!!!!!! - Clown to raise the top rate of tax to 45%

neverdespairgirl

Here are Labour's "key pledges" from the 2005 manifesto:



No increase in basic or top rate income tax
Minimum wage to rise to £5.35 from October 2006
Increase home ownership by two million
Inflation target of 2%
No-one will have to wait more than 18 weeks to see a specialist from date of referral
Rebuild or refurbish every secondary school
Education or training for every 16 to 18-year-old
Publicly-owned Royal Mail fully restored to "good health"
Action to tackle guns and knives
Further Lords reform
Point system for immigrants


So that's OK then.

beingjdc

dopester wrote: »

Fair points beingjdc.

I only know I watched an interview with the CEO of HSBC two months ago. He made it clear they had a duty to consider the domicile of the bank every so often, especially if there were to be negative tax changes.

Yes. Somewhat counter-intuitively, though, moving companies is easier than moving people. We've mostly cut the tax paid by these large companies -though I don't want us to engage in a squalid race to the bottom at the expense of a fair society, I see more of a case for taxing people so that we see what we are paying in exchange for the services we are voting to have.

A tax on companies is really not that dissimilar in effect from VAT, assuming capital seeks a similar return globally under most circumstances.

neverdespairgirl

Wow. I just had a quick look at the rest of the 2005 manifesto, which is great for a giggle.

The BBC's take:

The central plank of Labour's economic manifesto was a promise to foster long-term stability.

They wanted to eliminate the boom-bust cycle typical of the 70s, 80s and 90s.
.........
Greater fiscal discipline has helped too, enshrined in the government's fiscal rules.



These state that the government will only borrow money so as to invest over the economic cycle, and that total government debt will not exceed 40% of national income.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/vote_2005/issues/4305291.stm

And then the Labour manifesto itself:


1. On page 15:

Only with Labour, which constructed this framework, will this continue.We will maintain our inflation target at two per cent.We will continue to meet our fiscal rules: over the economic cycle,we will borrow only to invest, and keep net debt at a stable and prudent level.

2. On page 16:

We will not raise the basic or top rates of income tax in the next
Parliament.

3. On page 28:

We can only do so if we build a clear sense of shared national economic purpose, not just around economic stability but also investment in infrastructure, skills, science and enterprise.The choice is to go forward to economic stability, rising prosperity and wider opportunities with new Labour. Or go back to the bad old days of Tory cuts, insecurity and instability.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/LAB_uk_manifesto.pdf

Markyt

beingjdc wrote: »

That's interesting, where do you live? My experience of the last ten years (some of it on the fringes of education policy) has been central targets forcing Councils and FE Colleges to cut most of their "lifestyle" courses, and spend the money on teaching people who didn't pay attention at school first time round to read, write, and count.

I live in a Labour stronghold in Manchester.

amcluesent

That's Wossie down another £300,000 a year!:D

baileysbattlebus

Maybe they should have another look at tax evasion and tax avoidance of the super rich and corporations.

Some of these pay tax rates of 10%, there are loopholes if you have the money to employ people to find them for you.

And maybe look at some the people with non domicile status - Chelsea's owner, Roman Abramovich springs to mind. But there are over 100k of them

Vince Cable, of the Lib-Dems, said: 'There is a growing sense of unfairnessin the tax system with most of the people paying increasing amounts of tax. 'This includes people paying 40% tax on relatively moderate incomes who will also pay inheritance tax at 40% and stamp duty at three to 4%, but who are discovering that the super-rich pay none of these things. 'The rich and well-advised exploit loopholes and end up paying 10% tax rather than 40%. Non-domiciles taking advantage of offshore trusts avoid Capital Gains Tax and people avoid stamp duty by registering their house as being owned by a company. The current system is creating a corrosive sense of unfairness.'

dopester

It seems some are coming to the realisation that increasing the tax obligation on higher earners.... including many wealth creators, and those likely to spend, invest, employ, deploy seed capital, take measured economic risks to help recovery.... can be counter-productive and cause even further damage.

From The Times

November 24, 2008

Crisis of 'historic proportions' forces Barack Obama to name his economic team

David Axelrod, Mr Obama’s chief strategist who is to become a senior White House adviser, indicated that because the economic crisis was so acute, Mr Obama might even postpone the tax increases for the wealthiest Americans that he promised on the campaign trail. Many economists believe that raising taxes in times of recession slows recovery, and the stimulus plan could include even bigger tax cuts for the middle class than Mr Obama has proposed.

dopester

baileysbattlebus wrote: »

And maybe look at some the people with non domicile status - Chelsea's owner, Roman Abramovich springs to mind. But there are over 100k of them

Ridiculous. Tax him and he would go elsewhere. At least he is investing and spending in the UK economy. There are many other countries willing to give the super-rich preferable tax treatment.

Go pick on that racing car driver... Lewis (?) in Switzerland. Or Phil Collins in Switzerland. Last time I checked in '94... it cost £50K a year to have Swiss something-or-other (domicile) where you pay little tax on your income earned outside Switzerland. The annual fee is probably twice or three times that now... but still a fraction of what some would otherwise pay it tax.

roddydogs

The Extra Tax will not be for 2 years-by which time their will be an Election-this has been done to put the Tories in a difficult position.
BTW the price reduction due to VAT will work out to 2% not 2.5%.
Are you all really going to rush out to buy a £500 telly cause its gone down by £10?

econo_2

mizzbiz wrote: »

There's a lot of jealousy over people earning high wages... I thought it was something that people would aspire to. I can't imagine anyone on here turning down 100k plus salary and honestly can't see wy it would make someone a leech.

Nothing against someone earning high wages Mizz, when they're earnt fairly on a level playing field of opportunity. Problem is in the good old UK they never have been and this hasn't been addressed, unlike in say, Southern Ireland where the jump in prosperity from bottom up business creation is nothing short of staggering in a decade or so.

Furthermore, more and more people are seeing it these days. When you also see that the gulf between rich and poor widens every coming month (not just by luck either) it just doesn't fly at all.

Probably justifying a lot of the remarks in this thread, by those who can be bothered to understand it only affects those on over 150,000 a year.

Don't know many 'middle class' other than the upper fringe who that embroils!