The Politics Thread

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

50% income tax rate announced. What a mess - to me it's an important threshold.. it's corrupting of government if they can just help themselves to half of what someone earns.

Now that's not true is it? Can see how some might think the numbers significant, but 50 as opposed to 40 on earnings over 150k is hardly gonna make much difference is it?! If it were up to me, as I'm sure our resident capitalist confidence trickster (;)) is happy it isn't, I'd have 75% of everything over 100k. Nobody, but NOBODY, needs that much money to live.

Sometimes it's possible to trace why you phrase something in a certain way.

I think I still have Portillo's articulation of the point ringing in my ears from back in November.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/t ... 754236.stm

Go to 7mins 30 secs in.

[superjohnmcginlay]

50% income tax rate announced. What a mess - to me it's an important threshold.. it's corrupting of government if they can just help themselves to half of what someone earns.

Now that's not true is it? Can see how some might think the numbers significant, but 50 as opposed to 40 on earnings over 150k is hardly gonna make much difference is it?! If it were up to me, as I'm sure our resident capitalist confidence trickster (;)) is happy it isn't, I'd have 75% of everything over 100k. Nobody, but NOBODY, needs that much money to live.

Sometimes it's possible to trace why you phrase something in a certain way.

I think I still have Portillo's articulation of the point ringing in my ears from back in November.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/t ... 754236.stm

Go to 7mins 30 secs in.

Cant listen at work. What does he say?

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

50% income tax rate announced. What a mess - to me it's an important threshold.. it's corrupting of government if they can just help themselves to half of what someone earns.

Only on earnings above 150K.

Out of interest how would you go about clawing back some of the lost revenue that is needed to run public services?

Well, thank goodness you're on hand to explain that one to me. I'm just saying, to me the 50% number has some symbolic significance.

If you want me to answer that question, and give you detailed answers about what I would do with public spending etc., would be unfair of me to ask you how much extra money you think the 50% rate will raise?

http://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/4486

Here's a clue - it's a drop in the ocean when put next to the huge borrowing figures.

Thats not the point though is it?

An extra 5% or 10% above 150K doesn't make any difference to those people in real terms does it? Its a "drop in the ocean".

Public spending is being cut anyways. And once again it will be to the detriment of those services and the country as a whole!

What isn't the point?

The point is, independent commentators don't believe it's going to raise much fecking money.

It's a political move, not an economic one.

The last thing we need to be doing in these times is putting the squeeze on the people who will lead the way out of the recession. This kind of tax rise does affect the economic behavior of the rich - read that report.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

50% income tax rate announced. What a mess - to me it's an important threshold.. it's corrupting of government if they can just help themselves to half of what someone earns.

Now that's not true is it? Can see how some might think the numbers significant, but 50 as opposed to 40 on earnings over 150k is hardly gonna make much difference is it?! If it were up to me, as I'm sure our resident capitalist confidence trickster (;)) is happy it isn't, I'd have 75% of everything over 100k. Nobody, but NOBODY, needs that much money to live.

Sometimes it's possible to trace why you phrase something in a certain way.

I think I still have Portillo's articulation of the point ringing in my ears from back in November.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/t ... 754236.stm

Go to 7mins 30 secs in.

Cant listen at work. What does he say?

I actually think governments taxing above 40%,… it’s immoral….actually. I think, even if people earn a lot of money, it’s money they earned, and when government develops an attitude that it can help itself to pretty much half of what people earn.. I think that is an immoral postion.[…] I think it’s corrupting of government when it believes it can just help itself to half of what people make.

[Prufrock]

50% income tax rate announced. What a mess - to me it's an important threshold.. it's corrupting of government if they can just help themselves to half of what someone earns.

Now that's not true is it? Can see how some might think the numbers significant, but 50 as opposed to 40 on earnings over 150k is hardly gonna make much difference is it?! If it were up to me, as I'm sure our resident capitalist confidence trickster (;)) is happy it isn't, I'd have 75% of everything over 100k. Nobody, but NOBODY, needs that much money to live.

Sometimes it's possible to trace why you phrase something in a certain way.

I think I still have Portillo's articulation of the point ringing in my ears from back in November.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/t ... 754236.stm

Go to 7mins 30 secs in.

If you were referring to the song, it reminds me of you a 'capitalist confidence trickster, a poster boy for neo-liberalism'.

As for the serious bits. Portillo is talking out of his arse about morality. Yh the IMMORAL thing is people 'earning' vast amounts of money whilst public services and the poor be damned. It's that kind of thinking that the uber rich deseve it, and as a parallell, so do the poor, that kills social mobility, and charity.

That said, whilst you and I disagree that high taxes are good/bad, I certainly agree now is not the best time. *Gross simplification alert* the economy has collapsed because people aren't spending as much of their disposable income, so let's take some more of it away.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

It will delight some of you to know that this has annoyed me more and more as I've digested it.

It's pure politics - a desperate, fumbling attempt to tap into the current Zeitgeist that says the banker-led rich are to blame for all our troubles.

Well, they will have their headlines tomorrow morning - but at what cost? Quite apart from the trifling matter of a flagrant and unapologetic abandonment of a clear manifesto pledge, the bottom has well-and-truly fallen out of the New Labour 'project': we are no longer the enterprise economy that is 'comfortable' with people being rich....

The next election cannot come a moment too soon - let's get that blue flag hoisted.

[Prufrock]

The thing that struck me most about that link you posted was Frank Skinner saying that this credit crunch has struck people as being a big thing and we as the public would like to see some sort of united front to get us out of this instead of petty squabbles and playing political games.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

The thing that struck me most about that link you posted was Frank Skinner saying that this credit crunch has struck people as being a big thing and we as the public would like to see some sort of united front to get us out of this instead of petty squabbles and playing political games.

Well, my friend, the 50% rate is a political game of the first order.

This administration is completely dead on its feet and is having to go for broke.

The thing is, they actually want Conservatives like me to go mad at the senselessness of it all! They would like nothing more than for the Conservative Party to take the bait and come across as being the party that fights for a small wealthy minority (about 350,000 earn more than the £150k threshold). Now that Darling is having to slash spending himself, what other lines of attack are there left?

Again, another image that is likely to warm hearts - there will be many many true blue Tories sitting at their computers today, apoplectic with rage and wanting to put their fists through their screens at this. They will be angry at being restrained - the Party leadership will not allow the Conservatives to be drawn out into this particular battlefield. The Labour position is just so weak at the moment, almost no risk is worth taking. It's frustrating, but sensible, especially seeing as independent bodies like the Institute for Fiscal Studies will make the case for us, along with business leaders, many of whom will be briefed by Conservative HQ anyway.

[Abdoulaye's Twin]

I'm of the opinion that the 50% rate is wrong. Many of the people that earn 150k work damn hard for it. Why should they pay so that larger than necessary number of people can lay about doing nothing constructive in society? A 150k sounds like a lot to the average man on the street but to someone working long hours under a lot of stress it isn't, particularly when you think that it costs around £800k to buy an average 3 bed house in a nice (not Mayfair etc) part of London. I'd have less of a problem with it if it was aimed at silly salaries...like top footballers et al.

If the government stopped spending silly amounts on silly projects and got it's house in order then there would less need for it. Projects such as the millenium Dome, 2012 and the like spring to mind

[BWFC_Insane]

I'm of the opinion that the 50% rate is wrong. Many of the people that earn 150k work damn hard for it. Why should they pay so that larger than necessary number of people can lay about doing nothing constructive in society? A 150k sounds like a lot to the average man on the street but to someone working long hours under a lot of stress it isn't, particularly when you think that it costs around £800k to buy an average 3 bed house in a nice (not Mayfair etc) part of London. I'd have less of a problem with it if it was aimed at silly salaries...like top footballers et al.

If the government stopped spending silly amounts on silly projects and got it's house in order then there would less need for it. Projects such as the millenium Dome, 2012 and the like spring to mind

Aye cos all those bankers earning over 150K, doing a bad job, and getting rewarded further for it, then for good measure ripping off the system some more to set themselves up for life, they're the people we should be rewarding.

But all those folk cleaning toilets working 12 hour days at the minimum wage, good god we should be hammering them by taking money away from their free healthcare and education systems.

Sounds like a plan to me!

FFS. Taking a small amount more off those that can afford is not only fair, its the morally correct thing to do. Yes people work hard for their money but not as hard as some people work to simply keep their families heads above water.

All the people who have been laid off recently and I know a fair few, because of the financial crisis, go and tell them to their face how its "unfair" that people earning over 150K pay an extra 10% (5% really as it was going to be 45% anyways) on their earnings above 150K. See what they say to you.

Then go and tell them that we should just not be bothering with 2012 and the jobs it will create. Our country is having a tough time right now as are many other places. But lets face it, as much as you'd like it to be this is not the fault of the poorly paid, or those on benefits. This is the fault of a corrupt banking system and a major failing of the capitalist system, that promotes greed and an "I'm alright Jack" attitude, over and above, community spirit, strong public services and a country we can all be proud of.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

FFS. Taking a small amount more off those that can afford is not only fair, its the morally correct thing to do.

You could keep saying that again and again - presumably though, you should at least stop where it doesn't make economic sense anymore?

[superjohnmcginlay]

The next election cannot come a moment too soon - let's get that blue flag hoisted.

Theyre gonna be on a hiding to nothing.

[Abdoulaye's Twin]

I'm of the opinion that the 50% rate is wrong. Many of the people that earn 150k work damn hard for it. Why should they pay so that larger than necessary number of people can lay about doing nothing constructive in society? A 150k sounds like a lot to the average man on the street but to someone working long hours under a lot of stress it isn't, particularly when you think that it costs around £800k to buy an average 3 bed house in a nice (not Mayfair etc) part of London. I'd have less of a problem with it if it was aimed at silly salaries...like top footballers et al.

If the government stopped spending silly amounts on silly projects and got it's house in order then there would less need for it. Projects such as the millenium Dome, 2012 and the like spring to mind

Aye cos all those bankers earning over 150K, doing a bad job, and getting rewarded further for it, then for good measure ripping off the system some more to set themselves up for life, they're the people we should be rewarding.

But all those folk cleaning toilets working 12 hour days at the minimum wage, good god we should be hammering them by taking money away from their free healthcare and education systems.

Sounds like a plan to me!

FFS. Taking a small amount more off those that can afford is not only fair, its the morally correct thing to do. Yes people work hard for their money but not as hard as some people work to simply keep their families heads above water.

All the people who have been laid off recently and I know a fair few, because of the financial crisis, go and tell them to their face how its "unfair" that people earning over 150K pay an extra 10% (5% really as it was going to be 45% anyways) on their earnings above 150K. See what they say to you.

Then go and tell them that we should just not be bothering with 2012 and the jobs it will create. Our country is having a tough time right now as are many other places. But lets face it, as much as you'd like it to be this is not the fault of the poorly paid, or those on benefits. This is the fault of a corrupt banking system and a major failing of the capitalist system, that promotes greed and an "I'm alright Jack" attitude, over and above, community spirit, strong public services and a country we can all be proud of.

You seem to equate earning £150k with bankers. I can assure you that there are plenty of people that work hard to earn that kind of money that have nothing to do with banking or the causes of the current crisis. That said it's only a very small percentage of bankers that have caused the current crisis, yet they are all the devil incarnate. It's a bit like saying all football fans are hooligans a few years ago when it was a minority to blame.

The fact is that in this current age people seem to have forgotten the virtue of working for something rather than expecting society to do it for them. Yes. some people need help and they should be supported, but there are plenty that have no desire or incentive to do better for themselves. Why someone else should be expected to bail these people out is beyond me. I didn't expect anyone to help me out when I had problems years ago, I went out there and did something about it.

[BWFC_Insane]

I'm of the opinion that the 50% rate is wrong. Many of the people that earn 150k work damn hard for it. Why should they pay so that larger than necessary number of people can lay about doing nothing constructive in society? A 150k sounds like a lot to the average man on the street but to someone working long hours under a lot of stress it isn't, particularly when you think that it costs around £800k to buy an average 3 bed house in a nice (not Mayfair etc) part of London. I'd have less of a problem with it if it was aimed at silly salaries...like top footballers et al.

If the government stopped spending silly amounts on silly projects and got it's house in order then there would less need for it. Projects such as the millenium Dome, 2012 and the like spring to mind

Aye cos all those bankers earning over 150K, doing a bad job, and getting rewarded further for it, then for good measure ripping off the system some more to set themselves up for life, they're the people we should be rewarding.

But all those folk cleaning toilets working 12 hour days at the minimum wage, good god we should be hammering them by taking money away from their free healthcare and education systems.

Sounds like a plan to me!

FFS. Taking a small amount more off those that can afford is not only fair, its the morally correct thing to do. Yes people work hard for their money but not as hard as some people work to simply keep their families heads above water.

All the people who have been laid off recently and I know a fair few, because of the financial crisis, go and tell them to their face how its "unfair" that people earning over 150K pay an extra 10% (5% really as it was going to be 45% anyways) on their earnings above 150K. See what they say to you.

Then go and tell them that we should just not be bothering with 2012 and the jobs it will create. Our country is having a tough time right now as are many other places. But lets face it, as much as you'd like it to be this is not the fault of the poorly paid, or those on benefits. This is the fault of a corrupt banking system and a major failing of the capitalist system, that promotes greed and an "I'm alright Jack" attitude, over and above, community spirit, strong public services and a country we can all be proud of.

You seem to equate earning £150k with bankers. I can assure you that there are plenty of people that work hard to earn that kind of money that have nothing to do with banking or the causes of the current crisis. That said it's only a very small percentage of bankers that have caused the current crisis, yet they are all the devil incarnate. It's a bit like saying all football fans are hooligans a few years ago when it was a minority to blame.
The fact is that in this current age people seem to have forgotten the virtue of working for something rather than expecting society to do it for them. Yes. some people need help and they should be supported, but there are plenty that have no desire or incentive to do better for themselves. Why someone else should be expected to bail these people out is beyond me. I didn't expect anyone to help me out when I had problems years ago, I went out there and did something about it.

Like you equate all people not earning very much/below the poverty line with work-shy low-lifes?

Whats good for the goose and all that...........

[superjohnmcginlay]

Why wasnt the NI increase mentioned in the budget?

[Verbal]

The Government said previously that if they had the hindsight to see the financial crisis, they would never have bid for the Olympics. It will take a lot of funding and the like, but hopefully this can be offset by job creation, tourism etc.

I'd also wager that most people are especially angry not at the sums people earn (heck, we've had this discussion over the market rate for footballers' wages), but more the fact that they are getting handsomely rewarded for their failures (at a high level anyway...I too am aware of the bloodshed at lower levels in corporations).

FWIW, I think that taxation should be proportional on most levels, in the interest of fairness. Whether this brings in enough revenue is open for debate.

And there is also the question of fairness v equity - these are not the same. It may be equitable to spread the wealth using a 50p rate of tax on high earners, but is it fair to impose this? Probably not, but to be honest the amount of money the Government has invested in the private sector to keep it afloat you could argue they should be grateful...

Umm. I ponder. I'm going to do my dad proud and lead towards the masses on this one.

[Verbal]

Why wasnt the NI increase mentioned in the budget?

They were mentioned in the PBR

check here in the full Budget report. There's a section on the NI increases.

[superjohnmcginlay]

Why wasnt the NI increase mentioned in the budget?

They were mentioned in the PBR

check here in the full Budget report. There's a section on the NI increases.

Ta.

Fookers.

Did that simple BBC budget calculator thing. I'll be £150 worse off apparently.

[Abdoulaye's Twin]

Like you equate all people not earning very much/below the poverty line with work-shy low-lifes?

Whats good for the goose and all that...........

Whoah there. Thats some pretty big leaping you're doing there. Lets rewind to what we both said...

I said "a larger than necessary number of people". By this I mean that there is too large a number of people over and beyond the people that genuinely need help from the state. By this I am not including genuinely ill/disabled and disadvantaged people. I am talking about the people either choose not to work or are happy to take dead end jobs because they cannot be bothered to make the effort to train or gain qualifications to get a better job. I mean, why should they? They get allowances for this, that and the other leaving the likes of me and many others paying for it. If they genuinely can't better themselves then fine, they should be helped. But the many stories I hear like the one where an employee of mine has a girfriend who doesn't want to work. She refuses to do so. She is demanding that they have a baby so she can claim allsorts of benefits so she can have a lifetime of living off you and I. This is just one example of where we shouldn't be making it such an attractive proposition. At no point have I mentioned anything about taking away free education and healthcare

You mentioned bankers even though it had nothing to do with my post. Hence my comment back.

Taking a small amount more as you suggest is not fair, morally or otherwise IMO. You should get by in this life on merit and shouldn't be punished for the lack of merit of others. Yes we should take care of those that genuinely need help.

As for 2012. That is about the ego of this government. Not about jobs. Yes, there will be some extra jobs created, many temporary and many very low paid. What happens afterwards? We are left with several facilities that will not represent value to society in future (not saying all). Here's an idea...we all complain that transport, education, healthcare and housing are a mess these days. yes there is some investment being made but not enough. How about we create some jobs in those areas and actually fix them properly rather than the papering over of the cracks as is happening now?

[BWFC_Insane]

Like you equate all people not earning very much/below the poverty line with work-shy low-lifes?

Whats good for the goose and all that...........

Whoah there. Thats some pretty big leaping you're doing there. Lets rewind to what we both said...

I said "a larger than necessary number of people". By this I mean that there is too large a number of people over and beyond the people that genuinely need help from the state. By this I am not including genuinely ill/disabled and disadvantaged people. I am talking about the people either choose not to work or are happy to take dead end jobs because they cannot be bothered to make the effort to train or gain qualifications to get a better job. I mean, why should they? They get allowances for this, that and the other leaving the likes of me and many others paying for it. If they genuinely can't better themselves then fine, they should be helped. But the many stories I hear like the one where an employee of mine has a girfriend who doesn't want to work. She refuses to do so. She is demanding that they have a baby so she can claim allsorts of benefits so she can have a lifetime of living off you and I. This is just one example of where we shouldn't be making it such an attractive proposition. At no point have I mentioned anything about taking away free education and healthcare

You mentioned bankers even though it had nothing to do with my post. Hence my comment back.

Taking a small amount more as you suggest is not fair, morally or otherwise IMO. You should get by in this life on merit and shouldn't be punished for the lack of merit of others. Yes we should take care of those that genuinely need help.

As for 2012. That is about the ego of this government. Not about jobs. Yes, there will be some extra jobs created, many temporary and many very low paid. What happens afterwards? We are left with several facilities that will not represent value to society in future (not saying all). Here's an idea...we all complain that transport, education, healthcare and housing are a mess these days. yes there is some investment being made but not enough. How about we create some jobs in those areas and actually fix them properly rather than the papering over of the cracks as is happening now?

Right but how about all the people earning silly amounts of money who are screwing the system in such a way that they set themselves up for life?

Its easy to make blanket statements about "people who sponge off the state" but there are MORE and far MORE in desperate situations who work very hard and don't get any help.

I completely agree with you about people "playing the system" but its impossible to always distinguish between a genuine case and a problem. The papers sensationalise things rather than giving clear and accurate facts. I really don't want to live in a society where the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. If we want good public services then we have to pay for it. Isn't it fairer that those who earn more contribute more? Isn't that a good way to perhaps give people on minimum wage who are at least in jobs a helping hand, meaning they lose proportionally less to tax but still get the benefit of health and education services.

Trouble is not everyone can improve themselves, not always because they don't have the ability, but perhaps because they don't have the situation. Its these people who slip through the net and there are a lot more of them than there are benfits cheats!