OBR: 13p on income tax to fix hole in the nation’s future finances

StevieJ

Mr_Mumble wrote: »

In defense of the unions you were quoting GAD figures, via the Hutton report, as gospel two weeks ago.

My point there was the unlikely source SKY


Which is why benefits continue to be increased at 4.5% while NICs are being put up on workers who see wage growth at only 2%. Hmm.

Come back when BR is 33%, although there is logic to combining NI and Tax thus almost achieving the Abraxas dream i.e. making the old pay their fair share.

Jegersmart

kabayiri wrote: »

I was recently in Copenhagen. This is a city considered to have a great quality of life, yet many working families there only run one small car. Here we almost assume the right to 2 cars per family.

.

In Denmark, cars are extremely highly taxed - resulting in a new car being almost 3 times more expensive than the UK price. In Denmark in my experience, not having several cars is not an indicator that quality of life is "worse". You are judging them by UK "values". In short the population is used to very high taxes but have a more socialist view on society and it works "well" over there. It is however also an economy that struggling with competitiveness in industry as well as many taking advantage of the relatively generous benefits the State (currently) provides.

ash28

When I got married in 1975 the basic rate of tax was 35% - on income upto £5k or so - NI was about 5% on income over about £550 a year -

The tax allowance for me as a married woman (same as a single person) was about £650 a year and for OH as a married man it was about £850 year.

Happy days..

dtsazza

Jegersmart wrote: »

In Denmark in my experience, not having several cars is not an indicator that quality of life is "worse". You are judging them by UK "values".

I think that was kabayiri's point - that Copenhagen is generally considered "better" in the whole, even though their values are more modest than ours. And correspondingly, that we should be prepared to drop or rework some of our expectations of what's "normal" in light of the economic situation.

(It's just not tenable for everyone to live in a four bedroom detached house, have a couple of newish cars and go on several foreign holidays a year; especially now. In my view, keeping up with the Joneses is what fueled a large part of the credit binge (especially the unsecured/MEWing portion). If aggregate expectations were lower - or at least, not based so strongly on stuff - then I suspect the populace would, on the whole, be in a better state now.)

geneer

peakoil wrote: »

bit of a tenuous link though.

Why would you say that?

michaels

Easy - keep importing young, qualified immigrants who have children to keep the population growing, especially the productive part and push the retirement age up a bit. Also if we get more extremes of hot and cold weather as the AGW alarmists suggest we should reduce the older generations more quickly than forecast, especially with peak oil resulting in rapidly increasing fuel costs.

kabayiri

dtsazza wrote: »

I think that was kabayiri's point - that Copenhagen is generally considered "better" in the whole, even though their values are more modest than ours. And correspondingly, that we should be prepared to drop or rework some of our expectations of what's "normal" in light of the economic situation.
...

Indeed. I'm not sure we have ever challenged our assumptions of what we value in modern times.

I am amazed that we spent 1/2 billion plus on the recent census, yet it didn't expand its question base to try and find out what drives and underpins our expectations as a consumer society. An opportunity missed I reckon.

evenasus

geneer wrote: »

Thanks again property bulls

What or who are property bulls?

PasturesNew

Income tax was about 33% when I started work I believe.

Work shouldn't be discouraged. Knock 10% off benefits rather than adding 13p to income tax.

heathcote123

geneer wrote: »

Theres always a choice.
Would you like that added to income tax or vat.

Thanks again property bulls.

</H1>

Vat please.