The Budget Thread 2009

[London_Calling]

Your 'not suggesting sympathy' followed a whole post suggesting sympathy.

It's like when someone starts a sentence 'No offence', you know they are about to say something that will cause offence.

No it's not. It's just trying to understand someone elses position. Dimension, etc.

Very easy to understand New Labour's policy - populism ahead of an election and to outfllank the Tories, who can't now reverse the policy.

 

[London_Calling]

Or "I'm not being racist but...."

Don't be a cunt all your life.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

No it's not. It's just trying to understand someone elses position.

I do understand their position, thanks. It is one of wealth and financial security of a kind that I do not have.

 

[bemused]

But it’s not only about an extra 5% income tax is it; anyone on that kind of money will have investments and they’ve already seen 25% lopped off property values and 50% off shares. I doubt they can bear to think about pensions. Not suggesting sympathy for them but they are looking at a very different future now and I suppose this is just one more thing.

My point is that I do think that any Government shouldn't be allowed to take over half of any money you earn in direct taxation. It sets a very worrying trend because it lays the ground to increase the tax rate below the magic £150k mark. Labour have now made the tax system so complicated that they don't understand it, the 10p tax rate is a good example.

I wonder if this was done so when the Tories get into power and reverse it that Labour can accusing them of helping the rich?

At some point taxes applied to 'the rich' will be applied to everyone else.

I'm now becoming so annoyed with the 2nd kicking my pension provision has taken, the hike in fuel costs, the nonsense bailing out of car companies etc that I don't really care what slash and burn happens as long as my tax burden now goes down. Up to now I always thought I paid a fair share - not any more if this lot stay in they'll work their way down the income scales pillaging as they go.


I don't think feeling over taxed is a unique feeling in the UK and unfortunately I think peoples impressions how taxpayers money is wasted will mean that it'll be very easy for future Governments to slash public spending probably too deep.

 

[treelover]

LRC(labour Left's)/ Left Economic Advisory Panel's take on it

http://leap-lrc.blogspot.com/

 

[tbaldwin]

My point is that I do think that any Government shouldn't be allowed to take over half of any money you earn in direct taxation. It sets a very worrying trend because it lays the ground to increase the tax rate below the magic £150k mark. Labour have now made the tax system so complicated that they don't understand it, the 10p tax rate is a good example.

I wonder if this was done so when the Tories get into power and reverse it that Labour can accusing them of helping the rich?

At some point taxes applied to 'the rich' will be applied to everyone else.

I'm now becoming so annoyed with the 2nd kicking my pension provision has taken, the hike in fuel costs, the nonsense bailing out of car companies etc that I don't really care what slash and burn happens as long as my tax burden now goes down. Up to now I always thought I paid a fair share - not any more if this lot stay in they'll work their way down the income scales pillaging as they go.


I don't think feeling over taxed is a unique feeling in the UK and unfortunately I think peoples impressions how taxpayers money is wasted will mean that it'll be very easy for future Governments to slash public spending probably too deep.

Your on £75,000 and feeling sorry for yourself.......Funny old world.....

 

[DownwardDog]

My point is that I do think that any Government shouldn't be allowed to take over half of any money you earn in direct taxation.

What's so special about 50%? Is 49% ok and 51% not? The government is allowed to do anything it wants. Happily, it's almost completely incompetent so it's not too hard to fight back, take personal responsibility and cheat on your taxes.

 

[Blagsta]

My point is that I do think that any Government shouldn't be allowed to take over half of any money you earn in direct taxation. It sets a very worrying trend because it lays the ground to increase the tax rate below the magic £150k mark. Labour have now made the tax system so complicated that they don't understand it, the 10p tax rate is a good example.

I wonder if this was done so when the Tories get into power and reverse it that Labour can accusing them of helping the rich?

At some point taxes applied to 'the rich' will be applied to everyone else.

I'm now becoming so annoyed with the 2nd kicking my pension provision has taken, the hike in fuel costs, the nonsense bailing out of car companies etc that I don't really care what slash and burn happens as long as my tax burden now goes down. Up to now I always thought I paid a fair share - not any more if this lot stay in they'll work their way down the income scales pillaging as they go.


I don't think feeling over taxed is a unique feeling in the UK and unfortunately I think peoples impressions how taxpayers money is wasted will mean that it'll be very easy for future Governments to slash public spending probably too deep.

You're on £75k. Stop moaning.

 

[bemused]

What's so special about 50%? Is 49% ok and 51% not? The government is allowed to do anything it wants. Happily, it's almost completely incompetent so it's not too hard to fight back, take personal responsibility and cheat on your taxes.

Personally I don't think anyone should pay more than 40% direct taxation and if you earn less that 15k pa you should pay a nominal amount at best.

 

[Kanda]

The bracket being 150k is a cop out, should have been lower imo

 

[littlebabyjesus]

The bracket being 150k is a cop out, should have been lower imo

Yep. A simple raising of the existing top rate would have been properly meaningful. This is mostly window dressing.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Personally I don't think anyone should pay more than 40% direct taxation and if you earn less that 15k pa you should pay a nominal amount at best.

And if more money than that is needed, what do you do?

Close a few hospitals?

 

[Combustible]

My point is that I do think that any Government shouldn't be allowed to take over half of any money you earn in direct taxation. It sets a very worrying trend because it lays the ground to increase the tax rate below the magic £150k mark.

Good.

 

[agricola]

Personally I don't think anyone should pay more than 40% direct taxation and if you earn less that 15k pa you should pay a nominal amount at best.

Exactly. Noone, "immoral earnings" or no, should spend more time working to pay a tax bill than they do working for their own income.

And if more money than that is needed, what do you do?

Close a few hospitals?

They should deal with their own waste (ID cards (which as has been said are still coming in) PFI, idiot procurement etc) before taking other peoples money, or indeed cutting services.

 

[TomPaine]

Once again this proves why the way UK income tax works is a total farce, the system is crap and the bureaucracy is spawns a joke.

Get a grip, man. And it is morally upstanding to have an income many times greater than the people around you who provide you with essential services?

What is immoral is that some of those who are wealthy enough to pay the tax are paying for the behavior of those who created this fuck up, who are probably in Monaco, the Bahamas, self employed or are elsewhere now and won't pay a fucking penny.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Exactly. Noone, "immoral earnings" or no, should spend more time working to pay a tax bill than they do working for their own income.

While those who perform essential services for them are struggling to make ends meet, nobody should earn more than £100,000 per year (to pluck a figure out of the air).

Your statement is utter bollocks because it assumes that what *I* earn does not impact on what others earn. It does.

 

[TomPaine]

While those who perform essential services for them are struggling to make ends meet, nobody should earn more than £100,000 per year (to pluck a figure out of the air).

Your statement is utter bollocks because it assumes that what *I* earn does not impact on what others earn. It does.

I'd love to see how you would implement this....

 

[agricola]

While those who perform essential services for them are struggling to make ends meet, nobody should earn more than £100,000 per year (to pluck a figure out of the air).

How do you define "essential services" though? As for "struggling to get by", I think youll find that is far more because of government inaction (with regards to provision of affordable housing and certain pay and benefits awards) and government tax policy (which has been amazingly tolerant of tax loopholes and offshore / non-domeciling) than it is because people have been getting rich.

Your statement is utter bollocks because it assumes that what *I* earn does not impact on what others earn. It does.

You seem to have misunderstood what I wrote. The state should never take away more out of a persons earnings than that person is left with. That doesnt matter whether its 15k or 150k, its the principle which is immoral, especially when the state is making fuck all attempt to change the way it spends money and isnt helping the poor anyway.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

You seem to have misunderstood what I read. The state should never take away more out of a persons earnings than that person is left with.

I reject the basic premise of this statement – that a person's wages are a fair reflection of their worth. If it does not plan to overhaul the patently unjust economic system in which we live, a state has a moral duty to claw back as much of the money the rich unfairly keep to themselves as it can.

I am simply attempting to point out to you the flaws of your moral case by presenting what imo is a much stronger moral case.

Morality and capitalism don't mix in the way you imply that they do. Capitalism itself is amoral. To allow capitalist economies to follow the logic of capital unhindered is immoral.

 

[TomPaine]

You seem to have misunderstood what I wrote. The state should never take away more out of a persons earnings than that person is left with. That doesnt matter whether its 15k or 150k, its the principle which is immoral, especially when the state is making fuck all attempt to change the way it spends money and isnt helping the poor anyway.

I agree. We have a government that is happy to to waste vast sums on bombing countries, crap like the millennium dome, ID cards, RDAs, the war against drugs etc.

I see taxation as a way of providing essential services and it should provide a decent salary for its employees. It doesn't do that so the system is fucked, and no amount of moaning about "rich" people will change that if the system is flawed.

 

[TomPaine]

Morality and capitalism don't mix in the way you imply that they do.

LBJ and how does the state effectively holding a gun to somebodies head and deciding if they fall into the category of "the rich unfairly keep.." make you any more moral?

 

[agricola]

I reject the basic premise of this statement – that a person's wages are a fair reflection of their worth. If it does not plan to overhaul the patently unjust economic system in which we live, a state has a moral duty to claw back as much of the money the rich unfairly keep to themselves as it can.

I am simply attempting to point out to you the flaws of your moral case by presenting what imo is a much stronger moral case. Morality and capitalism don't mix in the way you imply that they do.

People have "worth"? The state has a "moral duty"? People "unfairly keep" what they have earned? What dangerous nonsense is this.

You seem also to be under the impression that this state intends to, you know, morally redistribute the money to the poor in order to raise their standards of living. It doesnt, it intends to redistribute the money to themselves, and to the likes of Capita.

 

[kyser_soze]

Wow, it's quite funny seeing tory-esque posters getting all riled and confused, on the one hand banging on about the morality of taxation, and on the other banging on about ensuring the poor get good VFM for the tax ££s spent.

 

[agricola]

Wow, it's quite funny seeing tory-esque posters getting all riled and confused, on the one hand banging on about the morality of taxation, and on the other banging on about ensuring the poor get good VFM for the tax ££s spent.

The two are not incompatible, as is obvious.

 

[kyser_soze]

Well as a rule when tories start talking about VFM in govt services it simply means 'Spend less on the poor'...

 

[littlebabyjesus]

People have "worth"? The state has a "moral duty"? People "unfairly keep" what they have earned? What dangerous nonsense is this.

You seem also to be under the impression that this state intends to, you know, morally redistribute the money to the poor in order to raise their standards of living. It doesnt, it intends to redistribute the money to themselves, and to the likes of Capita.

You began this by defending the morality of capitalist inequality.

To your second point, I would far rather the resources currently in the hands of the rich were in the hands of the state, some of it no doubt to be wasted, some of it to be used usefully to the benefit of all.

Getting the state to spend its money wisely is a separate fight, but the level of social provision in high-tax countries is higher than in low-tax countries, surprisingly enough.

 

[TomPaine]

Well as a rule when tories start talking about VFM in govt services it simply means 'Spend less on the poor'...

Not aware anyone has said that though? There is a big difference between cutting waste like ID cards, or taxing illegal drugs to what the Tories will ever offer.
The money from taxing weed if it where legal and ring fencing it would provide a huge boost to the NHS and the wages of NHS workers.

Half baked measures like this 150K tax scheme are useless and political maneuvering. They also unfair in that obviously not all those who earn over 150K will be paying it only some i.e. those who don't have the means to avoid it.
it should either be everyone over that amount or nobody, not this hodge podge method.

 

[agricola]

Well as a rule when tories start talking about VFM in govt services it simply means 'Spend less on the poor'...

Perhaps, but one might out that this government has, since 1997, not spent that much on the poor anyway.

IMHO the waste, policies and practices that needs to be cut to restore sanity to the public finances isnt associated with the poor or fixing inequalities in any case, so cutting them shouldnt affect the poor and could easily result in more funding for projects that actually do help fix inequalities.

 

[Combustible]

To your second point, I would far rather the resources currently in the hands of the rich were in the hands of the state, some of it no doubt to be wasted, some of it to be used usefully to the benefit of all. Getting the state to spend its money wisely is a separate fight.

It's also a fight that the right wingers have no intention of fighting. It is merely a convenient stick with which to try to argue against the former.

 

[kyser_soze]

Wow, it's the hand-wavey Tory policy forum around here today!!