Election campaign kicks off

IveSeenTheLight

purch wrote: »

I very much doubt that the current Government are advocating reducing the overall Tax take. In fact it is likely to be the opposite.

It is a case of shifting the Tax take more fairly.

I can't see how this could be seen as a bad idea.

Is it not better to take the additional tax take to reduce the deficit and then offer this incentive when it's economically viable to do so.

As Generali stated earlier, it's a small cost and done (in my opinion) to gain votes as opposed to making tax fairer

IveSeenTheLight

Daniel54 wrote: »

I agree that for anyone likely to be concerned about IHT,these changes substantially increase the attractiveness of pensions over BTL as an investment for retirement

I wonder if we will also see earlier downsizing ,or BTLs being sold,in order to maximise pension contributions while there is still earned income available for tax relief.

It's not an incentive for me to do this.

TickersPlaysPop

N1AK wrote: »

No, though it's pleasing to know someone thinks I have the skills for it. Given your extremely poor showing in defending your initial point it's clear that you couldn't spin a top

What I am saying is that the Labour government chose to borrow heavily during the boom times, which left us with only bad options during the crash.
.[/I]

Fair play N1AK ! LoL :-)

Nice analogy by the way....

But I do wonder if we would have more options as you say. We would maybe be in the position of Germany now if we had been more prudent and controlled wage inflation? The only extra options would be to cut less to get things back on track quicker.

But we do need facts and figures if we want to seriously discuss this. I thought the debt from money borrowed to support the banks was significantly larger than the existing debt. Also, do you really think the conservatives would have run a surplus?! I don't think the UK has ever been in a significant surplus in the past 100 yrs? What ever government is in power the Uk will do what is needed....

When will the government sell off its shares in the banks? That will help A LOT towards reducing the lump of debt we have around our necks?

neverdespairgirl

N1AK wrote: »

A 2 adult household without children would likely need an income of £35k+ each to come near to being revenue neutral. Add in a couple of kids and shared incomes below £100k would be well short of paying their share. I'd be very surprised if as much as 20% of the population pays enough tax to cover their share of government spending.

The thing that really annoys me about the current debate is hearing OH and me being described as "rich". Once we've paid our mortgage (housing costs in London are scary), and childcare (out of taxed income) we don't have masses of cash to fling about, but I'm sure the more lefty politicians and posters on this board nevertheless take us out of the "hard-working families" cliche and insert us into the "rich and privileged" cliche instead, and want us to pay a lot more tax.

We already pay an awful lot of tax, and then pay out again for other things, such as a private primary for our elder son as the local one was so rubbish.

We do earn over £100k a year between us, most years, before tax. Not including this one, as I've had a baby and being self-employed, no nice maternity packages for us. Once you add in a huge mortgage and £27k for childcare, we aren't left bathing in champagen.

neverdespairgirl

Thrugelmir wrote: »

She survived. You can't put a price on some ones life.

Not only can you put a price on someone's life, you have to. Otherwise nothing, and no system, can ever make sense or be paid for. Say that every person who suffers any type of cancer can be cured of it for good - cost is £150 million per life. That is simply not an option for any health service, is it?

Prices have to be put on lives in other ways, too. Putting too high a price on a life in some circumstances can actually cause more deaths in other ways, too.

For example, if you take a railway system, and make safety improvements at a rate of expenditure that's too high, that can push more people into road journeys for financial reasons - and road journeys are more dangerous.

purch

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

done (in my opinion) to gain votes as opposed to making tax fairer

I would not disagree.

purch

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

we aren't left bathing in champagen.

It is good for your skin.

TickersPlaysPop

mayonnaise wrote: »

No they don't.

http://www.latentexistence.me.uk/mps-expenses-and-other-inaccurate-claims/

MP's expenses even at the levels they actually are need complete reform.

This is also linked to the housing market.....

Currently many MP's purchase a second home so that they have a place to stay when working in Westminster. This is a job perk, where they purchase and the government helps pay the mortgage, and the MP's pocket the capital gains as the housing market increases.

This is not helping the MP's sort out the housing market because they are all invested too much, this is a conflict of interest and would not be allowed in many industry sectors.

Reform.....

Set up a parliamentary hotel with catering facilities offering modest menus and stop ALL NEW second home expenses claims. It would be a much more efficient use of money. This could be manifesto pledge, and a big step towards UK politicians regaining trust, respect and authority.

Remember, compare the money per child for school dinners to how much MP's are stuffing into their faces using food expenses. It just doesn't sit right with me.

N1AK

TickersPlaysPop wrote: »

But I do wonder if we would have more options as you say. We would maybe be in the position of Germany now if we had been more prudent and controlled wage inflation? The only extra options would be to cut less to get things back on track quicker.

As a general rule I think it's a bad idea to cut your way out of a recession. The issue is that if you have no savings to start with then you have to, or risk the financial markets abandoning you. If we'd started the financial crisis with a couple of hundred billion less debt we could have used that money to employ more people on infrastructure projects, fund more training for people who lose their jobs etc. Doing so would keep more people economically active, likely damping the impact of the crisis on jobs and wages.

TickersPlaysPop wrote: »

I thought the debt from money borrowed to support the banks was significantly larger than the existing debt.

UK government debt was £530 billion before the crisis. We have borrowed £124 billion in total to support the banks. Since 2008 total debt has gone up £700 billion. So although the bailout is a huge amount of money, it's far less than total borrowing before or after the crisis.

TickersPlaysPop wrote: »

Also, do you really think the conservatives would have run a surplus?! I don't think the UK has ever been in a significant surplus in the past 100 yrs? What ever government is in power the Uk will do what is needed....

No I don't. In fact I tend to argue against people who think the conservatives would have been vastly different, however I do think they would have spent less and increased spending more slowly. It's impossible to put a figure on it, because if the lower spending led to less economic growth then our economy may have been no better off.

TickersPlaysPop wrote: »

When will the government sell off its shares in the banks? That will help A LOT towards reducing the lump of debt we have around our necks?

The bank based debt is about 10% of our national debt. Personally I'd rather they take the long view and sell gradually to maximise our return. Better to owe more for longer and sell for closer to what it's worth than have a fire sale and lose most of the value quickly.

ukcarper

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

The thing that really annoys me about the current debate is hearing OH and me being described as "rich". Once we've paid our mortgage (housing costs in London are scary), and childcare (out of taxed income) we don't have masses of cash to fling about, but I'm sure the more lefty politicians and posters on this board nevertheless take us out of the "hard-working families" cliche and insert us into the "rich and privileged" cliche instead, and want us to pay a lot more tax.

We already pay an awful lot of tax, and then pay out again for other things, such as a private primary for our elder son as the local one was so rubbish.

We do earn over £100k a year between us, most years, before tax. Not including this one, as I've had a baby and being self-employed, no nice maternity packages for us. Once you add in a huge mortgage and £27k for childcare, we aren't left bathing in champagen.

I accept that you might not be awash with money after your large mortgage and £27k childcare but they are expenses the majority of people can't pay.