UK spending power 'in heavy fall'

fc123

Generali wrote: »

Anthony Wedgewood Benn was a prime example. Wanted confiscatory levels of taxation (tax rates above a certain level of income were greater than 100%) but kept his millions stashed away where the taxman couldn't get at them.

During the 70's my dad was Europes expert in his field. Had so much consultancy offered, it would have been his decade to make a stash. (during his 40's) except the tax take was so high, it wasn't worth killing himself to do the work. All the consultancy he and his contemporaries did, they did for their own academic records, if it was interesting or for academic status etc.
If it was abroad, they would negotiate a low fee but ask for expenses paid hotel, flights for family instead.
My uncle left for Canada during the 70's due to this. .....and worked on the space shuttle.

Dylanwing

The trouble is that things have gone too far in reverse. With good tax planning, and Beans unwillingness to close the loopholes, many of the rich avoid paying anything like 'normal rate'. Consequently, we have so many indirect taxes instead, which proportionately affect the lower paid. The obvious one is Council Tax which is really crippling, and yet NuLab would like to 'revalue' properties so that people pay even more, and they continually burden Councils with more pointless red tape, but don't fund it. Meanwhile, they ignore some blatant tax dodges, and even sell off the tax offices to an off-shore Company in yet another botched PFI deal!
The trouble now is that the lower/ middle earners can afford no more, so they might have to finally take action on these scams. To be honest, the whole system needs looking at properly, made a lot simpler, and merge NI and Income Tax so that we have just one figure, with 2/3 bands.
Similarly, simplify benefits, cut the myriad of things that can be claimed, and have a single payment linked to minimum wage rate - Level the playing field and make it worthwhile to work.

moanymoany

Generali wrote: »

I don't knock Grammar schools at all. They were a great way for intelligent poor kids to educate their way out of poverty. Both of my parents were brought up in abject poverty in the 40s and 50s by single mums. Both went to Grammar schools and ended up very comfortably off as a result of some hard work and innate intelligence.

Generali wrote: »

The poverty of ambition in many comprehensive schools is one of the most terrible legacies of C20th Socialism in the UK. I sometimes wonder if the failure to educate working class kids before putting them onto welfare for the rest of their lives is some kind of sick policy. It is certainly what is being done to huge areas of the country and it's Socialism that has done it.

I agree with what you say. Mr. moany and I were discussing your second point this morning. In the 50's and 60's there were many more low paid jobs in factories and in offices there were thousands of low paid clerks and typists who did the jobs that are today done by computers. Anyone remember seeing 'Saturday Night and Sunday Morning', the scene in the bicycle factory? Not something seen in the UK anymore.

Young people had to get a job when they left school. Working class parents could not afford to support them and in my experience of being such a child in the 60's one finished school on the Friday and started work on the Monday morning. I was one of the low paid clerks and earned £4 a week with take home pay of £3.10. I gave my mother £2. From the £1.10 left I had to buy all my clothes as well as entertainment etc. This was very little even then.

What jobs are there for all those who used to do all of the factory and clerk jobs? The shops had many more assistants than now. I know other jobs have been created but in enough numbers?

moanymoany

jamescredmond wrote: »

.

so how did they pass the 11 - plus?

yrs later I found out: in their last yr of prep school they were hot-housed every school day. old 11-plus papers were studied and then re-studied.
questions from these old papers were certain to re-surface in the new exam.

and this trickery passed for 'education'.

smart, eh?

and not much different from today.[/quote

It is true that middle class parents paid for schools to 'hot house' children through the 11+. BUT, there was nothing to stop state schools doing the same.

Mr. moany went to a small village state school and in his final year that is what his teacher did. In his year 27 children out of 31 children went to grammar school. At the beginning of the year the teacher went to see every parent of the children in his class and asked them to do their bit towards getting their child to the grammar school. This encouraged working class parents to take an interest in their child's education as he persuaded them it was a good thing to do. He repeated these results every year.

Then, as now, many, though not all, working class parents did not encourage or help their kids get a good education. They did not see the point, my mother certainly did not and when I hit 15 I was 'encouraged' to leave school and get a job. This problem cannot all be laid at the door of the government, the attitudes of parents is vital when it comes to education.

Generali

moanymoany wrote: »

This problem cannot all be laid at the door of the government, the attitudes of parents is vital when it comes to education.

What you say is true IMO but at least before kids from poor families had the chance, even if many could not or would not take it.

My Dad's mum took no interest in his education (or much else about him for that matter). He managed to get a decent set of O' levels and a couple of A' levels. Not enough to qualify him as a brain surgeon but enough to give him a shot at getting a job that would take him somewhere in life.

The current state education system for the most part (although not entirely) seems to be geared to fail the children of the poor. Whether that is a deliberate matter of policy or a side effect of imposing socialism on a bunch of kids that really don't deserve such a fate is ultimately immaterial.

chrisandanne

I think the closing of the grammar schools was one of the worst decisions ever made for the children of the lower/middle income families. A x

WTF?_2

chrisandanne wrote: »

I think the closing of the grammer schools was one of the worst decisions ever made for the children of the lower/middle income families. A x

Yep - pure political dogma winning out over common sense.

neverdespairgirl

moanymoany wrote: »

They did not see the point, my mother certainly did not and when I hit 15 I was 'encouraged' to leave school and get a job. This problem cannot all be laid at the door of the government, the attitudes of parents is vital when it comes to education.

My flatmate for 5 years was from a small town in the north-west. Her parents ran a chip shop, and no-one in her family had ever had more than the bare minimum of education. She got 2 As and 1 B at A level, and a place at UCL to read medicine.

When she was in her 5th year, I happened to meet, via a case I was involved in, a woman from the same small town. I asked if she knew my flatmate, and she thought, sniffed, and said, "oh, yes, that girl from the chippie who got all above herself and wanted to go to Uni".

Horrible attitude!

Flatmate went on to add a 1st in neuroscience and a great medical degree to he A levels, and is now a successful and happy Dr.

neverdespairgirl

moanymoany wrote: »

I was one of the low paid clerks and earned £4 a week with take home pay of £3.10. I gave my mother £2. From the £1.10 left I had to buy all my clothes as well as entertainment etc. This was very little even then.

Using average earnings, in 2006 your gross pay was approx. £134.40, and your £1.10 for personal spending was £50.40.

Not a huge sum, but not that bad aged 15?

m00m00

!!!!!!? wrote: »

Yep - pure political dogma winning out over common sense.

and the political right has never been guilty of the same thing have they ?