So who are the biggest losers from today’s spending announcement

[RonJeremy]

That will be the extraordinarily wealthy, Ron. The 50% tax rate doesn't kick in until you've earned £150 000 per year. A bit of "socialist" window dressing from the New Labour wing of the Tory party.

 

Exactly. We are all this (brown mess) together. The people we should be encouraging to be here are being discouraged. I know the ToryLib coalition can't abolish it for political reasons, but if they did there would be more revenue raised for everyone.

Everyone is being being hit (apart from the poor and disabled) to try to get this country back on its feet after 13 years of overspending, mismanagement of the economy and failure to regulate the banks properly.

[Guest sibon]

Exactly. We are all this (brown mess) together. The people we should be encouraging to be here are being discouraged. I know the ToryLib coalition can't abolish it for political reasons, but if they did there would be more revenue raised for everyone.

Everyone is being being hit (apart from the poor and disabled) to try to get this country back on its feet after 13 years of overspending, mismanagement of the economy and failure to regulate the banks properly.

 

Now this bit always confuses me about Tory philosophy.

 

How is it that taxing the rich less makes them work harder, but taxing the poor more has the same effect?

[RonJeremy]

Now this bit always confuses me about Tory philosophy.

 

How is it that taxing the rich less makes them work harder, but taxing the poor more has the same effect?

 

I know, it's a difficult concept to grasp, but as tax rates were lowered in the eighties, the actual tax take (in real terms) went up.

 

The tory philosophy is always to tax everyone less, and let them spend their own money in the best way they see fit (with limitations - drugs, alcohol etc) rather than let people in high places spend it for them, with all the inherent waste.

However we are in straightened times at the moment, due to 13 years of mismanagement of the economy. You may have noticed. The tories (and the Libs now they have had a little growing up to do) are trying to sort out this (brown) mess. It's not pretty. It's not fun. The medicine tastes nasty, but is has to be done for our and our children's sakes.

[Guest sibon]

I know, it's a difficult concept to grasp, but as tax rates were lowered in the eighties, the actual tax take (in real terms) went up.

 

The tory philosophy is always to tax everyone less, and let them spend their own money in the best way they see fit (with limitations - drugs, alcohol etc) rather than let people in high places spend it for them, with all the inherent waste.

However we are in straightened times at the moment, due to 13 years of mismanagement of the economy. You may have noticed. The tories (and the Libs now they have had a little growing up to do) are trying to sort out this (brown) mess. It's not pretty. It's not fun. The medicine tastes nasty, but is has to be done for our and our children's sakes.

 

I understand the argument about the tax take increasing as you lower top rates, although I suspect that it isn't a simple relationship. There will be an optimum level of taxation, which yields the highest tax take. It is ridiculous to claim otherwise.

 

At the moment, the tories are stealth taxing the middle class with children, by removing child benefit and privatising the Universities. It would have been more honest to raise basic rate tax (and lift the threshold to compensate low earners).

 

Most people on benefits have lost a huge amount today, that is the equivalent of a tax hike for them.

[RonJeremy]

I understand the argument about the tax take increasing as you lower top rates, although I suspect that it isn't a simple relationship. There will be an optimum level of taxation, which yields the highest tax take. It is ridiculous to claim otherwise.

 

At the moment, the tories are stealth taxing the middle class with children, by removing child benefit and privatising the Universities. It would have been more honest to raise basic rate tax (and lift the threshold to compensate low earners).

 

Most people on benefits have lost a huge amount today, that is the equivalent of a tax hike for them.

 

Everyone has lost money. We have to fill a huge hole in the deficit following 13 years of Gordonomics (aka. Moronomics).

 

I thinks the expression goes:

WE ARE ALL IN THIS TOGETHER

[websters gue]

All this 'We're all in it together' stuff is a load of crap. Some people have done very well over the last 30 years. In 1979 the top rate of tax was 83% which Thatcher cut to 60%. In 1988 she cut the rate again to 40%, which many now still see as ‘normal’. This change alone more than tripled the value of top executive’s after-tax pay within a decade. In 1980, Barclays’ highest paid director took home a total of £67,500 while the Chairman made £81,000.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/jobs/7721426/Executive-Pay-Report-2010-how-did-we-get-here.html

Bob Diamond, president of Barclays, has been rewarded with cash and share awards worth a potential £60m, while two of his closest lieutenants have shared almost £40m for their efforts in recent years.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/mar/19/bob-diamond-pay-barclays

 

Others haven't done quite so well. In 2008/09, there were 2.8 million children living in UK households with below 60 per cent of contemporary median net disposable household income Before Housing Costs and 3.9 million After Housing Costs. In 2008/09, there were 5.8 million working-age adults living in UK households with below 60 per cent of contemporary median net disposable household income Before Housing Costs, and 7.8 million After Housing Costs. In 2008/09, there were 2.3 million pensioners living in UK households with below 60 per cent of contemporary median net disposable household income Before Housing Costs, and 1.8 million After Housing Costs.

On the way up the poor didn't see salaries rise by double digits year on year, nor get huge bonuses, nor benefit from share options. they didn't get huge benefits from low CGT or pass on large amounts to their children in inheritances. The poorest didn't benefit from the huge housing bubble so my question is:

WHAT IS THE JUSTIFICATION FOR THOSE WHO DIDN'T BENEFIT FROM THE EXCESSES BEING HARDEST HIT WHEN IT COMES TIME TO PAY THE BILL?

[RonJeremy]

All this 'We're all in it together' stuff is a load of crap. Some people have done very well over the last 30 years. In 1979 the top rate of tax was 83% which Thatcher cut to 60%. In 1988 she cut the rate again to 40%, which many now still see as ‘normal’. This change alone more than tripled the value of top executive’s after-tax pay within a decade. In 1980, Barclays’ highest paid director took home a total of £67,500 while the Chairman made £81,000.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/jobs/7721426/Executive-Pay-Report-2010-how-did-we-get-here.html

Bob Diamond, president of Barclays, has been rewarded with cash and share awards worth a potential £60m, while two of his closest lieutenants have shared almost £40m for their efforts in recent years.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/mar/19/bob-diamond-pay-barclays

 

Others haven't done quite so well. In 2008/09, there were 2.8 million children living in UK households with below 60 per cent of contemporary median net disposable household income Before Housing Costs and 3.9 million After Housing Costs. In 2008/09, there were 5.8 million working-age adults living in UK households with below 60 per cent of contemporary median net disposable household income Before Housing Costs, and 7.8 million After Housing Costs. In 2008/09, there were 2.3 million pensioners living in UK households with below 60 per cent of contemporary median net disposable household income Before Housing Costs, and 1.8 million After Housing Costs.

 

http://research.dwp.gov.uk/asd/hbai.asp

 

On the way up the poor didn't see salaries rise by double digits year on year, nor get huge bonuses, nor benefit from share options. they didn't get huge benefits from low CGT or pass on large amounts to their children in inheritances. The poorest didn't benefit from the huge housing bubble so my question is:

WHAT IS THE JUSTIFICATION FOR THOSE WHO DIDN'T BENEFIT FROM THE EXCESSES BEING HARDEST HIT WHEN IT COMES TIME TO PAY THE BILL?

 

I think you should be looking to the future (or even at the present). We need to encourage people to create businesses, create jobs, pay reasonable taxes and get people of welfare. Not look at what someone at the very very top of the ladder gets paid (although they will have seen their tax increase massively recently). Bringing Bob Diamond's salary down will make not a jot of difference to the rest, apart from the high probability he will go abroad and pay huge amounts of tax elsewhere to help another nation.

[websters gue]

I think you should be looking to the future (or even at the present). We need to encourage people to create businesses, create jobs, pay reasonable taxes and get people of welfare.

 

It all sounds very retro Ron and I heard all the same bull in the 80's. For those that don't remember the 1980's get yourself on Amazon and get yourself a copy of Boys from the Blackstuff.

[RonJeremy]

It all sounds very retro Ron and I heard all the same bull in the 80's. For those that don't remember the 1980's get yourself on Amazon and get yourself a copy of Boys from the Blackstuff.

 

I don't doubt there were hardships in the 80's following the 70's.

There will be hardships in the coming decade (10's??) trying to get through the hangover following 13 years of partying like there's no tomorrow.

[TeaFan]

I think you should be looking to the future (or even at the present). We need to encourage people to create businesses, create jobs, pay reasonable taxes and get people of welfare. Not look at what someone at the very very top of the ladder gets paid (although they will have seen their tax increase massively recently). Bringing Bob Diamond's salary down will make not a jot of difference to the rest, apart from the high probability he will go abroad and pay huge amounts of tax elsewhere to help another nation.

 

Come off it, as soon as they can they'll hock the jobs off to India and China like they have been for the last decade. It's global capitalism, don't you get it? Use workers in China and India to make more profit than before because you can pay them less. Once they start to improve their wages (like workers in China are by striking) move the work somewhere else cheaper. Keep doing this so that there's always someone somewhere who can do the work for less. Keep a good percentage of the world's population unemployed so they'll work for next to nowt. Rake it in. Lobby for decreases in corporation tax and personal tax thresholds for the rich. Threaten to leave the country even though you are practicing tax avoidance anyway.

 

We know how it goes. The rich will only change their behaviour if we make them.