The Gordon Brown 20% Tax Con.

kenshaz

The ballot box will set them right and remind them to never under-estimate the power of the people and power corrupts.New Labour came to power ,because we believed that they represented the lower paid ,we got it wrong,but we will not again.
I voted for them,and now I have retired ,my children are grown -up and I no longer pay NI,no mortgage,and now Gordon Brown has decided to target me for the benefit of a cheap spin prior to him taking leadership.

moonrakerz

kenshaz wrote: »

New Labour came to power ,because we believed that they represented the lower paid ,we got it wrong,but we will not again.

You may not get it wrong again, but lots of others will for the first time !

I have seen several labour Governments in my time and they all run the same course, leaving the country's finances in a shambles when people finally twig onto them.
A few years later, when there are a few million new voters who have never seen them in action before, they get voted into power again. And it starts all over again !

And finally, if Labour represent the low paid, does it not serve their interests to keep the lowly paid - well, just that. If the lowly paid became well paid, wouldn't they vote Tory ? Don't tell me that lots of Labour politicians haven't got wise to that !!

margaretclare

Although this 'tax con' does not actually affect me or DH, because we get the increased age-related tax allowances, I am still interested in it because it does directly affect a lot of other people that I know.

I was in the hairdresser's on Friday evening and was talking to a lady there. She's in the low-paid bracket and has immediately started paying more tax, since the new tax year started. The argument I heard from Alistair Darling was that people like her would be compensated by being able to claim tax credits. Leaving aside the argument as to why someone should have to pay more then claim their own money back again, she won't be able to claim tax credits because of her husband's income. In other words, tax allowances are individual but tax credits are means-tested.

Darling's arguments about 'compensation' were apparently enough to buy off Frank Field and his assortment of Labour rebels. But there are a lot of people, including the lady I was talking to, who will not be compensated through the existing mechanisms.

At the same time people are being told we are not saving enough, more people should be saving for their retirement - that was in a report only very recently. People like that lady, however, have less income to save from, because of increased tax!

It does actually serve the interests of any 'socialist' government to keep many people low-paid, and to keep them dependent on state hand-outs, rather than encourage their independence. Why else do you think older people have been 'bought off' by hand-outs like winter fuel, free TV licences and free bus passes, instead of giving them a decent income?

On a related note, yesterday DH and I attended a conference in central London organised by the Campaign for an English Parliament, entitled 'The Future of England'. Now, I would have thought that a conference with such a title, in a country with 50+ million people (England, that is) would have been packed to the doors, standing room only. In fact there were a lot of vacant seats and there were far too few younger people there. The chairman of Eastern Counties branch of the English Democrats Party (he's a former UKIP man) said to me recently that he never goes to meetings like that, because it's 'preaching to the converted'. I enjoyed the conference, but I'm afraid he was right.

moonrakerz

margaretclare wrote: »

It does actually serve the interests of any 'socialist' government to keep many people low-paid, and to keep them dependent on state hand-outs, rather than encourage their independence. Why else do you think older people have been 'bought off' by hand-outs like winter fuel, free TV licences and free bus passes, instead of giving them a decent income?

It astounds me why so may people can't see through this shabby trick ! But, as I said above, people keep falling for it.

EdInvestor

moonrakerz wrote: »

I have seen several labour Governments in my time and they all run the same course, leaving the country's finances in a shambles when people finally twig onto them.

In fact, the last time we had a horrific credit crunch (much worse than the present one has got so far) was the 1973-74 crash under the Ted Heath Tory government, when the banks, the property market, and the stockmarket all crashed together, plus we had the 3 day week, rolling power cuts and rocketing inflation.I imagine many people on this forum can remember that period, even if most of the population is now too young..

The worst house price crash by far started under the Thatcher government in 1989 and ended under the Major Government in 1995.They were both Tory Governments as well.

The Tories do not have a very good economic record in the post war period.

moonrakerz

EdInvestor wrote: »

In fact, the last time we had a horrific credit crunch (much worse than the present one has got so far) was the 1973-74 crash under the Ted Heath Tory government, when the banks, the property market, and the stockmarket all crashed together, plus we had the 3 day week, rolling power cuts and rocketing inflation.

You seem to forget that Ted Heath (almost as bad as G B !) was voted in, totally unexpectedly, by a nation that was shell-shocked by the performance of the Wilson ("the pound in your pocket has not been devalued" - joke !) Labour administration - on the basis of "anything must be better than this lot". The full four years of the Heath Premiership were spent under constant siege by the trade unions trying (successfully, in the end) to get another "puppet" Labour Government in place. The unions were the main causes of the 3 day week, power cuts and roaring inflation - funny how people seem to forget that as well. The present day trouble at Grangemouth brings back memories of those halcyon days !

To call that a "credit crunch" is being just a little disingenuous. Today's problems are caused by banks giving out far too much credit, in the main to people who couldn't afford it, then selling on the bad debt to some other poor sucker before the "Chickens came home". In the 70s credit was very hard to get, I remember queuing for months with many other hopefuls to get my first mortgage - MAX of 75%. Not like today's farcical - "125%, no bother Sir".

The stock market crash of '73-74 was caused by a number of factors; the collapse of the Bretton Wood agreements, war in the Middle East, de/revaluation of the US Dollar and finally OPEC turning off the oil taps - nothing to do with a "credit crunch".

I wouldn't argue too strongly with you that most politicians Left/Centre/Right are pretty useless when it comes to running a country's economy. Perhaps we should give that task to the financial experts who are always telling others how it should be done - perhaps Adam Applegarth and his gang for a starter :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Farway

OK, happier now?

£600 extra PA for under 65s

penrhyn

NO. It still leaves those at the bottom of the pile worse of by £120 or so, whilst those who gained in the budget are even better off.
Kier Hardy must be turning in his grave.

dwileflunker

Farway wrote: »

OK, happier now?

£600 extra PA for under 65s

First of all you are not £600 better off, only £120. You get £600 of extra tax relief not £600 increase in income, and not all under 65's get it, it's dependant on your income as higher earners will lose it at the other end with an allowance reduction.

Secondly this has not addressed the original anomally. Many of those at the lower end of the pay scale are still worse off as all he's done is raise the bar at the bottom of the scale and not compensated for the 10p loss, and even this is not a permanant.

This is not rocket science but some really quite simple maths and if Mr Brown and his cronnies couldn't see this happening when they first devised it then it doesn't give you much faith in anything else they do. Quite frankly it's incompetent.

Farway

dwileflunker wrote: »

First of all you are not £600 better off, only £120. You get £600 of extra tax relief not £600 increase in income, and not all under 65's get it, it's dependant on your income as higher earners will lose it at the other end with an allowance reduction.

The PA I used stood for Personal Allownce, not Per Annum

Sorry if this confused you