[Archived] Quality Of Life In Britain Is The Best It Has Ever Been

[broadsword]

From what I can see, half the national debt is 461,935,000,000. So to pay off half of it in four years that's 115,483,750,000 a year. So we require GDP to grow in such a way that each years tax receipts will be 115,483,750,000 greater than the year just gone? Have I got this much right?

I don't know how to take the GDP figure to calculate what x% increase will lead to y% increase in tax receipts, but here's the ONS' assessment of GDP:

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=192

My intuitive feeling looking at that is that the numbers don't match up.

A conservative supporter backing a PM that lied about raising taxes, and a conservative supporter that sees no problem with higher taxes A.S?

That wouldn't be political double standards and bias I see there - would it?

Did he unequivocally guarantee that taxes wouldn't rise?

You can't always do what you promised to do in opposition.

[den]

Did he unequivocally guarantee that taxes wouldn't rise?

You can't always do what you promised to do in opposition.

They weren't going to raise VAT, because they had no plans to do so.

Then they won the election and changed their mind, That's lieing in my opinion Bryan.

[RibbleValleyRover]

A VAT rise was inevitable imo, even Labour who have been preaching outrage about it would have done the same thing if they were the ones doing the budget. It's the quickest way to generate revenue to pay off the deficit (should raise about £13 billion a year) and out of all the taxes they could have put it its probably the one which would hurt the least.

Putting up Corporation tax would harm business, business we ultimately need to stimulate growth in the economy. Raising Income tax would have hurt people more than a VAT rise, CGT at 50%+ again would punish those that create money (money that is taken out of the economy). The council tax freeze is a good thing, in our area we pay more council tax each year and we seem to get less service. Labour's plan on National Insurance would have led to less jobs being created and some companies cutting jobs to avoid the costs.

On the whole the budget wasn't that bad.

[BiggusLaddus]

http://www.debtbombshell.com/

Jim isn't (and neither are the polititians) talking about paying off the debt, only halving the deficit. The debt has rocketed in the last 2-3yrs because of the amount of overspending. Jim's position seems to be that carrying on with the same policy of overspending wll stimulate the economy into such unprecedented growth that the tax take will rise to match. The government are saying that this isn't possible and we need to cut spending.

If the governments way turns out wrong then we will have a double dip recession. If we did it Jim's way and it didn't work then we would either have to default on our debt or do a Greece.

[jim mk2]

A VAT rise was inevitable imo, even Labour who have been preaching outrage about it would have done the same thing if they were the ones doing the budget. It's the quickest way to generate revenue to pay off the deficit (should raise about £13 billion a year) and out of all the taxes they could have put it its probably the one which would hurt the least.

Putting up Corporation tax would harm business, business we ultimately need to stimulate growth in the economy. Raising Income tax would have hurt people more than a VAT rise, CGT at 50%+ again would punish those that create money (money that is taken out of the economy). The council tax freeze is a good thing, in our area we pay more council tax each year and we seem to get less service. Labour's plan on National Insurance would have led to less jobs being created and some companies cutting jobs to avoid the costs.

On the whole the budget wasn't that bad.

Labour have never stated they would VAT (unlike the Tories and Con-Dems) and there is no basis for your statement that they would have done.

The regressive increase of VAT from 17.5 per cent to 20 per cent raises £13.5 billion by 2014-15 but cuts to income tax, national insurance, corporation tax, and council tax cost £12.4 billion.

The cuts to child benefit, the child tax credit, and child trust funds – which together cost £2.5 billion – could have been avoided if the Chancellor had not announced cuts to corporation tax. All these cuts plus the VAT rises hurt the poorest hardest while the fiscal burden on the rich and business is reduced.

Your post is shameful and indefensible .

[ABBEY]

They weren't going to raise VAT, because they had no plans to do so.

Then they won the election and changed their mind, That's lieing in my opinion Bryan.

2nded

[Ozz]

The problem with the VAT rise is retailers will not simply add the extra tax on in line with the rise.

A product currently on sale for £99.99 has a VAT element of about £14.90 (£85.09 x 1.175=£99.98)

So £85.09 x 1.2 =£102.10. No big retailer has a price of £102.10.

The price will either stay the same, and other products will go up significantly, or more likely the price will go up to £109.99. An extra £10.

[jim mk2]

http://www.debtbombshell.com/

Jim isn't (and neither are the polititians) talking about paying off the debt, only halving the deficit. The debt has rocketed in the last 2-3yrs because of the amount of overspending. Jim's position seems to be that carrying on with the same policy of overspending wll stimulate the economy into such unprecedented growth that the tax take will rise to match. The government are saying that this isn't possible and we need to cut spending.

If the governments way turns out wrong then we will have a double dip recession. If we did it Jim's way and it didn't work then we would either have to default on our debt or do a Greece.

Osborne has been playing up the structural deficit as his excuse for his attack on the state sector because it is based on the idea of limited spare capacity in the economy. However even with the Bank of England recently reported exceptionally low capacity utilisation and 1 in 5 workers economically inactive and it wasn’t that long ago that received wisdom was that Britain had a structural surplus.

The Tories have convinced the electorate that these cuts and are necessary and you can see the evidence on this messageboard of the the people who have been taken in by the Tory rhetoric. The fact is the real aim of the Tories is to cut the living standards of workers and the poor in order to raise the living standards of high earners and the rich. Ultimately the overwhelming majority will suffer from this budget.

[koi]

Oh I bet that chip on Jim's shoulder grows bigger by the day. I thought it was a decent budget, could have gone further with welfare reform; we'll still have the 'Kyle' generation that seem to have more money to spend than me yet I do 60+ hours a week and they do f all. VAT wont have a major effect for me and I doubt we'll really see anything on the street other than endless 'Pre VAT Prices' style sales.

Anyway, I'm just grateful we have a Chancellor that isn't scared of tackling our crazy spending.

[RibbleValleyRover]

Labour have never stated they would VAT (unlike the Tories and Con-Dems) and there is no basis for your statement that they would have done.

Neither Labour nor the Conservatives pre-election ruled is out as far as I'm aware, when asked before the election both parties said they had no current plans to raise it. The Lib Dem's were pretty vocal about being against it.

The regressive increase of VAT from 17.5 per cent to 20 per cent raises £13.5 billion by 2014-15 but cuts to income tax, national insurance, corporation tax, and council tax cost £12.4 billion.

The cuts to child benefit, the child tax credit, and child trust funds – which together cost £2.5 billion – could have been avoided if the Chancellor had not announced cuts to corporation tax. All these cuts plus the VAT rises hurt the poorest hardest while the fiscal burden on the rich and business is reduced.

Your post is shameful and indefensible .

The main issue here is you believe in a big state/small business is the way forward, i believe in a smaller state, less control and more entrepreneurialism so we are bound to disagree over this issue.

The fact is though that the economy is totally reliant on the private sector as it stands, they are the main wealth creators in the economy. They may have played a large part in some of the financial issues we have encountered (the banks) but they are also the only ones that can get us out of this financial mess, this is the way the economy is geared towards. Raising CGT, NI, CT will only stifle private sector growth, growth we simple need to cut this deficit.

I just don't see how higher taxes will get us out of this economic mess and stimulate growth. History has shown, especially in Canada recently a core focus on lower spending as opposed to higher taxes will get you out of this economic mess quicker and you come out stronger at the end of it.

It won’t be pretty, but this is the situation we are in. We had a previous government reaping the benefits of a booming economy, spending the proceeds then using our strong economic position to borrow more. When the sh1t hit the fan (it always happens- contrary to Global Gordon's claim of an end to 'boom and bust') we were left in a weak position to respond.

[Paul]

The problem with the VAT rise is retailers will not simply add the extra tax on in line with the rise.

A product currently on sale for £99.99 has a VAT element of about £14.90 (£85.09 x 1.175=£99.98)

So £85.09 x 1.2 =£102.10. No big retailer has a price of £102.10.

The price will either stay the same, and other products will go up significantly, or more likely the price will go up to £109.99. An extra £10.

This is exactly right. When VAT reduced to 15% not one of my customers, and we apply a retail price to approximately 85% of the product we sell, reduced their prices. Now our product is mainly very low priced, much at £2.99, but I expect those who raise prices in 2011 to move to £3.49, a total increase of nearly 17% gross. The additional non VAT element will go to the retailers bottom line, though I readily admit we will be doing our damndest to get a price rise out of this.

One area of cuts I should like to bring to people's attention is local services. I am very relieved the budget will not have a great impact on my son and his funding needs, at least at the headline stage. However once Local Authorities look to make cuts in their budgets it will be the small programmes, which have minimal impact on the bulk of the population, which will be hit. For example in Chorley a man called Kevin O'Hara is employed to provide a Disability Sports programme in the area. Kevin's work has resulted in major improvements in both provision and quality of this programme locally. I suspect Kevin is on a short-term contract and am worried this is precisely the type of the programme which will cease in the near future. I've no doubt it costs a significant amount and benefits a very small percentage of the local population. It is though both a marvellous example of the type of provision we should be offering and an example of the little programmes which just disappear because the impact on the majority will be minimal.

Personally I'm concerned this budget will badly impact the less well off. As my youngest finished full time education last week we lose the benefits assocciated with this as a matter of course. As far as I can see the increase in the tax free element of our income will make us better off, or compensate for losing Child Benefit etc, and as Bryan and Jim say an additional 2.5% on VAT will not imapct on the wealthier section of society. Why the government cannot find a method of raising taxes from those who can afford to pay is quite beyond me.

The other area which should have been taxed is alcohol, and possibly tobacco. It's clear we have a serious alcohol problem in the UK and this could have been an opportunity to raise taxes to an almost punitive level both to raise income and address the associated social and health problems. Leaving fuel alone, as the third of the traditional targets, was a good move.

[den]

Neither Labour nor the Conservatives pre-election ruled is out as far as I'm aware, when asked before the election both parties said they had no current plans to raise it. The Lib Dem's were pretty vocal about being against it.

Blue tinted specs RVR. As far as I know Labour didn't introduce VAT and have never raised VAT, it's basically a Tory tax. I stand to be corrected on that.

[RibbleValleyRover]

Blue tinted specs RVR. As far as I know Labour didn't introduce VAT and have never raised VAT, it's basically a Tory tax. I stand to be corrected on that.

Technically they did if you wanted to be argumentative, they reduced it to 15% then put it back up to 17.5%.

The point i was making to Jim specifically was that neither Labour nor the Conservatives ruled out VAT going up before the election, if you or anyone else have any proof that is to the contrary please post a link.

[SIMON GARNERS 194]

Time to SPEND,SPEND,SPEND folks!

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

Oh I bet that chip on Jim's shoulder grows bigger by the day. I thought it was a decent budget, could have gone further with welfare reform; we'll still have the 'Kyle' generation that seem to have more money to spend than me yet I do 60+ hours a week and they do f all. VAT wont have a major effect for me and I doubt we'll really see anything on the street other than endless 'Pre VAT Prices' style sales.

Anyway, I'm just grateful we have a Chancellor that isn't scared of tackling our crazy spending.

"Welfare Reform " ? Yeh I like that , sounds much better than "Lets screw the poor". I suppose all those tossers I saw at Ascot last week are on Job-seekers Allowance. I like your style Koi, at least you're not ashamed of being a greedy @#/?.

[den]

Technically they did if you wanted to be argumentative, they reduced it to 15% then put it back up to 17.5%.

The point i was making to Jim specifically was that neither Labour nor the Conservatives ruled out VAT going up before the election, if you or anyone else have any proof that is to the contrary please post a link.

So it is a Tory tax then.

Doesn't matter what Labour said really, but they did want to use NI, rather than VAT, because NI doesn't hit the pensioners and the lower paid, whereas VAT certainly does. The Tories said they had no plans to raise VAT, but then did so immediately. It's a Tory tax that doesn't really affect the rich.

Work it out for yourself. It's obvious that they always intended to do it, but wouldn't say so.

[broadsword]

Who abolished the 10p tax rate Den?

[thenodrog]

Although this is nothing new I remember in British Rail days with Jimmy Knapp, we would strike for 3 days then the NUR would agree a 1 and 1/2% rise in pay which never covered what you lost through the strike.

That was never the intention in those days though was it GG? Your wage packets came some distance behind political agenda.

[thenodrog]

Fast-forward to today and Clegg is deputy prime minister and Tory lapdog in a Con-Dem coalition that has just announced a rise in VAT to 20% that will hit the poor hardest.

Rubbish. Your ability to spout absolute crap is increasing daily.

A rise in VAT will do quite the opposite. It will hit those hardest who spend the most on luxury items. It will actually hit the rich most.

VAT is still either exempt or reduced on many essential goods and services. There is no VAT on food for example, none either on childrens clothing, prescriptions, education, whilst many essentials like heating and power are charged at just 5%.

Jim... give it up ffs. You are increasingly flogging a dead horse. No one wants your brand of socialism / communism any more. Like yourself it belongs in the history books.

[thenodrog]

The cuts to child benefit, the child tax credit, and child trust funds – which together cost £2.5 billion – could have been avoided if the Chancellor had not announced cuts to corporation tax. All these cuts plus the VAT rises hurt the poorest hardest while the fiscal burden on the rich and business is reduced.

I'd make more sense for childs benefits to be limited to 2 children only. It might put a stop to career breeders.

[thenodrog]

One area of cuts I should like to bring to people's attention is local services. I am very relieved the budget will not have a great impact on my son and his funding needs, at least at the headline stage. However once Local Authorities look to make cuts in their budgets it will be the small programmes, which have minimal impact on the bulk of the population, which will be hit. For example in Chorley a man called Kevin O'Hara is employed to provide a Disability Sports programme in the area. Kevin's work has resulted in major improvements in both provision and quality of this programme locally. I suspect Kevin is on a short-term contract and am worried this is precisely the type of the programme which will cease in the near future. I've no doubt it costs a significant amount and benefits a very small percentage of the local population. It is though both a marvellous example of the type of provision we should be offering and an example of the little programmes which just disappear because the impact on the majority will be minimal.

Personally I'm concerned this budget will badly impact the less well off. As my youngest finished full time education last week we lose the benefits assocciated with this as a matter of course. As far as I can see the increase in the tax free element of our income will make us better off, or compensate for losing Child Benefit etc, and as Bryan and Jim say an additional 2.5% on VAT will not imapct on the wealthier section of society. Why the government cannot find a method of raising taxes from those who can afford to pay is quite beyond me.

The other area which should have been taxed is alcohol, and possibly tobacco. It's clear we have a serious alcohol problem in the UK and this could have been an opportunity to raise taxes to an almost punitive level both to raise income and address the associated social and health problems. Leaving fuel alone, as the third of the traditional targets, was a good move.

So basically Paul what you are saying is that next budget you'd like the Chancellor to contact you for direction and advice so that anything that affects you will be exempted from taxation whilst anything that you don't require or partake in is taxed to high heaven.

You sir are a true socialist.

PS As I've explained to Jim VAT will hit the rich most. Why can't the serial moaners on here namely Jim, Den and yourself see that? You all appear to be blinded by embittered and outdated prejudice.

Furthermore there used to be figures appearing on the news and released on a regular basis under the heading 'Balance of Payments'. Dunno why but I never seem to see these reported any more however I'm sure that a rise in VAT leading to a reduction in spending will have a beneficial effect on those. I suggest that the people most affected by a rise in VAT will actually be overseas.

93p may not be much to you but every penny counts to alot of people.

Mostly in China where they make em.

[thenodrog]

Blue tinted specs RVR. As far as I know Labour didn't introduce VAT and have never raised VAT, it's basically a Tory tax. I stand to be corrected on that.

It's a european tax I think. An entry requirement of all member states.

"Welfare Reform " ? Yeh I like that , sounds much better than "Lets screw the poor". I suppose all those tossers I saw at Ascot last week are on Job-seekers Allowance. I like your style Koi, at least you're not ashamed of being a greedy @#/?.

Rather an unfair generalisation. Are you a class warrior tyrone?

[broadsword]

Jim... give it up ffs. You are increasingly flogging a dead horse. No one wants your brand of socialism / communism any more. Like yourself it belongs in the history books.

You have to give him top marks for perseverence.

[den]

A rise in VAT will do quite the opposite. It will hit those hardest who spend the most on luxury items.

and that's the poor is it?

[Paul]

So basically Paul what you are saying is that next budget you'd like the Chancellor to contact you for direction and advice so that anything that affects you will be exempted from taxation whilst anything that you don't require or partake in is taxed to high heaven.

You sir are a true socialist.

PS As I've explained to Jim VAT will hit the rich most. Why can't the serial moaners on here namely Jim, Den and yourself see that? You all appear to be blinded by embittered and outdated prejudice.

No. This simply demonstrates your complete inability to actually read and understand an opinion.

My view is simply this. Many of the cuts heading our way will ultimately be targetted on those who need them most - see my example above, that this is my son is irrelevant, I just try to use examples with which I'm familiar as opposed to headlines in newspapers.

Secondly, as I have said before, I think I should pay more tax, especially in the current situation. The last time I mentioned this it drew your usual mocking response. I, and many, many households, across the country could afford to pay more but neither the current nor the previous governments have the balls to do this for fear of losing votes. I find it ridiculous when the country has to tighten it's belt the wealthier sections of society are not asked to help out. None of the political parties is prepared to risk raising tax where it can be most afforded and in the case of the current Alliance is looking to make cuts which will impact most on those who can least afford it.

In your mad dash to mock and ridicule people perhaps you missed this bit Why the government cannot find a method of raising taxes from those who can afford to pay is quite beyond me