuts when at the same time George has given the top earners a reduction in their tax rate.

 

Looks like Ed and his party may be struggling at the moment, wonder if they may fancy a change of leadership before it goes completely pear shaped?

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/19/us-britain-poll-idUSBRE98I09820130919

[Guest The Ropey HOFF]

Looks like Ed and his party may be struggling at the moment, wonder if they may fancy a change of leadership before it goes completely pear shaped?

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/19/us-britain-poll-idUSBRE98I09820130919

 

 

For some reason Labour have this knack of not seeing the woods for the trees, when it comes to realising what everyone else knows, that they have a lame duck leader. It was the same when Gormless Gordon was in charge, he was clearly going to lose and he needed to go, but he stayed and lost out to the Tories and the, I'll even sell my own granny for power Lib Dems. It's the same now, Ed Milliband is useless and unless they get rid of him, they won't regain power again, not that I care. Labour had the chance to be in power for even longer, but they picked the wrong Milliband brother, they are Donkeys led by Asses, lol.

[The Fisheys]

I detest both of them, but TBH I think there's a bit of truth in what both of them say. The economy is fairing better and it has been helped by the slash and burn tactics by Boy George, but Hopeless Ed has a point, millions of people mostly low earners have suffered, with no pay rises, or pay cuts when at the same time George has given the top earners a reduction in their tax rate.

 

Not sure I could detest anyone I had never met, any more than I could detest a tree!

Not sure I quite get the bit about "slash and burn," the coalition, (to its shame), has increased public spending.

Cutting top tax rates brings in more money, and I am unaware that this fact is disputed by Labour.

The only reason they brought in the 50% tax rate was party political, costing the country billions in lost tax revenues; largely borne by the poorest members of society.

[The Fisheys]

Looks like Ed and his party may be struggling at the moment, wonder if they may fancy a change of leadership before it goes completely pear shaped?

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/19/us-britain-poll-idUSBRE98I09820130919

 

Yeh, they could always pick Kevin Rudd!

[pablo]

Not sure I could detest anyone I had never met, any more than I could detest a tree!

Not sure I quite get the bit about "slash and burn," the coalition, (to its shame), has increased public spending.

Cutting top tax rates brings in more money, and I am unaware that this fact is disputed by Labour.

The only reason they brought in the 50% tax rate was party political, costing the country billions in lost tax revenues; largely borne by the poorest members of society.

 

Have you got any stats on this?im asking seriously btw,not being snide,the reason i ask is this,yes,some high earners suddenly weren't high earners any more when the 50% rate was brought in,but was the loss of them and their taxes not made up by the others who went on the higher tax band?

[The Fisheys]

Have you got any stats on this?im asking seriously btw,not being snide,the reason i ask is this,yes,some high earners suddenly weren't high earners any more when the 50% rate was brought in,but was the loss of them and their taxes not made up by the others who went on the higher tax band?

 

Probably the best think to do is google "income tax tipping point." The issue is that the real high earners can usually arrange their affairs to avoid UK taxes, but people on lower incomes cannot.

We can even learn from the defeated Labor govt in Oz, who increased the "tax free" ceiling to $18,000 before you pay tax.

Whilst we all accept the need to pay taxes, taxes need to be seen to be fair, otherwise ultimately there is trouble. Poll Tax failed because even the people who benefited from it thought it was unfair, so Mrs Thatchers Conservatives lost the Eastbourne by election sending panic amongst her MPs, who booted her out. Her downfall had little to do with "Europe," Heseltine, Hurd, and John Major didn't really offer much change in European policy, but they all promised to repeal Poll Tax.

In the early 1980s, with high tax rates, the top 10% paid 10% of the total income tax take. Once Geoffrey Howe cut the top rate to 40% this soared to 25%, leaving a smaller bill for us mere mortals.

You can do any amount of research on this topic, and look in popular culture; remember the Rolling Stones and "Exile on Main Street," they had to leave the UK to avoid taxes, Ian Botham lived in the Channel Islands for a year when he had written a book, even in the 1960s, Jim Clark, and Jackie Stewart moved abroad to avoid UK taxes, more recently Lewis Hamilton did the same.

Sorry I cannot give you a simple link, but if you do some digging you, like I was, will be surprised to see cutting top earners taxes actually benefits poor people.

You could also make a case for abolishing NIC, as it is levied disproportionately on lower salaries, I think it is 12% up to £40,000 then it reduces to 1%, I think.

[newjez]

I never pay high rate tax. I defer my income (using legal means - pensions and share investment). But I find it is getting harder and harder to live on the lower threshold. Luckily some of my deferrals are coming home to roost - tax free of course. I find the higher rate tax an insult - I'm not a high earner and I'm not rich. I won't pay it on principle.

[pablo]

Probably the best think to do is google "income tax tipping point." The issue is that the real high earners can usually arrange their affairs to avoid UK taxes, but people on lower incomes cannot.

We can even learn from the defeated Labor govt in Oz, who increased the "tax free" ceiling to $18,000 before you pay tax.

Whilst we all accept the need to pay taxes, taxes need to be seen to be fair, otherwise ultimately there is trouble. Poll Tax failed because even the people who benefited from it thought it was unfair, so Mrs Thatchers Conservatives lost the Eastbourne by election sending panic amongst her MPs, who booted her out. Her downfall had little to do with "Europe," Heseltine, Hurd, and John Major didn't really offer much change in European policy, but they all promised to repeal Poll Tax.

In the early 1980s, with high tax rates, the top 10% paid 10% of the total income tax take. Once Geoffrey Howe cut the top rate to 40% this soared to 25%, leaving a smaller bill for us mere mortals.

You can do any amount of research on this topic, and look in popular culture; remember the Rolling Stones and "Exile on Main Street," they had to leave the UK to avoid taxes, Ian Botham lived in the Channel Islands for a year when he had written a book, even in the 1960s, Jim Clark, and Jackie Stewart moved abroad to avoid UK taxes, more recently Lewis Hamilton did the same.

Sorry I cannot give you a simple link, but if you do some digging you, like I was, will be surprised to see cutting top earners taxes actually benefits poor people.

You could also make a case for abolishing NIC, as it is levied disproportionately on lower salaries, I think it is 12% up to £40,000 then it reduces to 1%, I think.

 

Might check it later,too early for all that yet,.on the nic i agree tho.

Im s/employed,the more i earn the more i pay,i think thats right,going right up the scale,there is a society as far as im concerned and i dont mind paying more if i earn more,so no sympathy for others who do mind paying more tbh.

Theres some stats in your reply,but none to say we get more income "overall" when taxes are cut,after doing the boring household chores i might look into it

[Sustain]

So what is fair?

 

% increasing the more you earn means to me fewer end up supporting majority

 

Most people will say they don't mind paying more as they earn more. But put it in reality, if you start earning $20m+ and that paying an extra 10% now equates to $2m. Does that not urge you too consider your family over society?

[pablo]

So what is fair?

 

% increasing the more you earn means to me fewer end up supporting majority

 

Most people will say they don't mind paying more as they earn more. But put it in reality, if you start earning $20m+ and that paying an extra 10% now equates to $2m. Does that not urge you too consider your family over society?

 

Its easy for me to answer as i'll never earn that amount,but i'd like to think i wouldnt mind paying more.

Cant really give a comparison using the amounts youre talking about tbh,but an analogy would be how much i used to pay my hod carrier,and how much i "could" have paid my hod carrier,back in 2003 i paid him a minimum £10 an hour,i also used to give him 50 or so if it was a good week,i could easily have got a carrier for £40/50 a day,i chose not to,but im not "that" arsed about money,i like and need it,same as anyone,but i work till ive got enuf,then its home

Example was two of my mates in another gang,needy and greedy we call them,i'd get X amount in by say 2.30/3 o'clock and go,needy and greedy would stay till 5.30 or so,they "had" to earn over a grand a week or they weren't happy

So,like i say,im maybe not the one to ask,as money isnt my god,which is why ive turned down foremans/agents jobs most of my life,im just not arsed about job titles,and more money if it involves sacking people,im happy to just tick over

Like i say,if im earning $20 mill,i honestly dont think i'd be arsed,you can believe that or not,i dont mind,as you dont know me,but no,theres only so much £ i need

[flag of convenience]

Probably the best think to do is google "income tax tipping point." The issue is that the real high earners can usually arrange their affairs to avoid UK taxes, but people on lower incomes cannot.

We can even learn from the defeated Labor govt in Oz, who increased the "tax free" ceiling to $18,000 before you pay tax.

Whilst we all accept the need to pay taxes, taxes need to be seen to be fair, otherwise ultimately there is trouble. Poll Tax failed because even the people who benefited from it thought it was unfair, so Mrs Thatchers Conservatives lost the Eastbourne by election sending panic amongst her MPs, who booted her out. Her downfall had little to do with "Europe," Heseltine, Hurd, and John Major didn't really offer much change in European policy, but they all promised to repeal Poll Tax.

In the early 1980s, with high tax rates, the top 10% paid 10% of the total income tax take. Once Geoffrey Howe cut the top rate to 40% this soared to 25%, leaving a smaller bill for us mere mortals.

You can do any amount of research on this topic, and look in popular culture; remember the Rolling Stones and "Exile on Main Street," they had to leave the UK to avoid taxes, Ian Botham lived in the Channel Islands for a year when he had written a book, even in the 1960s, Jim Clark, and Jackie Stewart moved abroad to avoid UK taxes, more recently Lewis Hamilton did the same.

Sorry I cannot give you a simple link, but if you do some digging you, like I was, will be surprised to see cutting top earners taxes actually benefits poor people.

You could also make a case for abolishing NIC, as it is levied disproportionately on lower salaries, I think it is 12% up to £40,000 then it reduces to 1%, I think.

 

So going by that if the rich pay no take the trickle down effect will benefit the poor? Actually it benefits the rich and few else. The trickle down effect(old 80s policy) has long been shown for what it is. Far better looking at tightening tax avoidance by the rich who will use every trick in the book to keep what they regard is rightfully theirs, while the small people pay their share.

[flag of convenience]

So what is fair?

 

% increasing the more you earn means to me fewer end up supporting majority

 

Most people will say they don't mind paying more as they earn more. But put it in reality, if you start earning $20m+ and that paying an extra 10% now equates to $2m. Does that not urge you too consider your family over society?

 

No because there is plenty for the family on that sort of earning. But saying that it is clear the direction society is going and likely greed will win out for a time.

[Sustain]

No because there is plenty for the family on that sort of earning. But saying that it is clear the direction society is going and likely greed will win out for a time.

 

At the other end of the continuum to "Greed" in society; where would that leave us?

[Guest The Ropey HOFF]

Not sure I could detest anyone I had never met, any more than I could detest a tree!

Not sure I quite get the bit about "slash and burn," the coalition, (to its shame), has increased public spending.

Cutting top tax rates brings in more money, and I am unaware that this fact is disputed by Labour.

The only reason they brought in the 50% tax rate was party political, costing the country billions in lost tax revenues; largely borne by the poorest members of society.

 

I detest most politicians, especially the Tory toffs, but Labour and the Lib Dems aren't much better these days. I really hated Thatcher, but that was in the early 80s when I was out of work a year. I loved one politician though ....... Dennis Skinner, he was brilliant, he told the lying heartless moraless bent politicians just what he thought of them, he spoke for ordinary working class man and woman.

[The Fisheys]

So going by that if the rich pay no take the trickle down effect will benefit the poor? Actually it benefits the rich and few else. The trickle down effect(old 80s policy) has long been shown for what it is. Far better looking at tightening tax avoidance by the rich who will use every trick in the book to keep what they regard is rightfully theirs, while the small people pay their share.

 

Sorry if you misunderstood what was an explanation, not a suggestion. I don't seem to have suggested that the top tax rate should be nil, but something like 35% to 40%. Hope that is cleared up now.

[Guest malkamlka]

If you watch PM's Question Time on tellie, you quickly see that Labour are completely out of their depth. They NEVER admit their mistakes, instead doing the head shaking or head nodding thing that shows they are really, just ineffective as an opposition. It appears that if, God forbid, this Labour shower scaremonger their way back into power, it will be MRS BALLS who will be PM - and she is completely bonkers. (well, she married Ed didn't she?)

[flag of convenience]

For some reason Labour have this knack of not seeing the woods for the trees, when it comes to realising what everyone else knows, that they have a lame duck leader. It was the same when Gormless Gordon was in charge, he was clearly going to lose and he needed to go, but he stayed and lost out to the Tories and the, I'll even sell my own granny for power Lib Dems. It's the same now, Ed Milliband is useless and unless they get rid of him, they won't regain power again, not that I care. Labour had the chance to be in power for even longer, but they picked the wrong Milliband brother, they are Donkeys led by Asses, lol.

 

Ed Milliband is as I understand it looking to recapture the socialist roots of the Labour party. Finally perhaps separate the parties and state clearly what Labour stands for. The brand was severely damaged under Brown and Blair.

[flag of convenience]

At the other end of the continuum to "Greed" in society; where would that leave us?

 

How about a fairer and balanced society for starters.

[flag of convenience]

I detest most politicians, especially the Tory toffs, but Labour and the Lib Dems aren't much better these days. I really hated Thatcher, but that was in the early 80s when I was out of work a year. I loved one politician though ....... Dennis Skinner, he was brilliant, he told the lying heartless moraless bent politicians just what he thought of them, he spoke for ordinary working class man and woman.

 

Dennis Skinner was the man. Shame too few think beyond their pension plan these days or their personal gain.

[flag of convenience]

If you watch PM's Question Time on tellie, you quickly see that Labour are completely out of their depth. They NEVER admit their mistakes, instead doing the head shaking or head nodding thing that shows they are really, just ineffective as an opposition. It appears that if, God forbid, this Labour shower scaremonger their way back into power, it will be MRS BALLS who will be PM - and she is completely bonkers. (well, she married Ed didn't she?)

 

And Cameron has a grip on it? What politicians or anyone for that matter in authority these days admits mistakes?

[The Fisheys]

Dennis Skinner was the man. Shame too few think beyond their pension plan these days or their personal gain.

 

Actually still living, drawing an MPs salary at the ripe old age of 80. Cannot argue, he is democratically elected, and has been 11 times I think.