Cameron makes savings tax pledge

nickmason

carolt wrote: »

On the other hand, I've worked in FE colleges where temp staff were paid considerably less than permanent staff, which they could get away with by making the contracts last just the length of the term/half term, thus avoiding the need to pay equivalent holiday pay or indeed sick pay or any of those tiresome benefits. Let alone pensions! And so naturally the vast proprtion of staff were on these crappy contracts, as it was far cheaper for colleges than employing staff permanently.

So I suspect your example may be unusual.

Desperately dragging up my memories of "labour economics" tutorials, this might be a function of a highly unionised perm workforce, where the bargaining power of that group is so much higher than of the temp workforce, so they can lobby for preferential treatment.

Clearly, the unusual holiday/term/holiday/term/etc structure is also going to have an effect of incentivising short-term contracting that is not felt in most employment.

carolt

True, sounds plausible to me. V unfair though.

halight

Good idea im backing the Torys

Masomnia

lynzpower wrote: »

How about my situation though.

I dont have a large wage by aqny stretch & Oh temps, so he doesnt earn a lot, but have low living costs and am a total skinflint. therefore, my miserly ways mean - right now- I alone save over 800 per month. My isa is filled and Ive filled OHs too. Im paying tax on the excess that- twice- why?

OTOH imagine if I wanted to buy a car now worth say 10k. Im not encouraged by the tax system to actually save for it, I pay tax when Ive earned it and stick it in the bank and get taxed again. The reason why people think oh Ill take a loan for that car/ holiday/ wedding is that BECAUSE they have forgotten or never discovered saving and how much money you COULD make if the interest rates were the other way around. When I first joined MSe there were some 10% savings rates kicking around. Why should the gov take part of that- it DISCOURAGES saving.

You'll definitely benefit, a lot by the sounds of it, a tax cut is always going to benefit some people. I just don't think that now is the right time to be benefiting a small proportion of the population at a cost of £4.1billion.

I agree that it discourages saving to tax savings, but really that's another argument, since the tax will still apply to higher rate tax payers, still at 40%.

nickmason

carolt wrote: »

If it's the paucity of ideas - as I suspect - then he could do worse than getting rid of that oik George Osborne and replacing him wth someone of substance ...like Ken Clarke, as I heard mooted recently in the Telegraph. (Only Tory I like.)

Seems that Ken Clarke returning to Tory front bench is very definitely on the cards, to work alongside George Osborne (who apparently is the one pushing the idea - although that might be smoke and mirrors as it's unlikely Ken would come back for a role junior to shadow chancellor).

Might have an interesting effect upon the euro elections, though;)

lynzpower

nickmason wrote: »

Seems that Ken Clarke returning to Tory front bench is very definitely on the cards, to work alongside George Osborne (who apparently is the one pushing the idea - although that might be smoke and mirrors as it's unlikely Ken would come back for a role junior to shadow chancellor).

Might have an interesting effect upon the euro elections, though;)

TBF the only person worthy of handling the elction in my view outside of Cable is Ken Clark. Osborne needs to be shunted quick smart if the Conservatives think that he gives the impression he can handle the economy. He can barely get through newsnight interviews- what chance for him in International economics.