Another reason to vote Tory...

mitchaa

kennyboy66 wrote: »

So does, cutting income tax, petrol duties and alcohol taxes.

Thatcher increased direct & indirect taxes in 1981. Only dreamers think the deficit will be solved without some contribution from higher taxes.

It's always a thatcher comparison. 30yrs ago is a long time, way before my time

Either tax rises or spending cuts, or a mixture of both. We expect that though, the conservatives have to come in to clear up a mess created by Gordon and Co.

robin_banks

kennyboy66 wrote: »

So does, cutting income tax, petrol duties and alcohol taxes.

Thatcher increased direct & indirect taxes in 1981. Only dreamers think the deficit will be solved without some contribution from higher taxes.

Another moronic policy from Gideon. He really is a gimp.

It's always been a clear difference in Tory/Labour thinking as to at what point you tax, earnings or expenditure ?.

Pennywise

Although I think Osborne is hopeless and is damaging the Tory's chances of winning, he's right with this. By the way did anyone see Milliband on breakfast TV over the weekend - I thought Osborne was bad, but Milliband was absolutely hopeless even against the lightweight Susannah Reid who's more accustomed to celebrity interviews. Considering Milliband is destined for higher things in the next Labour govt, it doesn't inspire confidence and makes Osborne look positively good!

Average earning workers are not treated well at all - it's obscene to hit them with another rise in NICs.

The NIC rise doesn't affect those living on state benefits, it doesn't affect pensioners, it doesn't affect those living on investment income, it wont' affect most of those running their own "one man" limited companies. So why penalise one relatively small group of "taxpayers"?

The increase in employers NIC will achieve very little. For a start the government will have to pay itself for its army of public sector workers, so only NIC increases from the private sector would bring in any extra money at all. But, many firms won't be able to survive the extra NIC and would reduce staffing, and the extra costs reduce profits, so the government would lose out in the way of reduced business profit tax, so overall the increase in employers NIC would probably produce very little additional revenue.

I'd say an increase in VAT was more appropriate as it would hit everyone equally and share out the burden between more people. As a result, the increase would be smaller as most people would have to pay it, sharing out the burden.

Both parties would have to rise VAT, presumably the Tory's would raise it a little more to compensate for not increasing NIC.

nolongerindenial

I am one of those people who usually can not be bothered to vote, as I believe they are all a bunch of lieing t****rs who simply want power to enable them to screw more expenses out of the system.

However this year, as a small business owner I will be voting for whomever appears to help me grow my business to the stage I can do my bit to tackle unemployment and hire people!

As a Nation of small shopkeepers, surely a good way to encourage lower unemployment would be to help smaller business's get off the ground, as if there was less red tape to getting into business, building your business to support yourself and staff.

My first business failed due to lack of support with regards to the paperwork aspect of running a business, we made a healthy profit month on month and was growing to the point I realised just how far behind we were with paperwork - and the fines crippled the companies cashflow to the point I had no option but to close it down. I will not make the mistake the second time!

robin_banks

Pennywise wrote: »

Although I think Osborne is hopeless and is damaging the Tory's chances of winning, he's right with this. By the way did anyone see Milliband on breakfast TV over the weekend - I thought Osborne was bad, but Milliband was absolutely hopeless even against the lightweight Susannah Reid who's more accustomed to celebrity interviews. Considering Milliband is destined for higher things in the next Labour govt, it doesn't inspire confidence and makes Osborne look positively good!

Average earning workers are not treated well at all - it's obscene to hit them with another rise in NICs.

The NIC rise doesn't affect those living on state benefits, it doesn't affect pensioners, it doesn't affect those living on investment income, it wont' affect most of those running their own "one man" limited companies. So why penalise one relatively small group of "taxpayers"?

The increase in employers NIC will achieve very little. For a start the government will have to pay itself for its army of public sector workers, so only NIC increases from the private sector would bring in any extra money at all. But, many firms won't be able to survive the extra NIC and would reduce staffing, and the extra costs reduce profits, so the government would lose out in the way of reduced business profit tax, so overall the increase in employers NIC would probably produce very little additional revenue.

I'd say an increase in VAT was more appropriate as it would hit everyone equally and share out the burden between more people. As a result, the increase would be smaller as most people would have to pay it, sharing out the burden.

Both parties would have to rise VAT, presumably the Tory's would raise it a little more to compensate for not increasing NIC.

A VAT would hike not hit people equally.

sunshinetours

robin_banks wrote: »

A VAT would hike not hit people equally.

Assume you mean it wouldn't be fair?

Why not - higher rate taxation already taxes those who earn more, at a higher percentage than those who don't - why shouldn't VAT be increased so everyone pays more on their own consumption?

There is a fine line between all paying their fair share of tax and when it then becomes a witch-hunt on those who have been successful (and I appreciate in some cases also lucky)

I personally would increase capital gains tax so those that benefit from investment gains pay a higher rate although not on those selling their own businesses

Pete111

robin_banks wrote: »

A VAT would hike not hit people equally.

Do you mean that the richer would more easily swallow it?

This will always be the case but on those terms any widespread tax increase (ie basic income tax rate increases etc) will be 'unequal'. Doesn't mean it's wrong - for good or ill it's sort of how life works really.

marklv

mitchaa wrote: »

Seems like a good idea to me...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8592144.stm

People will have more in their paypackets which gets the thumbs up from me :jIt would appear from the article that the additional 1% would be scrapped for basic rate taxpayers but still be applicable for higher rate.

In order to close the deficit, they really need to start looking at ways to reduce the benefits bill (Perhaps a child related cap or limit on tax credits)

You are naive if you think that this will be a freeby of some sort. Any handouts need to paid for, so you will pay in another way, trust me.

I would rather have Thatcher any day of the week than the current Tory toffs leading that party. At least Thatcher came from a normal middle class family.

Nice_Username

mitchaa wrote: »

the conservatives have to come in to clear up a mess created by Gordon and Co.

Erm, the mess was created by global neoliberal economics, not Gordon Brown.

Do you seriously think a lurch even further to the right, towards a party even MORE closely aligned with the bankers and big-business, will be of benefit to anyone?

quietheart

mitchaa wrote: »

It's always a thatcher comparison. 30yrs ago is a long time, way before my time

For those of us that experienced it, we'll never forget it :eek:.