-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
UK PoliGAF thread of tell me about the rabbits again, Dave.
- Thread starter Chinner
- Start date
zomgbbqftw
Banned
I think he was stating Boris hasn't done enough to promote safety standards for cycling.
J Tourettes
Banned
What Zomg said. It wasn't particularly clear re-reading that sentence.
travisbickle
Member
The breakdown will just lead to a movement to kill old people, 15% of your tax bill on keeping old people alive!!!
Edit: It's "old age" as in pensions!! not "old age" as in old people, who doesn't want a pension when they're retired?
The more I see of what the Tories are doing to my country, the more it reminds me of what happened to Russia under Yeltsin (basically, privatisation of the country's entire infrastructure for purely ideological reasons -> rampant corruption -> oligarchy and massive inequality -> ruined economy -> the people cry out for "order", elect a scary nationalist tyrant).
So, when do we get our own Putin-style "elected dictator"? Ten years? Fifteen?
And yeah, this "tax breakdown" idea is such typical Tory divide-and-rule bullshit. Don't be surprised if you hear some scumbags talking about scrapping the whole welfare state because of this.
"Victorian values", pffffffttt.
So, when do we get our own Putin-style "elected dictator"? Ten years? Fifteen?
And yeah, this "tax breakdown" idea is such typical Tory divide-and-rule bullshit. Don't be surprised if you hear some scumbags talking about scrapping the whole welfare state because of this.
"Victorian values", pffffffttt.
CHEEZMO
Obsidian fan
Whenever SmokyDave feels comfortable enough to carry out his coup.
I can't see the merging of income tax and national insurance happening - it doesn't make sense politically to do so.
zomgbbqftw
Banned
I think you will find that people begin to appreciate government services better, given that private healthcare and private education can run in the tens of thousands annually. The stickler for a lot of people will be unemployment benefits, public sector pensions and housing benefits. Many people will think that the first is something that should be saved for personally, the middle one unnecessary and the last one also unnecessary.
Generally I think it will prove to be a success as people will value government services provided for such a low cost and seeing it broken down properly will definitely help any future government wanting to increase state spending in certain areas or cut spending in other areas.
Sir Abacus
Member
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
If order is needed then order is needed. But really I wouldn't put Cameron in the "scary tyrant" bracket. You're maybe 30 years too late for that.
I think you'll find republicanism is largely a policy of the Left and isn't anywhere near the Conservative manifesto.
It's a good idea. It's in the interests of transparency, and proportionate thinking and an informed electorate and so on. Sure, the way it is presented is potentially beneficial to the Conservatives (hey, what do you expect, they're the ones in power). But I can't see it being really opposable on any principled grounds.
Victoria was around a long time. Early Victorian values weren't so good. Late Victorian a lot better - huge improvements in the franchise, in consumer legislation and a bunch of others. But I grant you it's maybe not too much of a good thing to try to equate "Victorian Values" with current (supposed) Conservative virtues.
louis89
Member
The government has decided to tell people what it spends its money on. Failing to see the problem here.
Budget day!
Word is that they'll rise the tax threshold to £9000, I suppose that's almost at £10,000 so I'm relatively happy.
I'd be happy if the government knocked 3/4p off fuel duty but that doesn't seem likely. Cigarettes will probably go up, and booze will probably go up (hopefully not pints, just bottles).
VAT could do with going down to 15% but again, that seems unlikely. This probably won't be a terribly nice budget, more austerity will be on the way, but I suppose I disagree with most posters here in that I think austerity should be going further and faster.
NHS reforms are part of that and I generally agree with most of the policies, the NHS can really be terrible for service, I don't think a one-size-fits all system is good for the country. As long as the NHS is free (i.e. the government foots the bill), I'm happy, I think as in most sectors (rail being one of the ones that went worse) private companies will provide better service, innovation and value for money.
Word is that they'll rise the tax threshold to £9000, I suppose that's almost at £10,000 so I'm relatively happy.
I'd be happy if the government knocked 3/4p off fuel duty but that doesn't seem likely. Cigarettes will probably go up, and booze will probably go up (hopefully not pints, just bottles).
VAT could do with going down to 15% but again, that seems unlikely. This probably won't be a terribly nice budget, more austerity will be on the way, but I suppose I disagree with most posters here in that I think austerity should be going further and faster.
NHS reforms are part of that and I generally agree with most of the policies, the NHS can really be terrible for service, I don't think a one-size-fits all system is good for the country. As long as the NHS is free (i.e. the government foots the bill), I'm happy, I think as in most sectors (rail being one of the ones that went worse) private companies will provide better service, innovation and value for money.
it's a good thing indeed in theory, i particularly like that in a world of trillion dollar debts where numbers have become meaningless it gives much needed context to figures - i just have a fear that the way it's done will be deviously used to shape perceptions in favour of certain government policies
to demonstrate i approve strongly of giving everyone the right hand slip, and am against the left hand slip. as the latter makes welfare spending look massive without giving the context that it's largely because of pensioners not dirty scroungers.
"Bash a granny to bail out a millionaire", huh? Ouch.
Word is that the papers are getting ready to pour gallons of boiling hot scorn on the Budget's tax reforms tomorrow. Especially when it comes to the "simplification" of pensioners' taxes. The 50p tax rate scrapping gamble may not pay off after all.
TCRS: Aye, it was a good performance today. He was convincing, though I still think he's too boyish.
Word is that the papers are getting ready to pour gallons of boiling hot scorn on the Budget's tax reforms tomorrow. Especially when it comes to the "simplification" of pensioners' taxes. The 50p tax rate scrapping gamble may not pay off after all.
TCRS: Aye, it was a good performance today. He was convincing, though I still think he's too boyish.
J Tourettes
Banned
I'm totally not bothered about the pensioners, let the old fuckers contribute a bit more.
killer_clank
Member
at least the games industry is getting tax breaks.
Pie and Beans
Look for me on the local news, I'll be the guy arrested for trying to burn down a Nintendo exec's house.
Crawling back like the worrrrrrmmmmm you arrrreeeee.2010 Budget said:
zomgbbqftw
Banned
Rubbish about "bashing a granny" don't fall for the spin. All that is happening is pensioners allowance is being aligned with the income tax allowance. The state pension is still going to increase by 5.1% this year in line with September CPI, well above the annual deflater and well above the the average rise for the working population. Pensioners will still be getting free TV licences, heating allowances and free bus travel regardless of their income level or savings.
The 50p rate should have come down to 40p in one fell swoop, but that would have taken real political balls from Cameron which I don't think he has. They should also have looked at limiting higher rate pensions tax relief. Looking at the HMRC report the cost of reducing the 50p rate to 45p will be £100m in lost revenues at that rate but it does not take into account economic growth which will likely rise, just avoidance measures easing.
The biggest losers from this budget are those public sector and media workers who pitch themselves as one man/woman corporations and pay tax at 23% rather than 40/50% as the IR35 rules have been tightened.
Other losers are people who want to buy big houses as the Chancellor has had a massive crackdown on tax avoidance in that area and even introduced a penalty for anyone who tries to get around it. Excellent.
The income distribution chart shows that the top 10% lose the most from this budget while the middle lose the least. The lowest 10% lose the most as a proportion of their income because of changes in the tax credits system and their lack of income (given that most are on benefits they do not benefit from the personal allowance increase). The next decile does very well as they are less affected by the tax credits changes and still benefit from the tax free allowance increase.
Businesses did very well as they got a bunch of capital and research allowances, I like the sound of the tax break for games and other creative industries but we need more detail. Banks were the big losers from today (don't hold back the tears guys!) as the levy was increased to raise £2.4-3.0bn to ensure that banks don't benefit from the decrease in headline corporation tax. I also like the look of the aerospace excellence centre, I hope they don't fuck it up and make sure that Boeing, BAe and EADS are involved from the off, both in design and construction. The Patent Box stuff sounds good, but again we need to see if the government have got the cojones to actually do it, they have talked about it since 2010, well now it is time to act.
Just taking a look at the OBR release. Government spending has been revised downwards by £48.4bn with £29.6bn coming from the Royal Mail privatisation, even so, there are around £18bn worth of spending cuts that need to be detailed.
A further £8.6bn has been allocated for public sector pensions until 2016/17 bringing the total to £66.7bn over the period. The government need to go to war with the unions and the public sector and get this figure down by at least 50%. We are now all paying for Gordon Brown's public sector employment boom.
The benefits bill is set to come down by £3.2bn. Most of which will come from lower unemployment benefits and some from the pensions credit freeze.
There is a £13.2bn saving in the debt interest bill which is good news, though that may be a little optimistic, gilt rates have begun to rise as the economic picture has improved and people are bailing out of bonds and into the equity markets.
Borrowing for next year is going to be £121bn which is about the same as this year, the year after it will be £98bn. I don't see how we get there without real spending cuts. The rise in spending we saw this month just goes to show how entrenched the "must spend my budget" thinking is in the public sector. The Chancellor and Chief Sec must at all costs weed these people out of the public sector and instil a culture of thrift.
There is a fall in total borrowing of £41bn over the period, taking the total overshoot to £117bn down from £158bn.
By current estimates the government will enter into the 2015 election with a 4.4% deficit down from 9.5%, a reduction of 5.1% of GDP. I expect as we get closer to the election the deficit will be closer to 6% given the lack of resolve the government have shown with spending cuts.
The government should also look at introducing a clause that ensures the public sector banks cannot be sold for less than they were bought for to ensure the taxpayer does not take a hit or that no stupid Lib Dem can try and push through cheap shares for the public etc...
Summed up:
The biggest winners - the working poor, businesses and the (very) few people who still pay the 50% rate.
The biggest losers - tax avoiders of all kinds, people who rely on benefits and banks.
The 50p rate should have come down to 40p in one fell swoop, but that would have taken real political balls from Cameron which I don't think he has. They should also have looked at limiting higher rate pensions tax relief. Looking at the HMRC report the cost of reducing the 50p rate to 45p will be £100m in lost revenues at that rate but it does not take into account economic growth which will likely rise, just avoidance measures easing.
The biggest losers from this budget are those public sector and media workers who pitch themselves as one man/woman corporations and pay tax at 23% rather than 40/50% as the IR35 rules have been tightened.
Other losers are people who want to buy big houses as the Chancellor has had a massive crackdown on tax avoidance in that area and even introduced a penalty for anyone who tries to get around it. Excellent.
The income distribution chart shows that the top 10% lose the most from this budget while the middle lose the least. The lowest 10% lose the most as a proportion of their income because of changes in the tax credits system and their lack of income (given that most are on benefits they do not benefit from the personal allowance increase). The next decile does very well as they are less affected by the tax credits changes and still benefit from the tax free allowance increase.
Businesses did very well as they got a bunch of capital and research allowances, I like the sound of the tax break for games and other creative industries but we need more detail. Banks were the big losers from today (don't hold back the tears guys!) as the levy was increased to raise £2.4-3.0bn to ensure that banks don't benefit from the decrease in headline corporation tax. I also like the look of the aerospace excellence centre, I hope they don't fuck it up and make sure that Boeing, BAe and EADS are involved from the off, both in design and construction. The Patent Box stuff sounds good, but again we need to see if the government have got the cojones to actually do it, they have talked about it since 2010, well now it is time to act.
Just taking a look at the OBR release. Government spending has been revised downwards by £48.4bn with £29.6bn coming from the Royal Mail privatisation, even so, there are around £18bn worth of spending cuts that need to be detailed.
A further £8.6bn has been allocated for public sector pensions until 2016/17 bringing the total to £66.7bn over the period. The government need to go to war with the unions and the public sector and get this figure down by at least 50%. We are now all paying for Gordon Brown's public sector employment boom.
The benefits bill is set to come down by £3.2bn. Most of which will come from lower unemployment benefits and some from the pensions credit freeze.
There is a £13.2bn saving in the debt interest bill which is good news, though that may be a little optimistic, gilt rates have begun to rise as the economic picture has improved and people are bailing out of bonds and into the equity markets.
Borrowing for next year is going to be £121bn which is about the same as this year, the year after it will be £98bn. I don't see how we get there without real spending cuts. The rise in spending we saw this month just goes to show how entrenched the "must spend my budget" thinking is in the public sector. The Chancellor and Chief Sec must at all costs weed these people out of the public sector and instil a culture of thrift.
There is a fall in total borrowing of £41bn over the period, taking the total overshoot to £117bn down from £158bn.
By current estimates the government will enter into the 2015 election with a 4.4% deficit down from 9.5%, a reduction of 5.1% of GDP. I expect as we get closer to the election the deficit will be closer to 6% given the lack of resolve the government have shown with spending cuts.
The government should also look at introducing a clause that ensures the public sector banks cannot be sold for less than they were bought for to ensure the taxpayer does not take a hit or that no stupid Lib Dem can try and push through cheap shares for the public etc...
Summed up:
The biggest winners - the working poor, businesses and the (very) few people who still pay the 50% rate.
The biggest losers - tax avoiders of all kinds, people who rely on benefits and banks.
Stupid fucking budget. So super high rate tax payers get money back,whereas middle earners get squeezed again.
The child benefit thing is even more fucked up than it was before. By raising the threshold I presume they're trying to stop people complaining - 'how can you need benefit when you're earning £50k?' well, because £50k is still only average income if you only have one wage earner in the house.
And now you can have a couple earning just under £100k and still get benefit
The child benefit thing is even more fucked up than it was before. By raising the threshold I presume they're trying to stop people complaining - 'how can you need benefit when you're earning £50k?' well, because £50k is still only average income if you only have one wage earner in the house.
And now you can have a couple earning just under £100k and still get benefit
Have we adressed the fact that the arguments for dropping the 50p tax rate make no sense?
I mean make no sense in the 'even a 10 year old could probably tell they make no sense' kind of a way?
At least if they'd said 'actually we really just want the rich to get richer and the poor to get poorer' as justification at least I'd respect them more for telling the truth instead of respecting them less for lying about something so obvious.
I mean make no sense in the 'even a 10 year old could probably tell they make no sense' kind of a way?
At least if they'd said 'actually we really just want the rich to get richer and the poor to get poorer' as justification at least I'd respect them more for telling the truth instead of respecting them less for lying about something so obvious.
Pie and Beans
Look for me on the local news, I'll be the guy arrested for trying to burn down a Nintendo exec's house.
Oh you mean the argument that it 'wasn't yielding much money anyway and it was making super-earners feel a bit sad 
' argument? No that really convinced me for sure. Maybe a slow framerated black and white charity TV advert filled with their sad rich faces would have worked for everyone else maybe?
Derek feels really sad when his giant assfuck wage goes over £150,000 and only the money above that big fat fucking amount gets charged at a high 50% rate of tax. Give up your child benefits so that Derek can feel better about his insanely secure future and build up his premium hooker fund faster than before.
' argument? No that really convinced me for sure. Maybe a slow framerated black and white charity TV advert filled with their sad rich faces would have worked for everyone else maybe?Derek feels really sad when his giant assfuck wage goes over £150,000 and only the money above that big fat fucking amount gets charged at a high 50% rate of tax. Give up your child benefits so that Derek can feel better about his insanely secure future and build up his premium hooker fund faster than before.
zomgbbqftw
Banned
It's actually Derek got pissed off that the government were taking 50% of his income so decided to work as a corporation and pay tax at 26% instead. He is now pissed off that the corporate avoidance measure is being closed and will pay tax at 45%, after all it is less than half...
In my office alone there are a 30-40 people who are paid as corporations and others who avoid tax altogether by other means. Most of them will now end up paying tax at the 45% rate from April 2013 onwards, avoidance measures are difficult enough that the extra 5% is not really worth it...
Pie and Beans
Look for me on the local news, I'll be the guy arrested for trying to burn down a Nintendo exec's house.
Miwwionaire's, Rodders. We're gonna be miwwionaires! Lets buy all the GMG shares!
No reason to not double fuck them. What they were doing was wrong anyway, sure close the gate on that, but no need to give them a special little sugary treat by dipping the upper tax bracket too. I'm pretty sure I have it right that its only the amount of money over 150 thou that gets the 50p whammo isnt it? Say you "only" earned £150,001, its just that £1 that gets whopped with 50p? Thats what always takes the wind out of the sails in feeling any sympathy here.
No reason to not double fuck them. What they were doing was wrong anyway, sure close the gate on that, but no need to give them a special little sugary treat by dipping the upper tax bracket too. I'm pretty sure I have it right that its only the amount of money over 150 thou that gets the 50p whammo isnt it? Say you "only" earned £150,001, its just that £1 that gets whopped with 50p? Thats what always takes the wind out of the sails in feeling any sympathy here.
zomgbbqftw
Banned
louis89
Member
Can you see why taxing wealthy people at 80% or 90% would be a bad idea?
Now, is it really that much of a stretch that the reasons that would be a bad idea could also apply to a tax of 50%?
I don't know, makes quite a lot of sense to me.
CHEEZMO
Obsidian fan
I would say take 5%, but you can see why some would think that's too high.
I dunno, mate - 0% seems pretty sketchy too.
I know, how about the government pay me 20p for every £1 I make? I am being a job creator, and all.
You mean such a bad idea that it was done globally between the years of 1945 and 1979, a period that happens to have been a longer and stabler period of more equitable growth than the post-80s, even after Thatcher cut it to the still apparently absurdly high 60%?
No, to be quite honest I can't see how it makes a lot of sense to cut taxes to historic lows when your country is apparently in the middle of a debt crisis that COULD TURN US INTO THE NEW GREECE!!! (Are we still peddling that hyperbole?)
I can see that if Osborne wanted to be less transparent he should have just closed tax loopholes rather than cutting tax loopholes and the highest tax rate. Any argument for closing tax loopholes at 40% or 45% applies equally well to closing them at 50%.
As one commentator pointed out, you don't see people arguing that we should cut cigarette duty just because a lot of people buy illegally imported cigarettes. The fact that rich people just circumvent very high tax rates means that we should crack down on tax dodging, not that we should lower the highest rates. It's not just a bad argument, it's an incoherent one.
they told you that? Because I don't believe it. People who avoided tax will continue to do so, they have nothing to gain from paying tax because it 5p less.
Personally Ive always felt uncomfortable about having an income tax level at 50 per cent but I think that the case for cutting the tax in this budget is marginal and comes with a nasty political side-effect for the government.
Overall though the budget was fairly unremarkable. It seems that businesses are the main winners here which is good. Looking at all the coverage now the 45p rate is dominating the discussion when there are several more important things in the budget. The thing that interested me the most was Osbourne's brief mention of the need for a new airport capacity - as Ive said before Im a sucker for big infrastructure projects.
Overall though the budget was fairly unremarkable. It seems that businesses are the main winners here which is good. Looking at all the coverage now the 45p rate is dominating the discussion when there are several more important things in the budget. The thing that interested me the most was Osbourne's brief mention of the need for a new airport capacity - as Ive said before Im a sucker for big infrastructure projects.
killer_clank
Member
The Big Infrastructure projects are good and all, but only the south east ever benefits. I get that it's the major powerhouse of the economy, but maybe we could help change that with investment elsewhere instead of pushing the south east further and further ahead.
louis89
Member
It's not a historic low because the top rate was 40% until a couple of years ago.
The point is that having the top tax rate at too high a level makes this country uncompetitive. The fact is, a country whose tax regime is considered too heavy a burden is going to receive less investment than one whose isn't.
People are hung up on the idea that "rich people are getting a tax cut". George Osborne's job isn't to take money away from rich people and give it to everyone else. His job is to stimulate economic growth, and making this country more attractive to people who have the power to do that is something he has to do. If that means reducing the top rate of tax, then that's what it means.
Why isn't this his job? Up until the 1980s it was generally agreed that wealth redistribution was good for society, and there's a lot of evidence to suggest that more equally distributed wealth is good for everyone. The fact that our income equality is poor, and getting increasingly worse, is a serious problem that would improve economic prospects but which Osborne has no interest in doing.
If his job is to stimulate growth, he shouldn't be indulging in fantasist supply-side economic programmes that involve cutting tax on the wealthy and trying to 'force' poor people into jobs that don't exist by cutting benefits.
This reflects on the previous point: you can improve economic growth by putting money into the pockets of the people on the lowest economic rungs. In other words, by redistributing wealth.
Because the Very Serious People decided that the most important thing in the world was to slash government spending in order to bring the deficit down which would, through the power of Investor Confidence(TM), magically invigorate the economy. It didn't work, but they've been making excuses for it ever since.
louis89
Member
Because that removes incentives to be a productive member of society.
Wealth redistribution is good for poor people, I don't see how it can be good for everyone. I don't think that wealth inequality is inherently a bad thing. Fundamentally, people are not equal in terms of their contribution to society and the choices they make in life.
He cut tax for everyone. And there are nearly 500,000 jobs available across the country. You can't pretend that of people who are unemployed and on benefits, nobody is there out of choice.
That's why the personal allowance was increased. You and I are both better off financially as a result of this budget.
Who cares about the 50% rate cut? It didn't raise much money (if at all) anyway. The fact is, the majority of people will gain financially through this, and the budget also contained a large number of helpful measures for economic growth (video game tax cuts, finally, corporation tax cuts, etc.). I'm pleased about the 'superfast' broadband stuff too. I think this was a good budget.
Improved income equality has measurable, and measured, positive effects for society. Social mobility is just a start, but it also has effects on life expectancy, health, crime rates and levels of community trust.
This is not absolute levels of inequality either, rather, it is relative. It's better for society to have a smaller gap between rich and poor whether the rich are earning £1,000,000,000 a year or £1,000,000.
The notion that income inequality is just how the chips fall and that some people just have to put up with being poor is not only immoral, it is also harmful to society. That makes it doubly irresponsible to support it.
And likewise, you can't pretend that out of the 2.67 million unemployed people in the UK, even a majority of them are voluntarily unemployed.
I'm largely uninterested in whether I am better off because of the budget.
Lots of people care about the 50% rate cut because it wont do anything to help the economy (in fact since they've, frankly bizarrely, admitted that it's going to bring in over £100million a year less at the lower rate) and it's yet another example of the Tories pandering to the richest in society to the loss of everyone else. The richest can afford to bear the brunt of the recovery, and they should.
Corporate tax cut is a bad joke, just more voodoo economics.
In a just world, this budget would be the nail in the coffin of this government's popular support.
travisbickle
Member
Yeah we know the rich are a bunch of tax-dodging arseholes and a drain on society but what are we going to do? kill them?
Get on a bike and ride!
Norman Tebbit reference
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
That's an argument often made, but I don't think it is a good one. Not unless the contribution to society and the wealth line up with each other, which they palpably don't in general. There's a weaker form of the argument that suggests that rich people contribute more to society purely by being rich and paying all those enormous taxes, but as we've seen, that isn't necessarily true either.
Much of that growth is attributable to the extremely low economic starting point in a world devastated by war. There was a lot of catching up to do. It is a bit of a stretch to attribute it to punitive taxation.
Of course I don't attribute it all to high taxation. My point is that if high levels of taxation served us well for ~30 years after we were practically bankrupt (none of this recent WE ARE NEARLY LIKE GREECE!!!!! nonsense: proper bankrupt), then you can't make a blanket claim to the effect that 50% (or 80%...or 90%) is some horrible, disastrous level.
There were other reasons we did so well for that amount of time too, of course--like economic policies that concentrated on employment rather than cutting spending and giving the rich tax breaks.
capital is more mobile now than it was forty years ago though, and economic consensus is weighted against such action in that back then other major industrial countries had higher tax rates too.
i don't agree that those arguments apply to the 50p tax rate, which i think scrapping is ridiculous, but advocating for the advantages of really high rates now is weird.
i don't agree that those arguments apply to the 50p tax rate, which i think scrapping is ridiculous, but advocating for the advantages of really high rates now is weird.
How much is a pack of 20 now? So fucking glad I quit.
Dear enough that I'm glad I quit nearly ten years ago
I don't get it, did they privatize the entire welfare sector or what? Having a private alternatives aside of the public one sure seems in line with Social Liberalism to me, poorly applied meme by bitter Labour voters
EDIT: Or I guess Social Liberalism might have a different political tradition in Britain.
I'm not sure I would advocate such high tax rates now: my point is simply that they are not the kind of absurd economic suicide that people who advocate lowering the 50% rate paint them to be. They were, in fact, the kind of rates that were in place during the major period of 20th century growth.