Tax hikes

lemonjelly

bendix wrote: »

Spoken like a true public sector employee as always Graham.

Meanwhile, back in the real world, most private sector employees this year have had either pay freezes or reductions, but - hey - you don't give a stuff about that do you, so long as the public sector are ok.

Yes. And also in the real world, the ever so responsible private sector have had far higher wage increases and bonuses. But hey, you dan't give a stuff about that do you, so long as the private sector are ok.

Old_Slaphead

lemonjelly wrote: »

Yes. And also in the real world, the ever so responsible private sector have had far higher wage increases and bonuses. But hey, you dan't give a stuff about that do you, so long as the private sector are ok.

Looking below the headlines focussed on the finance sector in the south east, I think you'll find that many SME employees have had negligible or NIL wage increases for many years (hence the growing disparity between public & private sectors wages....in public sectors favour. This disparity increases significantly if you exclude bankers bonuses from the equation). Many have also had to put up with wage decreases in past 12/18 months to accomodate the finance sectors greed, work more unpaid hours, get fewer holidays, inferior pensions, have less job security and take significantly less time off due to sickness.

The public sector has done very well under Labour but I'm afraid the cost now needs reducing to a more affordable level

lemonjelly

Old_Slaphead wrote: »

Looking below the headlines focussed on the finance sector in the south east, I think you'll find that many SME employees have had negligible or NIL wage increases for many years (hence the growing disparity between public & private sectors wages....in public sectors favour. This disparity increases significantly if you exclude bankers bonuses from the equation). Many have also had to put up with wage decreases in past 12/18 months to accomodate the finance sectors greed, work more unpaid hours, get fewer holidays, inferior pensions, have less job security and take significantly less time off due to sickness.

The public sector has done very well under Labour but I'm afraid the cost now needs reducing to a more affordable level

Not disagreeing with all you say. However I feel that private sector pay generally has outstripped public sector pay. In addition, it concerns me that some have a too narrow view that slashing spending by freezing/cutting public sector pay is the only answer. The debt levels are so high, that the burden needs to be shared around. The public sector employs a lot of people, & I grant that efficiencies could be made. However by reducing the disposable income of the entire public sector workforce would result in a slow down of the economy, and less in tax revenues.

Specifically though, to make headlines, I think the banks could be onto a winner if they lead by example, rather than create their own negative press by returning to what are alleged to be "the bad old ways".

mitchaa

Old_Slaphead wrote: »

2p extra on standard rate raises about £8m, increase vat to 20% another £12m, say £5m on fags, petrol, booze and other stealth taxes = £25m total

.

£25m per day?

Old_Slaphead

mitchaa wrote: »

£25m per day?

Sorry, billions per year.

Old_Slaphead

lemonjelly wrote: »

However by reducing the disposable income of the entire public sector workforce would result in a slow down of the economy, and less in tax revenues.

Whichever way you do it it will result in slowing the economy.

Tax rises = less available to spend.

Scrap/defer defence/infrastructure projects = fewer private sector jobs.

Reduced welfare = less to spend.

Adopting Keynesian policies only works when applied to the whole economic cycle, not just the down bit.

Whatever happened to Prudence ?

Maybe cutting some of the 'better offs' lavish pension packages would help too. Not just the bankers that are milking it.

http://www.citywire.co.uk/personal/-/news/money-property-and-tax/content.aspx?ID=358238&re=6908&ea=41113

JayScottGreenspan

lemonjelly wrote: »

Yes. And also in the real world, the ever so responsible private sector have had far higher wage increases and bonuses. But hey, you dan't give a stuff about that do you, so long as the private sector are ok.

The stupid-bonus brigade are a very small subset of the private sector. Imagine what the Venn diagram would look lke.

Personally, I'd deal with that lot via taxation and I'd still freeze public sector wages, and reform the pensions.

When the deficit's £200bn in one year (about seven grand per household!!!) civil service pay rises should be out of the question.

Rochdale_Pioneers

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Remember just before summer recess? Brown was telling us actually, instead of cutting, they were increasing investment? They were the investment party and the tory party were the cutting party. No no no, labour, and Rochdale who's dissapeared from here were ramping up the investments side.

My first time back on the board in a while and I'm fondly remembered. You are too kind....

The problem with tax is the public's attitude to it. People seem to want Scandanavian levels of public services but are only willing to pay American levels of tax. Doesn't work - you want services you have to pay for them.

So what we have is a once in a generation opportunity to wholly restructure tax and spending. Do people want low tax or low services? And how can we make tax cheaper and simpler? For me the LibDems have the best approach to this - give everyone £10k tax free allowance. Simple to
set up, costs nothing to run, allows you to scrap most of the tax credits saving both the benefit and running costs. OK so you have to increase taxes at the top end to balance it but few could argue that its unfair.

Then you need to ask how much tax do we need to raise. Time for some honesty. If people want services like in Sweden then tell them how much they cost. They can choose whether to vite for it or not - there is bound to be at least one party who is in the low tax low services camp.

Fundamentally though there are too many selfish cretins in this country who can only see past the end of their nose when it is to criticise the state of the nation's infrastructure/standing/well-being. The fact that their refusal to pay taxes to pay for any of these things seems to pass them by. Allow people a full choice on tax and they'd probably vote to not pay it - then complain that the country has gone to the dogs.

And public debt simply doe not take away from these arguments - its just another bill which has to be paid. Choose to pay it all off quickly as the right argue and we go down the no services route and the next generation will once again have to foot the bill to fix the crumbling remains. Choose to ignore it as Brown appeared to be doing and eventlauuy you run ourt of money, services have to be axed and the next generation has to fix the ruins.

The sensible route is to do what most other countries propose to do - repay the debt steadily over an extended period AND invest in infrastructure and services. But we can't do sensible because we're british and stupid.

there, thats enough of a post to tide you over until I next have a window in my work schedule....

Thrugelmir

Rochdale_Pioneers wrote: »

My first time back on the board in a while and I'm fondly remembered. You are too kind....

The problem with tax is the public's attitude to it. People seem to want Scandanavian levels of public services but are only willing to pay American levels of tax. Doesn't work - you want services you have to pay for them.

So what we have is a once in a generation opportunity to wholly restructure tax and spending. Do people want low tax or low services? And how can we make tax cheaper and simpler? For me the LibDems have the best approach to this - give everyone £10k tax free allowance. Simple to
set up, costs nothing to run, allows you to scrap most of the tax credits saving both the benefit and running costs. OK so you have to increase taxes at the top end to balance it but few could argue that its unfair.

Then you need to ask how much tax do we need to raise. Time for some honesty. If people want services like in Sweden then tell them how much they cost. They can choose whether to vite for it or not - there is bound to be at least one party who is in the low tax low services camp.

Fundamentally though there are too many selfish cretins in this country who can only see past the end of their nose when it is to criticise the state of the nation's infrastructure/standing/well-being. The fact that their refusal to pay taxes to pay for any of these things seems to pass them by. Allow people a full choice on tax and they'd probably vote to not pay it - then complain that the country has gone to the dogs.

And public debt simply doe not take away from these arguments - its just another bill which has to be paid. Choose to pay it all off quickly as the right argue and we go down the no services route and the next generation will once again have to foot the bill to fix the crumbling remains. Choose to ignore it as Brown appeared to be doing and eventlauuy you run ourt of money, services have to be axed and the next generation has to fix the ruins.

The sensible route is to do what most other countries propose to do - repay the debt steadily over an extended period AND invest in infrastructure and services. But we can't do sensible because we're british and stupid.

there, thats enough of a post to tide you over until I next have a window in my work schedule....

Rochdale a good post.

I concur with the Libdems proposal for a £10k tax free earnings limit. And from their upwards an overhaul of the taxation system.

Given a choice people will be happy for cuts in public expenditure. Cuts in public services is a political statement. Whereas there is huge wastage behind the scenes in non front line services.

Extending the debt repayment over an extended period won't make it any easier to swallow. As interest payments will still be due.

I wouldn't describe the british as stupid. Mislead perhaps.

IveSeenTheLight

mewbie wrote: »

Hands up who wishes they sold in 2007?

I don't see any hands up
I bought my flat in Jan 07, I'll put my hands up to being happy I bought it then :wave:
Just checked my mortgage statement and the outstanding amount has reduced very nicely indeed