Get the Tories Out!

[ajohn]

eyes I think, a long time ago

B'ham is unusual as it has a dedicated eye hospital. Some hospitals have a dedicated facility.

Taxation. People tend to forget the introduction of VAT and it's increases.Council tax too. Wilson was keen on paying some war debt. It was not easy to move money out of the country in his era. Bit of interesting history

Cabinet Papers - The National Archives

History through the eyes of the British Cabinet. Explore the archived version of The Cabinet Papers online resource (1915-1993). For advice on searching our catalogue for the fullest range of Cabinet Papers, please read our research guide to Cabinet and its committees.

www.nationalarchives.gov.uk

Note where the burden lies and the reasoning. You might notice Sunak is trying something similar on one aspect.

NHS. Funding in Mrs T time was well reported. Increases at around 1/2 the medical inflation rate. Under the latest lot funding again has been short. The answer now is to provide more but it doesn't make up for the over all effect of previous under funding. Rather similar in respect to the min wage.

Periods of Labour. Problem the extra money has to be obtained from some where

This has an interesting aspect. The top 1% earn more per hour and work less hours. Some interesting comments too that interest all parties including the Tory. Labour intend to have a real go at it. It's a problem area so who ever does it's a wait and see. Tax avoidance.

The top rate of income tax

If a new government were to raise the top rate of income tax, it is unlikely that the UK’s highest earners will work less hard but it is likely they will try harder to avoid paying tax. That …

blogs.lse.ac.uk

Where does the tax burden mostly lie. No change really the median earner however the low earner end population has increased. Increase PAYE for median earners and they have less to spend which will reflect in GDP.

Some might like to look at the decline in the number hospital beds over time.

 

[Ivor Windybottom]

I'll stay away from the personal insults, that's just for those who have lost the argument.

So suggesting that perpetual borrowing just to pay for the basic running costs of the country is unsustainable is now right wing?

In that case if Starmer becomes PM then he will be right wing too, he'll be forced to by the markets who will tell him that the UK's credit rating is zero and we can't have any more.

The future brings a choice of either massive cutbacks in public spending or smaller cutbacks together with massive tax rises to pay for it. There's no option of keeping things as they are, definitely not a chance of actually increasing spending beyond its current level.

If people actually believe that we can forever spend more than is taxed then they've been conned by the politicians. It was a good little scam while it lasted, but now it's over. We can't borrow more and, worse than that, we need to actually pay back the money we frittered on domes, olympics, art projects and the rest. We're currently borrowing more just to pay the interest on the money we already owe. If the UK was a business it would have been handed over to the receivers years ago.

 

[Notch7]

In that case if Starmer becomes PM then he will be right wing too, he'll be forced to by the markets who will tell him that the UK's credit rating is zero and we can't have any more

This country is in for a tough ride, neither Labour nor Tory can fix it In the next parliament.

But there are things Starmer can do: for instance re distribution of wealth, that can yield more revenue without borrowing and there is some low hanging fruit.

Another thing Starmer could do is free child care….the Canadians have done this and discovered the cost of it is more than paid back by parents being able to work and paying more tax.


This country has major structural problems that need a bold leader….I see nobody in politics that fits. I certainly wouldn’t call Starmer bold.

 

[Pat ex]

This country has major structural problems that need a bold leader….I see nobody in politics that fits. I certainly wouldn’t call Starmer bold.

That potential candidate for the SNP is bald.

 

[ajohn]

Another thing Starmer could do is free child care

A Finn told me that school hours are arranged in line with work. I doubt if teachers do the extra hours for free.

This country has major structural problems that need a bold leader….I see nobody in politics that fits. I certainly wouldn’t call Starmer bold.

They will be likely to raise tax from specific areas.

For instance private schools get £1.2b from tax due to their charity status. Loose it and they have to charge VAT. The VAT take will be offset by the amount they spend on vat rated items but still results in a significant amount of money. It nay hit what I will call fringe private schooling with pretty average teachers. Take a cut in earnings or fees go up. The fact that they have charity status is a bit odd. It probably goes back to empire days.

Nondoms - results I suspect would depend on exactly what they do. An individual that lives here but claims to live somewhere else.

Capital gains tax - there are a number of variations on what gets paid on that so again depends on what they actually do.

NI. A pundit summed that up nicely when Sunak upped it initially. People will think it's OK as NHS related but the pundit does know that the cost of what NI actually covers has gone up. The bulk of the NHS cost has been paid out of the tax take directly.

Basic income tax rate. I doubt if any party would increase that unless they were really desperate. What's generally happened over the years is other things get changed. The higher rate - who knows but I'd have my doubts. As a low % of the voting public are involved loosing votes due to an increase there should not be a problem.

That leave taxation loopholes and avoidance. All parties have an interest in that.

 

[motorbiking]

Its always surprised me how a married couple can transfer assets and wealth between each other without incurring capital gains. But a separated couple looking to divorce are subject to the tax if they transfer the assets as part of their settlement if it didn't occur in the same tax year.

A lot of senior leadership posts have bonuses paid in stock to avoid income tax & NI and opt for the Lower cost CG tax.

 

[transam]

loads of new bold policys to raise money could be initiated ?

Push bike tax (?)

leccy car tax (?)

fat person tax (?)

window tax (?)

Pram tax (?)

 

[motorbiking]

FUgly tax (?)

 

[ajohn]

This interested me on taxation bands

United States - Individual - Taxes on personal income

Detailed description of taxes on individual income in United States

taxsummaries.pwc.com

In our case we are paying for health as well - most of it anyway. But isn't far more bands a better way of evening the load?

Why have an NI as well. Why doesn't NI cover what some think it does.

The Tory change to business rates has it's interesting aspects. Councils can keep it and do what they like with it. It has an obvious flaw. At the same time some one announced that a newspaper shop in a poorer area wont be paying any at all. One strapped for cash. Some councils get way more business rates than others.

An employer is saying he can't afford to employ some one now NI has increased. Really? NI has been played with to encourage employment but hang on a minute does that make much sense in all cases?

LOL Transam forgot taxing pumps going into Cornwall. Seems they need them to extract lithium.

Another lithium business - thousands of jobs but only 250 when it's running.

 

[carmanmemoranda]

I'll stay away from the personal insults, that's just for those who have lost the argument.

So suggesting that perpetual borrowing just to pay for the basic running costs of the country is unsustainable is now right wing?

In that case if Starmer becomes PM then he will be right wing too, he'll be forced to by the markets who will tell him that the UK's credit rating is zero and we can't have any more.

The future brings a choice of either massive cutbacks in public spending or smaller cutbacks together with massive tax rises to pay for it. There's no option of keeping things as they are, definitely not a chance of actually increasing spending beyond its current level.

If people actually believe that we can forever spend more than is taxed then they've been conned by the politicians. It was a good little scam while it lasted, but now it's over. We can't borrow more and, worse than that, we need to actually pay back the money we frittered on domes, olympics, art projects and the rest. We're currently borrowing more just to pay the interest on the money we already owe. If the UK was a business it would have been handed over to the receivers years ago.

Definitely not interested in proper taxation of multi nationals, and wealthy individuals moving money away from taxation then.

Ok, understood, lets keep going for austerity. Not many other choices, it's either find more money or spend less. May I remind you as a nation, we are still classed as wealthy. If we have got it so bad, spare a thought for most of the rest of the world.

I think it's more a case of believing what you are spoon fed.

 

[JohnD]

Basic income tax rate. I doubt if any party would increase that unless they were really desperate.

Are you not aware that income tax has been increasing since tax year 2020? And that the Chancellor has announced it will continue to rise until (at least) 2026?

In 2019/20 the Personal Tax Allowance was £12,500

In 2020/21 there was a small increase to £12,570 to reflect the effects of inflation.

In 2021/22 there was no increase

In 2022/23 there is no increase

In 2023/24 there will be no increase

In 2024/25 there will be no increase

In 2025/26 there will be no increase.

Inflation is currently about 13%

The effect is to drag lower-paid people into paying tax, and to make a greater proportion of ordinary people's income, taxable.

Income Tax Personal Allowance and the basic rate limit from 6 April 2022 to 5 April 2026

This tax information and impact note is about maintaining the Personal Allowance and basic rate limit at their 2021 to 2022 tax year levels up to and including the 2025 to 2026 tax year.

www.gov.uk

 

[Deleted member 18243]

Put simply. Labour haven't been in power for 12 years or so?

Labour has been in power since 1997.

B'ham is unusual as it has a dedicated eye hospital.

Manchester has an eye hospital too, I'm waiting to be seen there.

 

[JohnD]

Labour has been in power since 1997.

More nonsense from barmy Andy.

 

[Deleted member 174758]

B'ham is unusual as it has a dedicated eye hospital. Some hospitals have a dedicated facility.

Not really. Manchester and Liverpool both have one, although these days the Liverpool one is now an eye unit (it used to be a full blown hospital down near the docks) and Manchester (as ndy is nobdoubt aware) is a multiple hospital site comprising the Manchester Children's Hospital, St. Mary's (women's hospital), Manchester Eye Hospital and Manchester Royal Infirmary in four separate interlinked buildings which share facilities at the back such as catering, operating theatres, laundry, maintenance, linen stores, mortuaries, etc.

 

[Ivor Windybottom]

For instance private schools get £1.2b from tax due to their charity status. Loose it and they have to charge VAT. The VAT take will be offset by the amount they spend on vat rated items but still results in a significant amount of money. It nay hit what I will call fringe private schooling with pretty average teachers. Take a cut in earnings or fees go up. The fact that they have charity status is a bit odd. It probably goes back to empire days.

I understand that the argument for charitable status is that the parents sending their kids there have already paid for state education, via their taxes like everyone else, but they are not taking their share of free state education. So the private school is doing some of the work that the state would have to do otherwise.

If you remove charitable status then their fees would rise (a lot), as a result a proportion of parents would choose state education instead and it may well be that the state ends up having to pay more for these additional places than they gain from the extra taxes coming from the private schools.

Sadly this is probably just another of those labour party "good" ideas that makes a good soundbite but probably wouldn't achieve much or could even be a revenue loser.

Besides, £1.2billion isn't very much these days in the context of the vast amount that the government spends.

Income tax is very high, sadly many have been fooled into thinking that the tax named "Income Tax" is its full extent. In reality, almost all* workers also pay 12% National Insurance on lots of their income, which is nothing but an additional income tax with a different name. On top of this there's the 13.8% National Insurance Employer's contribution that workers don't see so most don't appreciate that there's another slice of the money they earn being invisibly siphoned off before they even see it. In reality, income tax as a whole is probably already beyond the point at which it's reducing employment levels - it's got to the point where all employers think twice about employing someone and will definitely explore alternatives such as automation or just not expanding at all. So increasing it may be counter-productive, as it will stifle the economy so lead to a drop in tax receipts.

In reality, asssuming that we are going to be forced to end our dependency on perpetual credit by the lenders, which is looking inevitable, the obvious choice is a cut in public spending, on a scale that's never been seen before. If not then new sources of taxes will be needed, the current socialist target appears to be a Wealth Tax - i.e. taxing people on the money they have already earned in the past and have already paid income tax on. This could be extremely controversial - I'm sure there would be first easy targets, such as the lords and ladies of this land, but there's the perpetual issue that those with money can afford to pay people who can legally hide it. So they'll end up taking it from the low-hanging fruit, in reality someone with a modest rainy day fund in the bank may find that the government takes a chunk of it without warning, while those who blow their money on holidays and flashy cars are left untouched.

* The biggest difference betwen income tax and NI is that NI is not paid by anyone above retirement age, even those who are earning large amounts either from large pensions or from working.