the PBR

[uncon]

I am astounded to sign in and find this doesn't appear to have been looked at.

the average wage in this country according to the governments own statistics is £25,428.

They will increase the national insurance for the 'average' wage earner by 1%.

We will all pay an extra 2.5% on our goods as Vat reverts to 17.5% and inflation is predicted to rise to 3% because of this.

Frontline workers in ring fenced areas will be protected by a cap on pensions and a 1% limit to pay rises in the face of this 5.5% rise in the cost of living. Not exactly protected are they?

A single person earning £21,000 a year and living in rented accomodation who will face a rise in both rent and council tax together with probably a fix in wages and the extra NI, Vat can look at about an 8% decrease in real terms.

Why can't Darling stop ****ing around and give us the truth? Things are going to be tough...very tough. Under his proposals they are going to be tough for about twenty years, because what he neglected to mention is that the liklihood of our countries credit status being downgraded causing interest to soar on the national debt is somewhere in the region of 99.9%.

The man wants to borrow us out of a deficit by obsucation and slight of hand.

He has ignored the advice given by every financial body and the governer of the bank of England to give us his policies based upon his predictions - NONE of which have been accurate in the past.

[Major Sinic]

I am astounded to sign in and find this doesn't appear to have been looked at.

the average wage in this country according to the governments own statistics is £25,428.

They will increase the national insurance for the 'average' wage earner by 1%.

We will all pay an extra 2.5% on our goods as Vat reverts to 17.5% and inflation is predicted to rise to 3% because of this.

Frontline workers in ring fenced areas will be protected by a cap on pensions and a 1% limit to pay rises in the face of this 5.5% rise in the cost of living. Not exactly protected are they?

A single person earning £21,000 a year and living in rented accomodation who will face a rise in both rent and council tax together with probably a fix in wages and the extra NI, Vat can look at about an 8% decrease in real terms.

Why can't Darling stop ****ing around and give us the truth? Things are going to be tough...very tough. Under his proposals they are going to be tough for about twenty years, because what he neglected to mention is that the liklihood of our countries credit status being downgraded causing interest to soar on the national debt is somewhere in the region of 99.9%.

The man wants to borrow us out of a deficit by obsucation and slight of hand.

He has ignored the advice given by every financial body and the governer of the bank of England to give us his policies based upon his predictions - NONE of which have been accurate in the past.

In fairness I think Darling, hardly the strongest or most competent Chancellor, is according to 'those in the know' locked in dispute with Gordon Brown, who is putting him under immense pressure to be upbeat about the economy and hide as much bad news as possible until after the next election, despite the dishonesty of this position.

However Darlings speech today, even allowing for his obfuscation, reinforced the truth and integrity of Osborne and his recent statements about the economy.

The return of a Labour government runs a high risk, as you so rightly summise, of UK plc's credit rating be downgraded with the result of soaring interest payments on debt which we can not afford.

I have now moved some 70% of my investment portfolio out of the UK, in common with so many investors, because of the investment risks associated with a possible Labour coalition government, along with the overall UK economic outlook, and would advise anyone who has not done so, to do the same and cover their backsides.

[Midas]

I have now moved some 70% of my investment portfolio out of the UK, in common with so many investors, because of the investment risks associated with a possible Labour coalition government, along with the overall UK economic outlook, and would advise anyone who has not done so, to do the same and cover their backsides.

Which is exactly what I, and many of my own friends and acquaintances have done; in my own case I now have over 90% of all my assets and investments outside of the UK, and even those which remain here are now owned and controlled by a non-UK trust/company structure. For all their supposed 'expertise' in financial matters, I do have to wonder how much thought this government really gave to the bottom line implications of their actions or whether they thought that the electorate, in particular those with investments, would simply sit back and wait for what little was left of their shrinking capital to be taxed to the hilt to fund government incompetence.

[Expounder]

Which is exactly what I, and many of my own friends and acquaintances have done; in my own case I now have over 90% of all my assets and investments outside of the UK, and even those which remain here are now owned and controlled by a non-UK trust/company structure. For all their supposed 'expertise' in financial matters, I do have to wonder how much thought this government really gave to the bottom line implications of their actions or whether they thought that the electorate, in particular those with investments, would simply sit back and wait for what little was left of their shrinking capital to be taxed to the hilt to fund government incompetence.

You mean to fund the crooked bankers, hedge fund winkers and derivitive tossers who no doubt are looking after your funds.

Midas, with respect, you and people like you are part of the problem you are a minor part of the system which caused the problem in the first place.

[Midas]

You mean to fund the crooked bankers, hedge fund winkers and derivitive tossers who no doubt are looking after your funds.

Midas, with respect, you and people like you are part of the problem you are a minor part of the system which caused the problem in the first place.

For some reason you obviously don't believe that people should have a free choice to determine how and where they should be able to invest in order to maximise their own income, protect their own assets from inept governments and ensure that they pay the minimum tax that they legally can. Yet you seem to be quite happy for the government to carry on milking those in society who are the most productive and by far the largest contributors to the government coffers by way of their collective corporate bases though.

If it's fair game for a government to do this, a government often elected on false promises by a minority of the electorate, why isn't it fair game for the same electorate to do exactly the same thing and look after their own financial interests as best they can?

[Midas]

High earners will desert Britain for lower-tax countries following the decision to impose taxes of "around 100pc" in the pre-Budget report, lawyers have warned.

Source : Pre-Budget report: '100pc tax will force high flyers out of UK' - Telegraph

One said that following the PBR the UK was now "competing with Denmark on having the highest taxes for high earners in Europe".

Julia Whittle, principal at Punter Southall Financial Management, said: “The pre-Budget report does nothing to encourage wealthy high earners to come to live or remain in the UK. On the contrary, a tax on bankers’ bonuses means paying close to 100pc, in effect, once employer [50pc], employee [40pc], National Insurance contributions and other factors are taken into account. This just adds to the levels of overall tax paid by wealthy individuals living in the UK.” She added: "The UK is now competing with Denmark on having the highest taxes for high earners in Europe. The effect will be that more of our home-grown and foreign national entrepreneurs and senior executives will be enticed to live in other European countries where the tax is lower and more flexible, with a significant long-term loss to our exchequer in direct and indirect revenues."

Michael Wistow, head of tax at Berwin Leighton Paisner, the City law firm, agreed. He said: "People in the City will react very badly to this. It is another example of a politically motivated tax change which is unlikely to raise significant revenue. It will make the UK's banking industry less attractive and put it at a significant competitive disadvantage.

"Three years ago the idea of leaving the UK didn't enter the conversation when talking to clients, but now it will feature in pretty much every conversation. They won't all go but it's a constant topic now. And when people leave they won't wave a flag from the steps of the plane, but will just quietly disappear. It will take some time too for the UK to rebuild the trust of the international community."

He said introducing new tax rules at this point in the financial year was "essentially retrospective", as it would affect income and bonuses dating back to April. "It is another example of the increasing unpredictability of the British tax system, which is in itself damaging to business and investment in the UK," he added.

But the Chancellor's decision to leave the rate of Capital Gains Tax unchanged gave high earners some incentive to keep their assets in Britain, one tax expert said. Sarah Pickering, managing director of Alvarez & Marsal Taxand, the tax adviser, said: "It's a relief that entrepreneurs have not been prevented from legitimate capital tax planning, so they can continue to benefit from the lower capital tax rate. High earners now have an incentive not to transfer their assets overseas, which will be good for the UK economy."

[Expounder]

For some reason you obviously don't believe that people should have a free choice to determine how and where they should be able to invest in order to maximise their own income, protect their own assets from inept governments and ensure that they pay the minimum tax that they legally can. Yet you seem to be quite happy for the government to carry on milking those in society who are the most productive and by far the largest contributors to the government coffers by way of their collective corporate bases though.

If it's fair game for a government to do this, a government often elected on false promises by a minority of the electorate, why isn't it fair game for the same electorate to do exactly the same thing and look after their own financial interests as best they can?

Keep on doubling you money Midas and play your small part in ruining the planet,
your just a small cog in the wheel of the major world problem. Capitalism.

[Ian The Poet]

Yet another penny pinching pre budget talk from Alistair Darling is it just trying to cover up the real depth of this recession. I think that they aught to declare the real damage, and also they should block any attempts by banks to pay out bonuses to the already rich chairmen and nor should shareholders receive anything. It is all a sham and should be exposed as such.

[Major Sinic]

your just a small cog in the wheel of the major world problem.

I take great exception to being referred to as a world problem!

[Midas]

..... your just a small cog in the wheel of the major world problem. Capitalism.

In that case it's doubly strange how the various attempts that different countries round the world have had in trying to promote socialism as the cornerstone of their economic and social policies have either all ended in disaster, or the countries concerned have realised that in order to survive, they've needed to incorporate significant and increasing elements of capitalism into their society!

[Ian The Poet]

I've just found this link which helps explain my post: Leading article: The glaring hole in this pre-Budget report - Leading Articles, Opinion - The Independent

[Barry]

I've just seen a report on CH4 news which suggests that the shortfall will mean a cut in "non essential public services" of 16% over the next 3 years.

Labour are hiding behind dishonest figures, which would appear to be their strategy until the next election.

It isn't working though, there are plenty of people in the city with the brains to expose this thinly veiled "successful" PBR. It is a sham.

[British]

I've just seen a report on CH4 news which suggests that the shortfall will mean a cut in "non essential public services" of 16% over the next 3 years.

Labour are hiding behind dishonest figures, which would appear to be their strategy until the next election.

It isn't working though, there are plenty of people in the city with the brains to expose this thinly veiled "successful" PBR. It is a sham.

Are you suggesting that Labour are telling porkies? No way...

[DTE]

Its clear to me that no party has the balls to be honest about the country's dire financial situation whilst competing for an election. Vince Cable can for the Lib Dems but they won't win so he can basically say what he likes. "I'm the re-incarnation of Jesus" and no eyelids would be battened. Hidden within this latest misdirection by Darling is a public sector pay "cap" in 2011 which amounts to a 1% increase (with inflation predicted to be 2.5% so in effect a real terms pay cut) as well as a benefits increase for the handicapped and single mothers which will then be recinded AFTER the election. Its pure spin and nothing else. Once again Darling has hit the low and middle earners the hardest and speculation is that if you earn between 18 and 23K and live in rented acommodation you'll be in the region of £4-800 worse off in 2011, what with the NI increase and the rise in council tax.

Great. All this talk about taxing the rich and then the realisation comes that those rich enough (as evidenced by this thread) can afford to just bugger off elsewhere.

As for the one-off bankers bonus tax... its an elaborate joke, any accountant with half a brain could navigate round it.

[British]

You mean to fund the crooked bankers, hedge fund winkers and derivitive tossers who no doubt are looking after your funds.

Midas, with respect, you and people like you are part of the problem you are a minor part of the system which caused the problem in the first place.

Eh!?....

[Major Sinic]

Its clear to me that no party has the balls to be honest about the country's dire financial situation whilst competing for an election. Vince Cable can for the Lib Dems but they won't win so he can basically say what he likes. "I'm the re-incarnation of Jesus" and no eyelids would be battened. Hidden within this latest misdirection by Darling is a public sector pay "cap" in 2011 which amounts to a 1% increase (with inflation predicted to be 2.5% so in effect a real terms pay cut) as well as a benefits increase for the handicapped and single mothers which will then be recinded AFTER the election. Its pure spin and nothing else. Once again Darling has hit the low and middle earners the hardest and speculation is that if you earn between 18 and 23K and live in rented acommodation you'll be in the region of £4-800 worse off in 2011, what with the NI increase and the rise in council tax.

Great. All this talk about taxing the rich and then the realisation comes that those rich enough (as evidenced by this thread) can afford to just bugger off elsewhere.

As for the one-off bankers bonus tax... its an elaborate joke, any accountant with half a brain could navigate round it.

I do wonder how many of those to the left of centre, however far to the left, voluntarily and knowingly pay more tax than they have to. If honesty were a currency, I suspect a minimal exchange rate. I pay a considerable amount of tax every year, and my biggest resentment is how much of it is wasted. This government wastes much more of my money than I do! I fail to see why I should spend a penny more in tax, than the law demands, nor why I should not move my money around the world to enhance my returns, and mitigate my tax liabilities. I am not a charity, although I often feel like I am. Any government which robs Peter to pay Paul, will get Paul's vote.

That said your post pinpoints the injustice and lack of substance of the proposed tax strategy. This government invariably aims for the easiest tax target and that is those on PAYE.

I have a deal of respect for Vince Cable and do believe he plays with a straight bat, but I disagree with his political philosophy. I have never rated Osborne especially highly, but I think he got as close to the truth as any politician facing a general election in six months time, can be expected to, not that it did him a lot of good.

In truth, I think Darling would be far more honest in his strategy and aims, if he wasn't under intolerable pressure from the Brown to play up the economy, however dishonest this may be.

[DTE]

I do wonder how many of those to the left of centre, however far to the left, voluntarily and knowingly pay more tax than they have to. If honesty were a currency, I suspect a minimal exchange rate. I pay a considerable amount of tax every year, and my biggest resentment is how much of it is wasted. This government wastes much more of my money than I do! I fail to see why I should spend a penny more in tax, than the law demands, nor why I should not move my money around the world to enhance my returns, and mitigate my tax liabilities. I am not a charity, although I often feel like I am. Any government which robs Peter to pay Paul, will get Paul's vote.

We won't agree on this.

That said your post pinpoints the injustice and lack of substance of the proposed tax strategy. This government invariably aims for the easiest tax target and that is those on PAYE.

Lack of substance? This government? Surely not.

I have a deal of respect for Vince Cable and do believe he plays with a straight bat, but I disagree with his political philosophy. I have never rated Osborne especially highly, but I think he got as close to the truth as any politician facing a general election in six months time, can be expected to, not that it did him a lot of good.

The city have less faith in Osbourne than I do.

In truth, I think Darling would be far more honest in his strategy and aims, if he wasn't under intolerable pressure from the Brown to play up the economy, however dishonest this may be.

Absolutely.

[Kiwi 1691]

From what I have read the problems with the UK Tax system seem similar to the problems with the NZ Tax system.

The problem being that the Tax systems are Broken, have gotten too big and complicated. So complicated that many at the top can easily avoid paying tax thus putting the tax burden almost exclusively on the people at the bottom.

For example over here many people have used property to avoid tax. This is a significant factor behind the NZ property being some of the least affordable in the world.

The Tax acts in NZ and the UK need to be ripped up and completely rewritten.

What is needed is a simple low flat tax. If that was instituted one would expect lower levels of tax avoidance.

[Major Sinic]

We won't agree on this.

I didn't really expect us to. I was trying to point out that hardly anyone, however virtuous, would voluntarily pay more tax than they were required to.

I was also emphasising that along with most tax payers, a lot of high net worth individuals resent the unacceptable waste of tax revenues.

Lack of substance? This government? Surely not.

WE agree here then

The city have less faith in Osbourne than I do.

I suppose it is in part because he is young and untried. He certainly isn't universally admired. If he had a track record in anything other than politics it might help. Certainly his recent speech in which he emphasised just how tough it was going to be economically, was pretty honest but went down like a lead balloon.

It is now emerging, despite Brown's efforts for it not to, that we are deeper in the mire than virtually every other G20 nation, and cuts in services and increases in taxes are unavoidable.

Absolutely.

For a Labour politician I think Darling has some integrity.[QUOTE]

[Barry]

The Tax acts in NZ and the UK need to be ripped up and completely rewritten.

What is needed is a simple low flat tax. If that was instituted one would expect lower levels of tax avoidance.

As it is such a rarity, I thought I must say that on this point I agree with you.

I would also argue for the removal of indirect taxation, such as VAT, National Insurance, and Council Tax.
Show all tax as income tax, it would at least show us just how much we are really paying.

[Expounder]

As it is such a rarity, I thought I must say that on this point I agree with you.

I would also argue for the removal of indirect taxation, such as VAT, National Insurance, and Council Tax.
Show all tax as income tax, it would at least show us just how much we are really paying.

Follow the German system and pay approximately 45% tax directly out of your salary. Hows that?

[Midas]

I would also argue for the removal of indirect taxation, such as VAT, National Insurance, and Council Tax.
Show all tax as income tax, it would at least show us just how much we are really paying.

Whilst I totally agree with you in principle, there are a number of problems with such a simplistic single tax, by far the least being the funding of local authorities; their requirements can vary wildly across the country and a single tax would mean that people in an efficient borough were effectively subsidising those in inefficient ones. The whole of the tax system does indeed need a complete top to bottom overhaul though, both national and local, but I do think that those two types do need to be kept separate, as does VAT since it's related specifically to purchases and can be adjusted quite accurately to reflect the purchasing patterns of various socio-economic groups and thus afford a form of relief by zero rating essentials.

I know it'll draw adverse comment from certain people here, but I do believe that council tax should revert to a form of poll tax where everyone pays their fair share, not just householders. Regardless of income, every single person uses the services provided by local authorities, so why should it be just those people who either own or rent property who have to fund those services? Certain reliefs could easily be offered to those who might qualify for whatever reason.

Follow the German system and pay approximately 45% tax directly out of your salary. Hows that?

45%? Do you want a serious answer to that - try this

[Marxist Nutter]

I have now moved some 70% of my investment portfolio out of the UK, in common with so many investors, because of the investment risks associated with a possible Labour coalition government, along with the overall UK economic outlook, and would advise anyone who has not done so, to do the same and cover their backsides.

Typical rats leave the sinking ship. However it was grafters that built this nation in the first place. The tories sold off the assets they built to rich (expletive deleted)s who then sod off with all th money over seas.

Nice one BRUV

[Ian The Poet]

It seems now they are still arguing over the figures and that they do add up, it looks as though Labour are telling lies, perhaps they should find someone that can do maths, because when they add two and two it makes seven. And as you can see this link they are in denial over any kind of split.
Prime Minister Gordon Brown denies rift with Chancellor Alistair Darling - UK Politics, UK - The Independent

[uncon]

You mean to fund the crooked bankers, hedge fund winkers and derivitive tossers who no doubt are looking after your funds.

Midas, with respect, you and people like you are part of the problem you are a minor part of the system which caused the problem in the first place.

With respect Expounder, if you tax away the rewards of those who have worked hard and made money, then you give them no incentive to remain in this country and spend their money here. If you tax away the money of celebrities etc then you lose their high spending ways.

I would rather have 40% of every million they earn, than 70% of nothing because they have taken their money elsewhere.

While we are talking about bankers, while no fan of them, I think it has been neatly sidestepped that a government hitched their star to them (and anyone who knows some of the banking 'stars' knows that they are plainly unstable at best) quite happily, often against the best advice from boring staid people like the Bank of England, demanded that the Bank of England complete measures while not allowing it the authority to enforce them and then used your money to finance a frankly lavish lifestyle.

Your choice of target is telling.

[uncon]

Typical rats leave the sinking ship. However it was grafters that built this nation in the first place. The tories sold off the assets they built to rich (expletive deleted)s who then sod off with all th money over seas.

Nice one BRUV

The figures prove you wrong.

The Conservative policies tend to encourage investment and the return of the rich (something blair was very well aware of and capitalised on initially). The problem is that the tories are very much a miser and tend to save when we move to surplus.

This leaves voters understandably enraged that their taxes are taken and nothing seems to be done in the way of service. We want a government not a savings scheme.

So we vote in a labour government who then spend on services, but get a little giddy at the vast sums of money available to them and forget that it does actually run out....and so here we are again.

Boom and Bust. Osbourne is correct in saying that we didn't cushion ourselves in the good times, but past form says that the Tory in power tends to focus way too much on the cushion and too little on improving ground up services....if either party could get that right we would be looking at a government in power for a generation.

[Barry]

Follow the German system and pay approximately 45% tax directly out of your salary. Hows that?

Yes Expounder, but would 45% be enough in Britain?
Obviously there would have to be a limit where low paid people do not pay tax at all, e.g. £12000 (current minimum wage at 40 hours/week)

[Marxist Nutter]

The figures prove you wrong.

The Conservative policies tend to encourage investment and the return of the rich (something blair was very well aware of and capitalised on initially). The problem is that the tories are very much a miser and tend to save when we move to surplus.

This leaves voters understandably enraged that their taxes are taken and nothing seems to be done in the way of service. We want a government not a savings scheme.

So we vote in a labour government who then spend on services, but get a little giddy at the vast sums of money available to them and forget that it does actually run out....and so here we are again.

Boom and Bust. Osbourne is correct in saying that we didn't cushion ourselves in the good times, but past form says that the Tory in power tends to focus way too much on the cushion and too little on improving ground up services....if either party could get that right we would be looking at a government in power for a generation.

Interesting party political broadcast however i fail to see how it speaks to the issue of the rich being parasites on the hard work of others! Far from proving me wrong yo merely show your unwillingness to engage in a debate outside party political parameters, or even within that paradigm to deal with the charge that the tories sold off assets created by generations of hard graft to their rich mates!

[Tete123]

Interesting party political broadcast however i fail to see how it speaks to the issue of the rich being parasites on the hard work of others! Far from proving me wrong yo merely show your unwillingness to engage in a debate outside party political parameters, or even within that paradigm to deal with the charge that the tories sold off assets created by generations of hard graft to their rich mates!

It's true that the conservatives did sell off nationalised industries built up over generations by the hard work of the paid working classes. The real question is from whom did the government(s) raise the funds to finance the building of those industries?

[Marxist Nutter]

It's true that the conservatives did sell off nationalised industries built up over generations by the hard work of the paid

all one tenth of a pittance

working classes. The real question is from whom did the government(s) raise the funds to finance the building of those industries?

Taxation. The capitalist is the creditor of government and I would not deny this, however all the value added was done by the worker who were never paid the full value that they added to the assets and also paid the tax that helped fund the initiative in the first place - okay not as much as the rich (back then we used to tax rich people- seems like a radical idea now) -but then include the value of their graft and one can make the claim that the working class built and paid for all the national assets the Tories sold off to their (rich)mates - talk about being shafted .

[uncon]

Interesting party political broadcast however i fail to see how it speaks to the issue of the rich being parasites on the hard work of others! Far from proving me wrong yo merely show your unwillingness to engage in a debate outside party political parameters, or even within that paradigm to deal with the charge that the tories sold off assets created by generations of hard graft to their rich mates!

utter ******** sir!

No party escapes criticism or praise there. Labour spends in much needed areas until it gets a little giddy and spends in unnecessary places. Tory's get the funds together, but are unwilling to spend their nestegg whatever.

the only person being somewhat circumspect here is you...you mention the selling off by Conservatives, whilst handily forgetting that this government sold off our gold reserves while they were at an all time low against EVERY piece of advice given by experts...ooh look - Gold is at an all time high - gosh do you think that would have helped us substantially right now?

I am always suspicious of anyone who believes that the coffers and confidence can be returned by taxing the rich.

To me it fails on two key areas:

1. The rich just **** off because they can afford to, but if they didn't, then...

2. you turn the rich into poor people who then become a drain on the government resourses, are in need of, rather than create other jobs and basically have no incentive to change that. I mean what would be the point of trying to better yourself? Politics would be the only way to gain income and apparently free porn and homes

[Marxist Nutter]

utter ******** sir!

No party escapes criticism or praise there. Labour spends in much needed areas until it gets a little giddy and spends in unnecessary places. Tory's get the funds together, but are unwilling to spend their nestegg whatever.

Interesting if somewhat trite response that again fails to deal with the issue at hand and side stepped your failure to criticise the Tories in the previous post and instead wave the flag for them.

the only person being somewhat circumspect here is you...you mention the selling off by Conservatives, whilst handily forgetting that this government sold off our gold reserves while they were at an all time low against EVERY piece of advice given by experts...ooh look - Gold is at an all time high - gosh do you think that would have hel;ped us substantially right now?

The gold reserves were not built by the sweat and blood of generations of workers. So there is no moral issue here just one of practical incompetence on this we can agree.

I am always suspicious of anyone who believes that the coffers and confidence can be returned by taxing the rich.

It is not even a matter of restoring the coffers but about people paying their due (in light of the fact they owe the workers everything- as argued below)

To me it fails on two key areas:

1. The rich just **** off because they can afford to, but if they didn't, then...

Take away their passports

2. you turn the rich into poor people who then become a drain on the government resourses, are in need of, rather than create other jobs and basically have no incentive to change that.[

How so. How would even a 90% tax on earnings over £100,000 p.a make anyone poor?

[uncon]

Interesting if somewhat trite response that again fails to deal with the issue at hand and side stepped your failure to criticise the Tories in the previous post and instead wave the flag for them.

The gold reserves were not built by the sweat and blood of generations of workers. So there is no moral issue here just one of practical incompetence on this we can agree.
It is not even a matter of restoring the coffers but about people paying their due (in light of the fact they owe the workers everything- as argued below)
Take away their passports

How so. How would even a 90% tax on earnings over £100,000 p.a make anyone poor?

Aliens live!

There is no moral issue on gold reserves? Did I miss a meeting? Did They sell only the gold that belonged personally to them? I'm willing to apologise unreservedly (and I use that word under caredful advice) if that is so.

But then what happened to ours? We know that every financial body told them to hang onto gold, but then they told them not to hang their hopes on property and hedge...did they mistake it for some leylandii that might require trimming?


You cannot penalise unduly those (bankers excluded who should forego their bonus')who had the affront to make money, create money and spend the bloody stuff

[Marxist Nutter]

Aliens live!

There is no moral issue on gold reserves? Did I miss a meeting? Did They sell only the gold that belonged personally to them? I'm willing to apologise unreservedly (and I use that word under caredful advice) if that is so.

But then what happened to ours? We know that every financial body told them to hang onto gold, but then they told them not to hang their hopes on property and hedge...did they mistake it for some leylandii that might require trimming?


You cannot penalise unduly those (bankers excluded who should forego their bonus')who had the affront to make money, create money and spend the bloody stuff

Fine dont respond to my points then. See if i care

On the last point if i was PM you could watch me penalise them!

There is no moral issue with the gold as gold is just a commodity they were authorised to sell. There is no or very little naturally occurring gold in the UK so it was all nicked anyway. Publicly owned infrastructure was built by hard work and skill and the people who built it got nothing for it but a pittance. This was then used by a minority to make huge profit through no work. Very different things

[uncon]

There is no moral issue with the gold as gold is just a commodity they were authorised to sell. There is no or very little naturally occurring gold in the UK so it was all nicked anyway. Publicly owned infrastructure was built by hard work and skill and the people who built it got nothing for it but a pittance. This was then used by a minority to make huge profit through no work. Very different things

**** off! lol

If I entrust you to look after my jewels then I don't expect you to sell them for the lowest price ever when the family jeweller tells you that it would be a mistake!

That gold was mine and yours! it could have made a substantial difference to our current economic state. Yet we can't claim compensation for the mismanagement of our gold. I think it is pretty rich that the people who stole from us all are demanding more and claiming a moral high ground

[Expounder]

Whilst I totally agree with you in principle, there are a number of problems with such a simplistic single tax, by far the least being the funding of local authorities; their requirements can vary wildly across the country and a single tax would mean that people in an efficient borough were effectively subsidising those in inefficient ones. The whole of the tax system does indeed need a complete top to bottom overhaul though, both national and local, but I do think that those two types do need to be kept separate, as does VAT since it's related specifically to purchases and can be adjusted quite accurately to reflect the purchasing patterns of various

socio

-economic groups and thus afford a form of relief by zero rating essentials.

I know it'll draw adverse comment from certain people here, but I do believe that council tax should revert to a form of poll tax where everyone pays their fair share, not just householders. Regardless of income, every single person uses the services provided by local authorities, so why should it be just those people who either own or rent property who have to fund those services? Certain reliefs could easily be offered to those who might qualify for whatever reason.



45%? Do you want a serious answer to that - try this

45% tax or there abouts seems to work a treat in Germany...............some members of this forum never tire to compare how Germany is doing better than Britain and how the Germans are better off.

[Expounder]

With respect Expounder, if you tax away the rewards of those who have worked hard and made money, then you give them no incentive to remain in this country and spend their money here. If you tax away the money of celebrities etc then you lose their high spending ways.

I would rather have 40% of every million they earn, than 70% of nothing because they have taken their money elsewhere.

While we are talking about bankers, while no fan of them, I think it has been neatly sidestepped that a government hitched their star to them (and anyone who knows some of the banking 'stars' knows that they are plainly unstable at best) quite happily, often against the best advice from boring staid people like the Bank of England, demanded that the Bank of England complete measures while not allowing it the authority to enforce them and then used your money to finance a frankly lavish lifestyle.

Your choice of target is telling.

Hi uncon, the last time I was in Germany [which was admittedly the late 90s, to where I used to travel twice a year] the tax for everyone was according to one British expat was around 0% to 45% of earnings for every one who had tax stopped at source..

They obviously have a different tax structure and distribution than us but also have the strongest economy in Europe. They must be doing something right.

Remember after WW2 they started from Stunde Null, a clean sheet, to re-invent their form of operating capitalism. Nothing is set in stone and the British way, which the blinkered Union flag wavers would like us to think is the worlds best isn't necessarily the right one.