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

[broadsword]

Got the wrong end of the stick, Den?

[BiggusLaddus]

Why the government cannot find a method of raising taxes from those who can afford to pay is quite beyond me

It's called income tax. The top 10% pay over half of the total take, whilst the bottom 10% pay next to nothing (53% and 0.6% off the top ofmy head).

[den]

and that's the poor is it?

Have a look around Gord and you will see many articles about the effects of VAT.

Have a look at this: My link.

You can find these figures elsewhere.

Got the wrong end of the stick, Den?

Why?

[LeChuck]

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.

Hang on...

The rich will certainly pay more as a result of this tax because they will buy more expensive items.

It certainly won't 'hit' them most though - they can afford to pay extra. The VAT rise will hit the poorest most because they don't have the cash to be paying extra for things.

The rise in price isn't going to be large enough to affect demand, as other people have pointed out, but all these little increases will add up, meaning the poorest will, in effect, have less money to spend, meaning less things will be sold.

[broadsword]

Because you didn't offer a counter-argument, it seemed like you'd misunderstood what thenodrog had said.

Of course, as an indirect tax, VAT is inherently unfair on those earning least. However, the argument is that will it changing from 17.% to 20% make that much of a difference? If Labour was such a friend of teh poor and disadvantaged, why didn't they just scrap it altogether?

[den]

Because you didn't offer a counter-argument, it seemed like you'd misunderstood what thenodrog had said.

Of course, as an indirect tax, VAT is inherently unfair on those earning least. However, the argument is that will it changing from 17.% to 20% make that much of a difference? If Labour was such a friend of teh poor and disadvantaged, why didn't they just scrap it altogether?

of course it is. Try telling Gordon that though.

[JAL]

Hang on...

The rich will certainly pay more as a result of this tax because they will buy more expensive items.

It certainly won't 'hit' them most though - they can afford to pay extra. The VAT rise will hit the poorest most because they don't have the cash to be paying extra for things.

The rise in price isn't going to be large enough to affect demand, as other people have pointed out, but all these little increases will add up, meaning the poorest will, in effect, have less money to spend, meaning less things will be sold.

Spot on Le chuck ! so far this budget hasnt 'got at' the higher paid in this country and thats were the vast majority of our nations 'missing billions has gone'.

A comment I received yesterday was, an individual on 1k a week will only lose about £700 a year as a result of the budget this they said can easily be accepted.

The ordinary working man must a muppet to have to work longer in this country to see less and less rewards for his/hers labours. Something me thinks is going to blow up if we continue along the road we are on though jim mk2 has to realise that his political party were in on this aswell.

[Paul]

It's called income tax. The top 10% pay over half of the total take, whilst the bottom 10% pay next to nothing (53% and 0.6% off the top ofmy head).

I think you miss the point. Middle income earners are hardly touched by this budget when compared to lower wage earners. The section of soceity which can least afford to pay is being asked to foot the bill while those who can are being asked for very little. The question I want answering is why those who can afford to pay are not expected to? This is supposed to be a fair budget and it clearly is not.

[BiggusLaddus]

Well they were if they have kids, most middle income families will not get tax credits anymore. Speaking as part of a middle income houshol, I don't really see how much more I could be expected to pay. Out of the two salaries, one is wiped out immediately by bills, and from the second two thirds is spent on food and fuel.

To be honest, I thik this was the soft first budget and I would expect the next one to be tougher. The deficit isn't going to come down without massive tax hikes real swingeing cuts.

[broadsword]

But according to Jim the deficit can be halved in four years just through the growth in GDP.

Still hasn't shown his working out, mind.

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

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

I'm with you on this Paul, I'd be prepared to pay more income tax rather than have cuts in essential public services. How this is supposed to help 'grow' a new industrial sector in the economy I just don't know. I worked in the machine tool industry most of my working life, when the Tories came in 1979 we had probably the second biggest machine tool sector in the Western World after the USA. We had several companies that led the World in their particular speciality. Now we're got next to nothing left in this once mighty field of industry. There's nobody left under about 40 that could move back in machine tool building because there's been hardly any apprentices, and any guy over 40 would be loathe to try again.

[thenodrog]

I think you miss the point. Middle income earners are hardly touched by this budget when compared to lower wage earners. The section of soceity which can least afford to pay is being asked to foot the bill while those who can are being asked for very little. The question I want answering is why those who can afford to pay are not expected to? This is supposed to be a fair budget and it clearly is not.

Fair? Whats fair about somebody having to pay more than somebody else simply because they worked hard at school and even harder at work when so many others couldn't be arsed?

How many times have people mentioned 'them' or 'they' should pay more tax? The only one to suggest that he'd be prepared to pay more to his credit is you Paul (edit and now Tyrone). The rest of you are basically acting as parasites.

[thenodrog]

I'm with you on this Paul, I'd be prepared to pay more income tax rather than have cuts in essential public services. How this is supposed to help 'grow' a new industrial sector in the economy I just don't know. I worked in the machine tool industry most of my working life, when the Tories came in 1979 we had probably the second biggest machine tool sector in the Western World after the USA. We had several companies that led the World in their particular speciality. Now we're got next to nothing left in this once mighty field of industry. There's nobody left under about 40 that could move back in machine tool building because there's been hardly any apprentices, and any guy over 40 would be loathe to try again.

It's crap of course when an industry goes down the pan but they do say 'the only constant in life is change'. One can not stick one's head in the sand and hope threatening predators will just go away. Just think if the original working class heroes around these parts the luddites had had their way there would never even have been a tool making industry to lose Tyrone.

[jim mk2]

While ordinary working man worries about his job, his pension and how he is going to afford a few extras for his family after the swingeing rise in VAT announced by Osborne in his vindictive and unfair Budget, it was announced today that the fats cats in the big business are continuing to reward themselves with sickening bonuses. This is seen as acceptable by these people because (according to them) they are "wealth creators" who claim they should not have to pay a penny extra in taxes to help plug the huge black hole in the public finances that their greed and incompetance helped to create in the first place.

http://www.telegraph...rk-Rail-bonuses

The private sector and the banking industry in particular is of course the primary cause of the current fiscal crisis but the banking levy announced by Osborne in the Budget supposedly as some form of punishment to appease angry voters is more than paid for by the reduction in corporation tax. The effect is that taxpayers who paid to save the banks from their own mistakes so that the entire financial system would not collapse are now giving the banks what turns out to be a tax break. This is a regressive budget to appease Tory voters, their friends in business and the press, and paid for in jobs and taxes and an attack on the poor and vulnerable.

[thenodrog]

This is a regressive budget to appease the Tory voters, their friends in business and the press, and paid for in jobs and taxes and an attack on the on the poor and vulnerable.

Well if it is it's labours fault fot screwing up. If they'd handled the job competently when they were in office then I'm sure that they'd stilkl be there. We've only just had a democratically sound General election which through their unpopularity and ineptitude they lost. Accept the will of the peoplew and just get ovet it.

[den]

Well if it is it's labours fault fot screwing up. If they'd handled the job competently when they were in office then I'm sure that they'd stilkl be there. We've only just had a democratically sound General election which through their unpopularity and ineptitude they lost. Accept the will of the peoplew and just get ovet it.

As of course, you always did Gord?

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.

Not that you were/are, eh Gord?

Can't believe what you're writing.

[koi]

"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 @#/?.

You know nothing about me and I resent being called that. If you want to get personal do it to my face and don't be some keyboard warrior.

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

You know nothing about me and I resent being called that. If you want to get personal do it to my face and don't be some keyboard warrior.

Here's an old Lancashire saying for you- " If the cap fits,wear it"

[koi]

Here's an old Lancashire saying for you- " If the cap fits,wear it"

Whatever mate, I can't be bothered.

[gumboots]

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

I have 4 kids and child benefit for all of them together didn't add up to the cost of food for one for a week. The cost of new decent shoes for any one of them took 2 or 3 weeks child benefit. I don't think any but the very dimwould have kids to claim the child benefit on them. And the very dim don't remember to use proper contraception so will carry on having children regardless.

[philipl]

Fascinated set of graphics comparing life in Britain in 1997 with 2010

The improvement in health care and decrease in overall crime statistics is stunningly good.

[jim mk2]

Not surprising and there are plenty of other examples from the vast increase in private wealth to the transformation of public services in which Labour has improved the quality of life in this country. The shame is they will have to do it over again in a few years' time after the Tories have repeated their mistakes of the 1980s and destroyed the economy through needless cuts and mass unemployment and failed to invest in the fabric of the nation.

[thenodrog]

<a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/tim-lott-weve-never-had-it-so-good-in-britain-despite-our-moaning-1782393.html" target="_blank">Huge advances in our quality of life. </a>

I think the last two paragraphs amply explain the posts that will appear on this thread:

The real problem is that we have somewhat incomprehensibly lost our sense of national self-belief. This is what the nostalgics are really nostalgising the idea of belonging to a "proud island race". But it is the nostalgics themselves, pouring cold water on our modern achievements, who hobble that very necessary pride. In reality, we are one of the most successful and dynamic modern countries in the world. An independent report in 2008, which examined 235 countries for prosperity and stability, put Britain joint seventh after the Vatican, Sweden, Luxembourg, Monaco, Gibraltar and San Marino.

We have a tremendous amount still to be proud of or, at least, happy about. And the remarkable thing is that we are happy about it: 90 per cent of us in survey after survey self-identify as "very" or "fairly" happy. You would just never guess it from reading the papers. Because one thing hasn't changed. As Arthur Murray wrote in The Upholsterer in 1758: "The people of England are never so happy as when you tell them they are ruined." He's absolutely right one thing that is as true now as it was 65 years ago is that we enjoy a damn good moan.

The near future will see your airy fairy idealistic views blown to smithereens gunner!

Grim future in store............

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/10401629.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/panorama/hi/front_page/newsid_8625000/8625801.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/10607480.stm

This is not just the UK either! Global population has risen 8X since tractors were invented and areas ploughed and cultivated that had never previously been farmed. It has scarily doubled since Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas! The population of Asia is rising fastest The have's and have nots will become ever further polarised with the have nots forming a vast and uncontrollable majority.

As oil runs out and the planet can no longer feed it's human population that population must fall back to the levels of a century ago. War, famine, starvation? Who knows but without oil and unless new technologies come to the rescue (why should they and who will pay for them?)it is simply insustainable.

This is not a nice future that we are facing. I won't see 2050. Neither will anybody else over 50 but our children, grandchildren and many on this board will.

[Kelbo]

While ordinary working man worries about his job, his pension and how he is going to afford a few extras for his family after the swingeing rise in VAT announced by Osborne in his vindictive and unfair Budget, it was announced today that the fats cats in the big business are continuing to reward themselves with sickening bonuses. This is seen as acceptable by these people because (according to them) they are "wealth creators" who claim they should not have to pay a penny extra in taxes to help plug the huge black hole in the public finances that their greed and incompetance helped to create in the first place.

http://www.telegraph...rk-Rail-bonuses

The private sector and the banking industry in particular is of course the primary cause of the current fiscal crisis but the banking levy announced by Osborne in the Budget supposedly as some form of punishment to appease angry voters is more than paid for by the reduction in corporation tax. The effect is that taxpayers who paid to save the banks from their own mistakes so that the entire financial system would not collapse are now giving the banks what turns out to be a tax break. This is a regressive budget to appease Tory voters, their friends in business and the press, and paid for in jobs and taxes and an attack on the poor and vulnerable.

Quite interestingly these bonuses came about during the previous governments administration (if thats what it can ber called) we have experienced the greatest youth unemployment in history, despite more of them obtaining university degrees and accumilating debts of thousand in the process!! We have a national Health service which under the Labour rule, was packed full of administrators and executives taking obscene salaries and even recruiting more at the same time as cutting medical staff and Nurses, Immigration is so far out of controll no one knows who is in the country and we find yesterday an asylum seeker is being paid £8,000 per month to live in a £1,000,000 house as he thought the one he was living in was not good enough!!

Yes, lets get back to borrowing money, lets give money away to people who dont want to work.

Benefits are fine when they are given to proper claiments, unfortunately under Labour they have spiralled so far out of control we have not enough money being paid into the system to pay out!

Thats why we had a tough budget, thats why the IMF are happy with the way we are as a country approaching things, why sterling has increased its value against other currencies and why at last there is some hope for the future.

[JAL]

Quite interestingly these bonuses came about during the previous governments administration (if thats what it can ber called) we have experienced the greatest youth unemployment in history, despite more of them obtaining university degrees and accumilating debts of thousand in the process!! We have a national Health service which under the Labour rule, was packed full of administrators and executives taking obscene salaries and even recruiting more at the same time as cutting medical staff and Nurses, Immigration is so far out of controll no one knows who is in the country and we find yesterday an asylum seeker is being paid £8,000 per month to live in a £1,000,000 house as he thought the one he was living in was not good enough!!

Yes, lets get back to borrowing money, lets give money away to people who dont want to work.

Benefits are fine when they are given to proper claiments, unfortunately under Labour they have spiralled so far out of control we have not enough money being paid into the system to pay out!

Thats why we had a tough budget, thats why the IMF are happy with the way we are as a country approaching things, why sterling has increased its value against other currencies and why at last there is some hope for the future.

If the top earners paid more taxes with that money and the money that went out of the country was controlled better so that a portion of it went back into the country, then there'd be more than enough to pay out the claimants and keep the defecit down.

I aint going to back an attack on the benefits system when there are HUGE amounts of money going missing or out of the country from the top end. Neither should anybody else, we should all keep a prospective on this and not be led by a media driven campaign thats controlled by the so called money men to mislead us as they walk casually through the front door with all the cash.