You don't need to be a socialist to note the massive disparity in the treatment between tax and social security offenders.
Who has 'offended?' nobody. Are any conservative, liberal or labour backers being prosecuted for tax evasion? no
Everything that has been done is legal under the laws set out by labour, liberal and tory legislators in the last 20 years.
The state is bankrupt, and looking for someone else to blame. It is angry at people who have earned or husbanded their money better than the state ever could. It is seeking ways to steal that money.
Mr. Observer, "Let's find some more poor people to demonise and to throw hate at and t blame."
Is it more legitimate to hate the rich [particularly when they're obeying the law]?
Having wealth doesn't make someone a legitimate target for loathing.
As I said below, when benefits and healthcare are taxpayer-funded, and health costs rise the worse and more prolonged a [self-inflicted] health problem, it is legitimate to consider personal responsibility when it comes to receiving benefits. Not only that, it's better for individuals to have the lowest level of health problems possible. Languishing on benefits and suffering every-worsening health is not a good choice for the individual or the taxpayer.
Edited extra bit: reply to Mr. Observer's post just above this: a complicated tax code is the problem. We should simplify it enormously, reducing loopholes and helping ensure not only that the dubious cannot avoid paying their fair share, but also that honest people do not accidentally transgress because the system's so damned complicated.
International agreement is also necessary. Threatening to blacklist British overseas territories is the act of a narrow-minded delinquent.
Mr. Observer, there is a legitimate question to be asked about whether it's right for taxpayer-funded benefits to be used to support those who choose to inflict upon themselves medical issues through excessive consumption of alcohol, food and other substances, particularly as the medical care is also taxpayer-funded and the cost increases the worse and more prolonged a condition is.
I agree, but let's first take a long, hard look at the super wealthy, who have huge sums of cash fed to them by our and other governments for the last few years and who do all they can to hide away money they will never spend, let alone need, while the poorest struggle to feed, house and clothe themselves.
Now. The council estate is split randomly between Labour, Green and UKIP, the big house owners are as likely to vote UKIP as Tory (and their kids might vote Green too), No ones says they are voting Liberal and all the Scots are saying they are voting SNP. Plus millions of people who haven't voted for years will be voting this time and millions more who normally vote for the big two parties won't bother as they think they are crap but think UKIP, Green etc are crapper.
The chances of any pollster getting this election right with anything like the accuracy seen in elections since '97 are, I would say minimal. So I'm not taking too much notice of the polls.
That is largely my feeling as well. Plus the enduring faith people have that voters tell the truth to pollsters, but the same people are quite happy to say that a by-election is only "sending a message", and then they look aghast if you suggest that an opinion poll is "sending a message", when lying to a pollster does just that without the effort of getting off the sofa, and the inconvenience of ending up with an MP you don't want.
Indeed, I think Lying to the opinion pollsters will be particuarly prevalent among C1,C2,D,E people who intend to vote UKIP because of the way they are smeared in the media as racist and almost criminal, with cases of people expressing support for them having problems at work, or even being banned from fostering. This will particuarly distort the support for Labour.
As one of the comments has it 'at least we know what the SNP stands for 'Sherry, Nips & Pints'......
The facts seem relatively straightforward.
Under Labour, a decision was made that a support unit should be headed by a principal teacher on £44k per annum. The need for a teacher in such a role is non-existent. The cost of employing someone so overqualified for a social support role is far higher than it should be.
However a Tory amendment describes it, the Hospitality Budget is not a slush fund for councillors, this isn't a Labour council where it's all for them, it's the SNP who have a substantially positive record in local government and have already abolished most of the perks Labour set up under the Great Embezzlement.
Beyond that, we don't know if a review has already taken place and deemed the need for a principal teacher in such an administrative role as redundant. We don't know how bare the Hospitality Budget is for Dundee Council.
We are certainly not in a position to jump the the sort of conclusions either paper is making but can be certain, from the facts, that it is not "teaching post sacrificed to save drinks budget".
Not sure I agree with the Principal teachers point. This unit is where girls who fall pregnant whilst still at school are sent to try and keep them in education and also to help them look after their babies. To say these are challenging pupils with a huge need for pastoral and social care would be something of an understatement. If the unit had a future a principal level teacher would be required but it is being run down with a view to closure for the reasons I have said.
Your local view certainly adds to how stupid the furore is. Fortunately the need to rationalise the number of schools doesn't seem to be impacting the SNP in Dundee.
In general I would still question whether a principal teacher is a better lead for a support unit than a decent administrative social worker heading it up, especially as the social worker will cost a lot less. I am sure there is some teaching requirement for remedial courses and studies but I don't see why a good administrative social worker can't co-ordinate teachers from general classwork to run such courses.
The SNP are struggling with this question as all administrations do when they have to make tough choices about schools, something that interests far more people than politics. Menzieshill is a key part of Dundee West so there are potential political implications if any party can exploit them. Jim McGovern comes from Menzieshill so he is well placed. Fortunately for the SNP he is pretty useless.
@SouthamObserver Off shore money can be spent even in the UK, it comes down to how you spend it. An expert on these matters could help you out on the "tricks" and "wheezes". Dave could have helped you out, but apparently he knows nothing about where his money came/comes from. Ignorance is bliss.
"Ed Miliband has the negative Midas touch, but the real problem for Labour is that the entire front bench is a talent free zone. If ever there was a team capable of blowing it, it is this one!"
I agree with you. A month ago I'd not have been disappointed if the Tories had scraped in. They've presided over a large increase in my wealth and the tax demanded by them is pretty paltry. As one of their luminaries once said 'you've never had it so good' and for the reasonably wealthy that's true.
However Lord Fink and the 'dinner for donors' made me re calibrate my moral compass.
Most people are struggling and the sight of rich bankers pumping their money into the Tory party was a timely reminder that isn't the interests of the underclass that are being attended to. I don't know whether Labour will be any better but at least I trust their instincts.
Indeed. There has never been a better time to be in the top wealth percentile:
Or in deed in the bottom 1%, the suggestion that they are worse off is frankly bollocks
In 2010 the 1% level earned £6,730 (which is £7,872 in current money), and yet the current income at the 1% level is £9,770, even if everything they bought was 20% VAT rather than 17.5% VAT, they are massively better off now than then.
Taking hundreds of thousands of earners out of income tax all together has made big difference.
It's not meaningless, it isn't particularly relevant. That the richest are paying are higher overall proportion of all income tax could simply be down to their income having increased, it's not at all contradictory with the claim of them receiving tax breaks.
''The chances of any pollster getting this election right with anything like the accuracy seen in elections since '97 are, I would say minimal. So I'm not taking too much notice of the polls.''
100% correct. So go with what you see whenever there is a real election.
Mr. Roger, "Most people are struggling and the sight of rich bankers pumping their money into the Tory party was a timely reminder that isn't the interests of the underclass that are being attended to. I don't know whether Labour will be any better but at least I trust their instincts."
Are you really saying a man who obeys the law and chooses to donate/give loans to a political party is such a horrid thing it should be abhorred? Is the same true of Lord Paul? Or Lord Sainsbury?
The alternative is complete state funding, which is vile indeed.
Demonising the law-abiding is a strange way to behave, but seems increasingly commonplace.
Off topic I'm afraid. How are swings calculated? In a By-election result in the previous thread it was stated that there was a swing from UKIP to the Tories. UKIP are down 7% and the Tories up 1%. The Lib Dems and the Greens are up more, so does the 'swing' actually mean anything?
Bar Hill on Cambridgeshire (Con Defence) Lynda Harford (Con) 787 (46% +1%) Martin Hale (UKIP) 251 (15% -7%) Fiona Whelan (Lib Dem) 238 (14% +6%) Alex Smith (Lab) 235 (14% unchanged) Claudia Roland (Green) 200 (12% +3%) Conservative HOLD with a majority of 536 (31%) on a swing of 4% from UKIP to Con
@SouthamObserver They need to get people thinking about "benefit scroungers" again, as Dave wants to reprise his last campaign. Unhelpful idiots like Guido and others need to be brought into line and told to STFU about tax before it becomes too dominant an issue.
Of course - it is utterly transparent. Let's find some more poor people to demonise and to throw hate at and t blame. The super rich, hiding away money they will never be able to spend, are the hapless victims. It's all the fault of those at the bottom of the heap.
Its because benefits scroungers are seen as taking money earned from people who work, wheras tax evaders are seen as going too far in preventing the benefits scroungers taking their hard earned money away so are seen much more sympathetically
This is particularly the case with C1s and C2s, a disproportionate amount of whom run their own small business/professional practice and will be the people who decide the election (as well as being prone to turning a blind eye to a bit of cash in hand themselves).
Indeed. There has never been a better time to be in the top wealth percentile:
Or in deed in the bottom 1%, the suggestion that they are worse off is frankly bollocks
In 2010 the 1% level earned £6,730 (which is £7,872 in current money), and yet the current income at the 1% level is £9,770, even if everything they bought was 20% VAT rather than 17.5% VAT, they are massively better off now than then.
Taking hundreds of thousands of earners out of income tax all together has made big difference.
Tax is not all of it though, is it? What about cuts to local services, housing benefit, other forms of social security top up, cuts in transport, increased transport costs, and so on? What happens when you throw all of those things which materially affect those at the bottom most, and have almost no impact on high earners, into the equation?
Sorry Dair, I am not disagreeing for the sake of it but I think you are refusing to recognise a significant achievement by the Coalition. Governments can affect the level of employment. They employ about 20% of the workforce for a start. This government has cut the public sector headcount by almost 1m and at the same time has increased the employment rate to boom levels in an economy that is not booming.
To put this achievement in context only Germany has managed anything similar in Europe and they did not really suffer a major recession at all.
How have they done this? Well the demand generated by our frightenly large defict has helped. So has policies that make the UK a cheap place to employ and dismiss people. So has quite aggressive social security policies that have driven the poorly motivated to find work. So have the continuation of the policies of subsidising low value work with generous in work benefits and housing costs.
It is something of an economic miracle and it has the unemployed of Europe beating a path to our door.
The problem is that you're wrong. And there is statistical evidence that you're wrong, it's not conjecture.
The Employment Rate in the UK has been roughly 75% for the last fifty years (possibly longer, I don't have figures to hand).
From mecantilism, through socialism, through Thatcherism, through Blairite patriarchism to coalition whateverism, it's not changed. There's the odd short term movement caused by shocks but other than that, it's just not moved.
Your misconception is not uncommon sadly. There is a great belief that governments can do things to change the long term "big" economic numbers. But that's just not true.
This is unfortunate, because when you realise that the big numbers can't be changed, you can focus on the conditions. If you realise this, you can run a very substantial minimum wage because you know it doesn't change the employement rate (this is trivial to understand due to price (in)elasticity), you can make companies pay Final Salary Pensions because not doing so is a state subsidy and requires taxation to meet state pension costs, you can have a Flat Tax System because the "incentives" government use DON'T EVER WORK.
The problem is that despite this being such a clear and fundamental truth, if you accept it, why do you need politicians and an establishment?
The key question for a Miliband government will be cuts, if the realities of the world are that he has to continue the government cuts then he is stuffed, because the SNP wont support him in it, and a fair chunk of his back bench wont support him in it. My feeling is that a Miliband government might well fall prematurely because he is unable to get financial reality past his backbench, rather like the situation in Greece.
Indeed.
I remain convinced that the ordinary person will vote on matters like their costs, their jobs, their pensions, their taxes, their services, not those of 1% of the population they are not involved with.
Minority issues like the empty room handout and the tax affairs of millionaires are not the significant issues that most people will vote on no matter how much Miliband keeps going on about them in the hope that people will not notice his economic policies for the vast majority.
Off topic I'm afraid. How are swings calculated? In a By-election result in the previous thread it was stated that there was a swing from UKIP to the Tories. UKIP are down 7% and the Tories up 1%. The Lib Dems and the Greens are up more, so does the 'swing' actually mean anything?
Bar Hill on Cambridgeshire (Con Defence) Lynda Harford (Con) 787 (46% +1%) Martin Hale (UKIP) 251 (15% -7%) Fiona Whelan (Lib Dem) 238 (14% +6%) Alex Smith (Lab) 235 (14% unchanged) Claudia Roland (Green) 200 (12% +3%) Conservative HOLD with a majority of 536 (31%) on a swing of 4% from UKIP to Con
Traditional way is a two party swing averaged (so 1 and minus 7 average to minus 4 on a UKIP to Con basis and you do that for each pairing).
Trying to do it for more parties gets complicated, and where parties are new/gone it's even more so.
Indeed. There has never been a better time to be in the top wealth percentile:
Or in deed in the bottom 1%, the suggestion that they are worse off is frankly bollocks
In 2010 the 1% level earned £6,730 (which is £7,872 in current money), and yet the current income at the 1% level is £9,770, even if everything they bought was 20% VAT rather than 17.5% VAT, they are massively better off now than then.
Taking hundreds of thousands of earners out of income tax all together has made big difference.
Tax is not all of it though, is it? What about cuts to local services, housing benefit, other forms of social security top up, cuts in transport, increased transport costs, and so on? What happens when you throw all of those things which materially affect those at the bottom most, and have almost no impact on high earners, into the equation?
The counterpoint is
"So what, I don't use anything except having my bins collected and if it means my council tax is frozen at the still extortionate £1500 a year rather than going up 10% a year the more cuts the better.
"I'm fed up with being fleeced in council tax to pay for lazy public sector workers pensions which are higher than my pension"
"F*** Them, if they got off their a**es and worked they could provide things for themselves and not expect the rest of us to. When they end up picking up food from rubbish dumps like they do in Brazil I might start feeling sorry for them."
Such views will be more prevalent after a long period of economic gloom.
Off topic I'm afraid. How are swings calculated? In a By-election result in the previous thread it was stated that there was a swing from UKIP to the Tories. UKIP are down 7% and the Tories up 1%. The Lib Dems and the Greens are up more, so does the 'swing' actually mean anything?
Bar Hill on Cambridgeshire (Con Defence) Lynda Harford (Con) 787 (46% +1%) Martin Hale (UKIP) 251 (15% -7%) Fiona Whelan (Lib Dem) 238 (14% +6%) Alex Smith (Lab) 235 (14% unchanged) Claudia Roland (Green) 200 (12% +3%) Conservative HOLD with a majority of 536 (31%) on a swing of 4% from UKIP to Con
Traditional way is a two party swing averaged (so 1 and minus 7 average to minus 4 on a UKIP to Con basis and you do that for each pairing).
Trying to do it for more parties gets complicated, and where parties are new/gone it's even more so.
Thanks, that's what I guessed. In many cases nowadays it's not that meaningful.
@SouthamObserver Almost all the better off think that they have managed to get where they are by dint of being smarter and working harder than the "others", and that luck, connections, and circumstances have nothing to do with it (actually true in some cases though not really the majority) The poor by comparison, are poor because they lack these qualities.
@SouthamObserver They need to get people thinking about "benefit scroungers" again, as Dave wants to reprise his last campaign. Unhelpful idiots like Guido and others need to be brought into line and told to STFU about tax before it becomes too dominant an issue.
Of course - it is utterly transparent. Let's find some more poor people to demonise and to throw hate at and t blame. The super rich, hiding away money they will never be able to spend, are the hapless victims. It's all the fault of those at the bottom of the heap.
The differing treatment of those who break the law by tax evasion and those who break the law in falsely claiming benefits goes on under every government. In fact this government has been far more aggressive in challenging tax evasion than any I can recall, necessity being the mother of invention and all that. But the rich are still treated differently and only an idiot would think this is good ground for the Tories to be on.
Of course - it is utterly transparent. Let's find some more poor people to demonise and to throw hate at and t blame. The super rich, hiding away money they will never be able to spend, are the hapless victims. It's all the fault of those at the bottom of the heap.
Wrong on both counts. This Government has done more than any other in the last 40 years to make the super rich pay their share, taking steps to crack down on tax avoidance (e.g. the introduction of the GAAR and the work done with Swiss authorities to identify and bring to account tax avoiders), introducing new property taxes and increasing the proportion of tax contributed by the highest earners. They have also been instrumental in the BEPS project; the important global initiative to ensure that companies pay their fair share of tax in each jurisdiction in which they operate. This is complex work, requiring considerable international diplomacy, focus and skill to get right. Blunder into it in the manner MIliband did into the energy market or the avoidance debate this week, and you will damage or drive away the very businesses you seek to tax. The number of corporate redomiciliations to the UK in the last two years (bringing with them jobs and tax revenues) is testament to the excellent work the Government has done.
On the other side, the Government has targeted those claiming excessive amounts of welfare, those who are improperly in receipt of welfare and waste in the system. Some of those interventions have been clumsy or inappropriate. I would cite removing the spare room subsidy without making appropriate allowance for disabled people or the structure of the housing market as being an example of a poorly considered policy. Although it is worth noting we have not seen the tens of thousands of homeless and destitute some were predicting. But these interventions are not designed to blame or to hurt those at the bottom. They are designed to ensure we have sustainable public finances for future generations and that work - the liberator of the impoverished - is properly incentivised. It literally beggared belief that non-working families were able to claim benefits equivalent to a working salary of £35,000+ - it had created a structural disincentive to work which in some parts of the country entrenched deprivation and destroyed the life chances of the next generations.
This latest policy is an extension of the previous work the government has done. It needs to be debated - one could well argue that the cost of withdrawing support for addicts in terms of increasing healthcare and policing/justice costs will outweigh the benefits. But the philosophy that people should be expected to take what steps they can to help themselves if they are to receive state support is a good one. Of course it leads to many cases of individual unfairness. Of course no system is perfect. But the alternative is no longer sustainable.
You don't need to be a socialist to note the massive disparity in the treatment between tax and social security offenders.
Who has 'offended?' nobody. Are any conservative, liberal or labour backers being prosecuted for tax evasion? no
Everything that has been done is legal under the laws set out by labour, liberal and tory legislators in the last 20 years.
The state is bankrupt, and looking for someone else to blame. It is angry at people who have earned or husbanded their money better than the state ever could. It is seeking ways to steal that money.
I was using the word 'offended' in the literal sense of causing offence.
People are offended by social security scroungers, including those who legally claim huge benefits which are hard to justify. Likewise they are offended by people who appear to pay very little tax on huge incomes, whether that is through evasion or legal avoidance.
Sorry Dair, I am not disagreeing for the sake of it but I think you are refusing to recognise a significant achievement by the Coalition. Governments can affect the level of employment. They employ about 20% of the workforce for a start. This government has cut the public sector headcount by almost 1m and at the same time has increased the employment rate to boom levels in an economy that is not booming.
To put this achievement in context only Germany has managed anything similar in Europe and they did not really suffer a major recession at all.
How have they done this? Well the demand generated by our frightenly large defict has helped. So has policies that make the UK a cheap place to employ and dismiss people. So has quite aggressive social security policies that have driven the poorly motivated to find work. So have the continuation of the policies of subsidising low value work with generous in work benefits and housing costs.
It is something of an economic miracle and it has the unemployed of Europe beating a path to our door.
The problem is that you're wrong. And there is statistical evidence that you're wrong, it's not conjecture.
The Employment Rate in the UK has been roughly 75% for the last fifty years (possibly longer, I don't have figures to hand).
From mecantilism, through socialism, through Thatcherism, through Blairite patriarchism to coalition whateverism, it's not changed. There's the odd short term movement caused by shocks but other than that, it's just not moved.
Your misconception is not uncommon sadly. There is a great belief that governments can do things to change the long term "big" economic numbers. But that's just not true.
This is unfortunate, because when you realise that the big numbers can't be changed, you can focus on the conditions. If you realise this, you can run a very substantial minimum wage because you know it doesn't change the employement rate (this is trivial to understand due to price (in)elasticity), you can make companies pay Final Salary Pensions because not doing so is a state subsidy and requires taxation to meet state pension costs, you can have a Flat Tax System because the "incentives" government use DON'T EVER WORK.
The problem is that despite this being such a clear and fundamental truth, if you accept it, why do you need politicians and an establishment?
Not really true. The unemployment rate changed dramatically in the 70s. Prior to thatcher with the pursuit of full employment the total number (can't remember the %) was about 700 000, rising up to about 1.4m in 1978. Then when Thatcher came in it famously went up to 3 million and spent most of the time bouncing around in the 2s.
Indeed. There has never been a better time to be in the top wealth percentile:
Or in deed in the bottom 1%, the suggestion that they are worse off is frankly bollocks
In 2010 the 1% level earned £6,730 (which is £7,872 in current money), and yet the current income at the 1% level is £9,770, even if everything they bought was 20% VAT rather than 17.5% VAT, they are massively better off now than then.
Taking hundreds of thousands of earners out of income tax all together has made big difference.
Tax is not all of it though, is it? What about cuts to local services, housing benefit, other forms of social security top up, cuts in transport, increased transport costs, and so on? What happens when you throw all of those things which materially affect those at the bottom most, and have almost no impact on high earners, into the equation?
The counterpoint is
"So what, I don't use anything except having my bins collected and if it means my council tax is frozen at the still extortionate £1500 a year rather than going up 10% a year the more cuts the better.
"I'm fed up with being fleeced in council tax to pay for lazy public sector workers pensions which are higher than my pension"
"F*** Them, if they got off their a**es and worked they could provide things for themselves and not expect the rest of us to. When they end up picking up food from rubbish dumps like they do in Brazil I might start feeling sorry for them."
Such views will be more prevalent after a long period of economic gloom.
I agree - the right thrives on turning ordinary working people against each other so that they do not ask questions about the people who fund the right: people who believe they should not have to share the money they have been gifted by this country and so many others. People like this:
This is particularly the case with C1s and C2s, a disproportionate amount of whom run their own small business/professional practice and will be the people who decide the election (as well as being prone to turning a blind eye to a bit of cash in hand themselves).
100% correct. And often these people (bloody heroes in my book), live close to or rub shoulders with the type of people the tories are targeting. They see them living just as good a lifestyle for doing nothing.
If Osborne has any sense he will throw any spare cash at these people in the coming budget. Don;t freeze fuel duty. CUT IT. Don't freeze beer wine spirits duty, CUT it. CUT VAT.
Not really true. The unemployment rate changed dramatically in the 70s. Prior to thatcher with the pursuit of full employment the total number (can't remember the %) was about 700 000, rising up to about 1.4m in 1978. Then when Thatcher came in it famously went up to 3 million and spent most of the time bouncing around in the 2s.
But I'm not talking about the Unemployment Rate (which is a SECONDARY measure of the economy). I'm talking about the primary measure - Employment Rate. It hasn't change. At all.
@Flockers - How much extra money has the government recouped from all its initiatives around tax avoidance? It has significantly cut funding for HMRC which means that in practice it is far harder for money to be located and then collected. When will the government start recouping the money that has been supplied to the super rich via QE?
he poor by comparison, are poor because they lack these qualities.
The tories could still claim that if you want the rich to pay more, vote for us.
Because the rich are paying more than they did under labour
They are paying slightly more, their wealth has increased exponentially. Look at how they have benefited from QE. No wonder they throw so much money at the Tories.
I'm sure there is more to this story than the Daily Fail sets out (not least the false connection between two items of expenditure) - perhaps @DavidL has some more local colour?
But on the face of it, it does appear symptomatic of self-interested council management (this case is the SNP but I'm sure there are equally bad cases in all parties).
Pathetic drivel from a pathetic London right wing toilet roll
Well, which of the facts are incorrect?
I'm very willing to accept that it is misleadingly presented (possibly leading to erroneous conclusions) but, on the face of it, it does appear to be a misallocation of scarce resources
FACTS?
You expect malcolm to engage with facts?
You haven't been paying attention.....
And it looks from the Courier that an amendment was proposed to fund the teaching place from cutting the hospitality budget - but was voted down, so in this case, the 'drinks or a teacher?' comparison appears fair.....
If only the Tories were so interested in really helping people retain employment or even get employment.
You really are in a world of your own, aren't you?
A record-breaking number of people are now in work, averaging over 13,000 more people in jobs every single week over the last year.
Since 2010 two-thirds of the rise in employment has been in managerial, professional or associate professional occupations.
The figures from the Office for National Statistics show that 694,000 more people are in jobs compared to this time last year. Employment increased by 112,000 over the last 3 months alone, with the vast majority of the increase coming from people in full-time jobs.
There are now a record 30.8 million people in work, with the employment rate (73.0%) now back to pre-recession levels.
Yes all those ZERO hour contracts are just wonderful, huzzah for the Tories , you are employed but you have no wages , holidays, sick pay etc. When do children start going back up chimneys again.
People here finally hitting the nail on the head - immoveable object (Labour will have to continue with cuts / austerity or Mister Market will have intetest rates at 9% before you can blink) meets unstoppable force (SNP demands an end to cuts / austerity).
The only way that circle gets squared away is if Ed is so weak he caves in to extra cash for Scotland, with the rest of the UK having to take even deeper cuts / austerity to compensate.
Who would want to be Ed Miliband? He loses, his career is over in May. He wins, his career is over in October, remembered only as the most vilified Prime Minister since at least Chamberlain and probably for centuries before that. And his Party with him.
Indeed.
And there's no way EdM could impose further cuts on England to find bribe money for the SNP. His English backbenchers (not to mention the unions) will never allow it.
But that doesn't mean he wouldn't try it in desperation.
I've said this so many times, the national poll % for both the Libs and ukip is irrelevant, both are targeting seats they can win and ignoring the vast majority of the others. That doesn't mean it will work, but ukip are only interested in polls in their target seats. London, Scotland and vast swathes elsewhere are of no interest between now and May. The lack of national coverage is not reflected in the key target seats, as it stands they are very comfortable with progress.
There's an interesting article in the Economist, about the hard work UKIP are putting into urban Northern constituencies where the Conservatives and Lib Dems are moribund, with a view to winning them in the next election after this.
A year or two of the Eds in government and you have a big UKIP breakthrough in northern England.
I'm sure there is more to this story than the Daily Fail sets out (not least the false connection between two items of expenditure) - perhaps @DavidL has some more local colour?
But on the face of it, it does appear symptomatic of self-interested council management (this case is the SNP but I'm sure there are equally bad cases in all parties).
Pathetic drivel from a pathetic London right wing toilet roll
Well, which of the facts are incorrect?
I'm very willing to accept that it is misleadingly presented (possibly leading to erroneous conclusions) but, on the face of it, it does appear to be a misallocation of scarce resources
FACTS?
You expect malcolm to engage with facts?
You haven't been paying attention.....
And it looks from the Courier that an amendment was proposed to fund the teaching place from cutting the hospitality budget - but was voted down, so in this case, the 'drinks or a teacher?' comparison appears fair.....
If only the Tories were so interested in really helping people retain employment or even get employment.
You really are in a world of your own, aren't you?
A record-breaking number of people are now in work, averaging over 13,000 more people in jobs every single week over the last year.
Since 2010 two-thirds of the rise in employment has been in managerial, professional or associate professional occupations.
The figures from the Office for National Statistics show that 694,000 more people are in jobs compared to this time last year. Employment increased by 112,000 over the last 3 months alone, with the vast majority of the increase coming from people in full-time jobs.
There are now a record 30.8 million people in work, with the employment rate (73.0%) now back to pre-recession levels.
Yes all those ZERO hour contracts are just wonderful, huzzah for the Tories , you are employed but you have no wages , holidays, sick pay etc. When do children start going back up chimneys again.
Most of the increase in employment is in full time work.....oh dear, you & facts......
I'm sure there is more to this story than the Daily Fail sets out (not least the false connection between two items of expenditure) - perhaps @DavidL has some more local colour?
But on the face of it, it does appear symptomatic of self-interested council management (this case is the SNP but I'm sure there are equally bad cases in all parties).
My initial reaction was 'check the Courier - they're pretty reliable - but the Mail got the story from the Courier....
I expect malcolmg would have been equally dismissive of the story if it was a Tory council prioritising its drinks budget over pregnant teens.......
Derek Scott, the Conservative member for Broughty Ferry, proposed slashing food and refreshment for councillors, alcohol purchases and hospitality budgets.
He said that by saving £44,000 in the entertainment allowance, the council could afford to keep the principal teacher at the YMU while still balancing the books.
However, his motion was defeated by SNP members who pushed ahead with their proposals — and Labour councillors who declined to vote.
@Flockers - How much extra money has the government recouped from all its initiatives around tax avoidance? It has significantly cut funding for HMRC which means that in practice it is far harder for money to be located and then collected. When will the government start recouping the money that has been supplied to the super rich via QE?
Largely, it cant.
Someone had the bright idea of joining the incipient European superstate, with a free movement of capital, goods and labour. The first of these is the important one here. The structure of the EU not only permits, but actively encourages businesses to move their offices to low tax counties, and to arrange their affairs within the EU in the most tax efficient way possible. When Boots moved its head office to Switzerland in 2007, under a Labour government, the government was warned it would cost the UK £100bn in tax revenue, and yet no one complained or acted to prevent it, why not, because they couldn't, it was legal under EU law.
I'm sure there is more to this story than the Daily Fail sets out (not least the false connection between two items of expenditure) - perhaps @DavidL has some more local colour?
But on the face of it, it does appear symptomatic of self-interested council management (this case is the SNP but I'm sure there are equally bad cases in all parties).
My initial reaction was 'check the Courier - they're pretty reliable - but the Mail got the story from the Courier....
I expect malcolmg would have been equally dismissive of the story if it was a Tory council prioritising its drinks budget over pregnant teens.......
Derek Scott, the Conservative member for Broughty Ferry, proposed slashing food and refreshment for councillors, alcohol purchases and hospitality budgets.
He said that by saving £44,000 in the entertainment allowance, the council could afford to keep the principal teacher at the YMU while still balancing the books.
However, his motion was defeated by SNP members who pushed ahead with their proposals — and Labour councillors who declined to vote.
I'm sure there is more to this story than the Daily Fail sets out (not least the false connection between two items of expenditure) - perhaps @DavidL has some more local colour?
But on the face of it, it does appear symptomatic of self-interested council management (this case is the SNP but I'm sure there are equally bad cases in all parties).
Pathetic drivel from a pathetic London right wing toilet roll
Well, which of the facts are incorrect?
I'm very willing to accept that it is misleadingly presented (possibly leading to erroneous conclusions) but, on the face of it, it does appear to be a misallocation of scarce resources
FACTS?
You expect malcolm to engage with facts?
You haven't been paying attention.....
And it looks from the Courier that an amendment was proposed to fund the teaching place from cutting the hospitality budget - but was voted down, so in this case, the 'drinks or a teacher?' comparison appears fair.....
If only the Tories were so interested in really helping people retain employment or even get employment.
You really are in a world of your own, aren't you?
A record-breaking number of people are now in work, averaging over 13,000 more people in jobs every single week over the last year.
Since 2010 two-thirds of the rise in employment has been in managerial, professional or associate professional occupations.
The figures from the Office for National Statistics show that 694,000 more people are in jobs compared to this time last year. Employment increased by 112,000 over the last 3 months alone, with the vast majority of the increase coming from people in full-time jobs.
There are now a record 30.8 million people in work, with the employment rate (73.0%) now back to pre-recession levels.
@Flockers - How much extra money has the government recouped from all its initiatives around tax avoidance? It has significantly cut funding for HMRC which means that in practice it is far harder for money to be located and then collected. When will the government start recouping the money that has been supplied to the super rich via QE?
Largely, it cant.
Someone had the bright idea of joining the incipient European superstate, with a free movement of capital, goods and labour. The first of these is the important one here. The structure of the EU not only permits, but actively encourages businesses to move their offices to low tax counties, and to arrange their affairs within the EU in the most tax efficient way possible. When Boots moved its head office to Switzerland in 2007, under a Labour government, the government was warned it would cost the UK £100bn in tax revenue, and yet no one complained or acted to prevent it, why not, because they couldn't, it was legal under EU law.
QE has nothing to do with the EU. In fact, we were able to do it because we are not a part of the single currency. It has made the very wealthiest - the people who bankroll the Conservative party - richer than they have ever been before.
I believe it was the Conservative party that signed up to Maastricht ad the creation of the single market.
They are paying slightly more, their wealth has increased exponentially. Look at how they have benefited from QE.
Hows to make the super rich part with a little of their cash to make life better for the rest of us is a conundrum that is proving very difficult to solve.
Try to tax them and the money simply flees. It really is a difficult one.
I think the TV show secret millionaire is quite interesting. Asking wealthy people just to hand over vast amounts to the state to do whatever it wants with gets you nowhere.
But if you give wealthy people a stake in the enterprise they are supporting, they become much more generous.
Recognition (maybe even honours??) for tax paid might be an idea.
I've said this so many times, the national poll % for both the Libs and ukip is irrelevant, both are targeting seats they can win and ignoring the vast majority of the others. That doesn't mean it will work, but ukip are only interested in polls in their target seats. London, Scotland and vast swathes elsewhere are of no interest between now and May. The lack of national coverage is not reflected in the key target seats, as it stands they are very comfortable with progress.
There's an interesting article in the Economist, about the hard work UKIP are putting into urban Northern constituencies where the Conservatives and Lib Dems are moribund, with a view to winning them in the next election after this.
A year or two of the Eds in government and you have a big UKIP breakthrough in northern England.
It's an interesting one. We'll have to wait and see about whether it works or not. Those who run UKIP are not going to be comfortable with a lot of the kinds of policies that will attract working class voters who have previously voted Labour.
"Ed Miliband has the negative Midas touch, but the real problem for Labour is that the entire front bench is a talent free zone. If ever there was a team capable of blowing it, it is this one!"
I agree with you. A month ago I'd not have been disappointed if the Tories had scraped in. They've presided over a large increase in my wealth and the tax demanded by them is pretty paltry. As one of their luminaries once said 'you've never had it so good' and for the reasonably wealthy that's true.
However Lord Fink and the 'dinner for donors' made me re calibrate my moral compass.
Most people are struggling and the sight of rich bankers pumping their money into the Tory party was a timely reminder that isn't the interests of the underclass that are being attended to. I don't know whether Labour will be any better but at least I trust their instincts.
Labour's 'instinct' was to help an extremely wealthy donor avoid £1.5 million tax to the Party's benefit.
@CarlottaVance How much tax has HMRC collected from information contained in the stolen files? Does this compare favourably as a percentage with other countries? and if not, why not?
You describe Ed as a "narrow-minded delinquent" and unfortunately that does chime with people. I'm in a minority here by quite liking Kinnock, and I voted for him. And the same goes for Darling had he made it to the top. But I basically see Ed as a shouty schoolboy. I can't see past the delinquent to consider the policies.
It may be an age thing to some extent, but will Ed ever grow up? Perhaps he has a problem with old people?
Time I fancy in relation to this thread for OGH to arrange a PB.com poll to gauge the collective wisdom of PBers as regards our expectaion of the GE Result in terms of seats for each of the major parties.
You really are in a world of your own, aren't you?
A record-breaking number of people are now in work, averaging over 13,000 more people in jobs every single week over the last year.
Since 2010 two-thirds of the rise in employment has been in managerial, professional or associate professional occupations.
The figures from the Office for National Statistics show that 694,000 more people are in jobs compared to this time last year. Employment increased by 112,000 over the last 3 months alone, with the vast majority of the increase coming from people in full-time jobs.
There are now a record 30.8 million people in work, with the employment rate (73.0%) now back to pre-recession levels.
This "record number of people in work" is a particularly silly and meaningless number bandied about by politicians and others trying to hoodwink people.
As the population is generally rising, then there will always be a "record number of people in work" (outside of specific short term incidents like the Labour Crash of 2008).
All that has happened is that, as the recession has faded the employment rate has returned to its normal, consistent level, which generally seems to be outside the control of government in the long term (unsurprisingly almost all of the Economy is outside the control of government).
Sorry Dair, I am not disagreeing for the sake of it but I think you are refusing to recognise a significant achievement by the Coalition. Governments can affect the level of employment. They employ about 20% of the workforce for a start. This government has cut the public sector headcount by almost 1m and at the same time has increased the employment rate to boom levels in an economy that is not booming.
To put this achievement in context only Germany has managed anything similar in Europe and they did not really suffer a major recession at all.
How have they done this? Well the demand generated by our frightenly large defict has helped. So has policies that make the UK a cheap place to employ and dismiss people. So has quite aggressive social security policies that have driven the poorly motivated to find work. So have the continuation of the policies of subsidising low value work with generous in work benefits and housing costs.
It is something of an economic miracle and it has the unemployed of Europe beating a path to our door.
David, I know you mean well but you really do not live in the real world, you are of the "let them eat cake" philosophy. Do you ever look about you , there is for sure no economic miracle except for people who had plenty to start with, the poor and the working are worse off than previously.
@CarlottaVance How much tax has HMRC collected from information contained in the stolen files? Does this compare favourably as a percentage with other countries? and if not, why not?
HMRC has seen huge falls in its staffing and funding. It's not a huge surprise that the money coming in as a result of the treaties and other initiatives is so paltry in relative terms.
It is not entirely clear because there are systemic issues with HMRC's reporting, but HMRC estimated its compliance yield in 2014 to be £23.9 billion, an increase of £5.3 billion or 28% since 2012. That's not too shabby.
I don't understand your point about QE. Quite apart from it being a central bank policy (begun under Labour, of course) and not directly under the control of the Government, the purpose of QE is to support the whole economy. Governments of every colour across the globe implemented it in the face of an unprecedented demand crisis. Of course it distorts the market, and some of those distortions massively benefit the wealthy (eg increasing asset prices). The Government will recoup some of that through tax. But without it the consequences would have been massive job losses and a global depression.
There is a legitimate and interesting debate about whether QE will only serve to make the second crisis worse and whether we would have been better served in the long run just to take our medicine. By saving ourselves from a brutal readjustment we may have doomed our children (or possibly, ourselves!) to a far worse one, not least because we have encouraged parties like Syriza to believe that Governments alone can fund comfortable lifestyles.
I am not here to defend the super rich. I pay tax on all my income, and refuse to engage with financial advisers who pitch complex (lawful) tax avoidance schemes to me. I applaud every step any government takes to clarify the law on avoidance and crack down, fairly, on abusive schemes. I think the actions of some of the super-rich are devastating to the social contract on which we all depend. But I have not seen a single constructive idea emerge from HM Opposition to address this issue.
Not really true. The unemployment rate changed dramatically in the 70s. Prior to thatcher with the pursuit of full employment the total number (can't remember the %) was about 700 000, rising up to about 1.4m in 1978. Then when Thatcher came in it famously went up to 3 million and spent most of the time bouncing around in the 2s.
But I'm not talking about the Unemployment Rate (which is a SECONDARY measure of the economy). I'm talking about the primary measure - Employment Rate. It hasn't change. At all.
Something you're concluding far too much from based on 40 years of a single measure.
Mr. Observer, there is a legitimate question to be asked about whether it's right for taxpayer-funded benefits to be used to support those who choose to inflict upon themselves medical issues through excessive consumption of alcohol, food and other substances, particularly as the medical care is also taxpayer-funded and the cost increases the worse and more prolonged a condition is.
MD, what will you say when they come for the skinny ones , or the short ones , the ones with allergies , etc
Indeed. There has never been a better time to be in the top wealth percentile:
Or in deed in the bottom 1%, the suggestion that they are worse off is frankly bollocks
In 2010 the 1% level earned £6,730 (which is £7,872 in current money), and yet the current income at the 1% level is £9,770, even if everything they bought was 20% VAT rather than 17.5% VAT, they are massively better off now than then.
Taking hundreds of thousands of earners out of income tax all together has made big difference.
Tax is not all of it though, is it? What about cuts to local services, housing benefit, other forms of social security top up, cuts in transport, increased transport costs, and so on? What happens when you throw all of those things which materially affect those at the bottom most, and have almost no impact on high earners, into the equation?
The counterpoint is
"So what, I don't use anything except having my bins collected and if it means my council tax is frozen at the still extortionate £1500 a year rather than going up 10% a year the more cuts the better.
"I'm fed up with being fleeced in council tax to pay for lazy public sector workers pensions which are higher than my pension"
"F*** Them, if they got off their a**es and worked they could provide things for themselves and not expect the rest of us to. When they end up picking up food from rubbish dumps like they do in Brazil I might start feeling sorry for them."
Such views will be more prevalent after a long period of economic gloom.
Interesting that you mention Brazil in this context: a country that has vast numbers of the super-rich. But it does have to be said that they don't seem to go out of their way to help the destitute inhabitants of the favelas. Instead, they tend to live in gated condominiums, and travel by helicopter so that they can avoid ever coming into contact with poor people. And of course, it's all underpinned by constant fear in a country which has 20 times more per capita homicides than the UK (cf. South Africa too).
Rich people do not just need their bins emptied; their quality of life is also dependent on transport infrastructure, independent policing and justice systems, ensuring that all other members of their society having proper access to health and education. So come on: just pay your tax - it really is not too much to ask.
@CarlottaVance How much tax has HMRC collected from information contained in the stolen files? Does this compare favourably as a percentage with other countries? and if not, why not?
Do your own research! Do you know?
Or are you arguing that the government should intervene in the operation of HMRC?
Mr. Observer, there is a legitimate question to be asked about whether it's right for taxpayer-funded benefits to be used to support those who choose to inflict upon themselves medical issues through excessive consumption of alcohol, food and other substances, particularly as the medical care is also taxpayer-funded and the cost increases the worse and more prolonged a condition is.
MD, what will you say when they come for the skinny ones , or the short ones , the ones with allergies , etc
Whooosh!
Is it a bird?
Is it a plane?
No, its a point sailing right over malcolm's head......
@CarlottaVance How much tax has HMRC collected from information contained in the stolen files? Does this compare favourably as a percentage with other countries? and if not, why not?
HMRC has seen huge falls in its staffing and funding. It's not a huge surprise that the money coming in as a result of the treaties and other initiatives is so paltry in relative terms.
Tax collection went off the rails when the Inland Revenue merged with Customs and Excise. The whole thing has been a disaster.
@CarlottaVance How much tax has HMRC collected from information contained in the stolen files? Does this compare favourably as a percentage with other countries? and if not, why not?
Do your own research! Do you know?
Or are you arguing that the government should intervene in the operation of HMRC?
It should fund the HMRC so that it has the tools it needs to do the job we all need it to do.
Morning all and on thread we don't have long to wait until we learn whether punters are repeating 2010 or 1992. Interesting that in this week's council by-elections we saw both a UKIP swing to the Tories and a Lab swing to the Tories.
Ed Miliband has the negative Midas touch, but the real problem for Labour is that the entire front bench is a talent free zone. If ever there was a team capable of blowing it, it is this one!
If Ed does somehow stumble over the finish line, with his current personal polling it won't take much to persuade voters that they've bought a dud!
I know that Tories are entrenched in their view that Miliband is clueless and all they need to do is wait for the general public to realise it. There is an alternative view - I suspect most people who don't pay much attention to politics have picked up their negative of him via the Tory press who have been remorselessly "monstering" him for 2 or 3 years. Labour are nevertheless still ahead in the polls even with expectations of Miliband as leader being pretty much rock bottom. When he gets more exposure during the actual campaign people will be in a position to make up their own minds and there is a good chance that he will exceed the expectations that people have at the moment. I think all that Miliband has to do really is prove he is no where near as bad as the Tories are painting him - and he only really needs to do that with that section of the electorate that comprises Labour left-leaning Lib Dems, Greens and SNP sympathisers.
"If Labour had presided over an economy that had added over 1 million jobs, reduced unemployment below 2 million and the jobless rate below 6% you would declare it an unalloyed success. I am pretty confident that you would even declare the rise of part-time working a vindication of Labour's policies........."
I was speaking to a policeman who told me that in his force in 2010 most voted Tory this time hardly any will. Though some reorganization was needed and welcomed their treatment by this government has been shabby.
This is the result of treating the public service-even the likes of the police-like they're leeches on the wealth creators. Tories have no understanding that society interconnects and there is nothing demeaning about public service. This I suspect is the reason why a relativelly successful government facing a poor opposition will lose.
You really are in a world of your own, aren't you?
A record-breaking number of people are now in work,
Since 2010 two-thirds of the rise in employment has been in managerial, professional or associate professional occupations.
The figures from the Office for National Statistics show that 694,000 more people are in jobs compared to this time last year. Employment increased by 112,000 over the last 3 months alone, with the vast majority of the increase coming from people in full-time jobs.
There are now a record 30.8 million people in work, with the employment rate (73.0%) now back to pre-recession levels.
This "record number of people in work" is a particularly silly and meaningless number bandied about by politicians and others trying to hoodwink people.
As the population is generally rising, then there will always be a "record number of people in work" (outside of specific short term incidents like the Labour Crash of 2008).
All that has happened is that, as the recession has faded the employment rate has returned to its normal, consistent level, which generally seems to be outside the control of government in the long term (unsurprisingly almost all of the Economy is outside the control of government).
Sorry Dair, I am not disagreeing for the sake of it but I think you are refusing to recognise a significant achievement by the Coalition. Governments can affect the level of employment. They employ about 20% of the workforce for a start. This government has cut the public sector headcount by almost 1m and at the same time has increased the employment rate to boom levels in an economy that is not booming.
To put this achievement in context only Germany has managed anything similar in Europe and they did not really suffer a major recession at all.
How have they done this? Well the demand generated by our frightenly large defict has helped. So has policies that make the UK a cheap place to employ and dismiss people. So has quite aggressive social security policies that have driven the poorly motivated to find work. So have the continuation of the policies of subsidising low value work with generous in work benefits and housing costs.
It is something of an economic miracle and it has the unemployed of Europe beating a path to our door.
David, I know you mean well but you really do not live in the real world, you are of the "let them eat cake" philosophy. Do you ever look about you , there is for sure no economic miracle except for people who had plenty to start with, the poor and the working are worse off than previously.
Indeed. There has never been a better time to be in the top wealth percentile:
Or in deed in the bottom 1%, the suggestion that they are worse off is frankly bollocks
In 2010 the 1% level earned £6,730 (which is £7,872 in current money), and yet the current income at the 1% level is £9,770, even if everything they bought was 20% VAT rather than 17.5% VAT, they are massively better off now than then.
Taking hundreds of thousands of earners out of income tax all together has made big difference.
Tax is not all of it though, is it? What about cuts to local services, housing benefit, other forms of social security top up, cuts in transport, increased transport costs, and so on? What happens when you throw all of those things which materially affect those at the bottom most, and have almost no impact on high earners, into the equation?
The counterpoint is
"So what, I don't use anything except having my bins collected and if it means my council tax is frozen at the still extortionate £1500 a year rather than going up 10% a year the more cuts the better.
"I'm fed up with being fleeced in council tax to pay for lazy public sector workers pensions which are higher than my pension"
"F*** Them, if they got off their a**es and worked they could provide things for themselves and not expect the rest of us to. When they end up picking up food from rubbish dumps like they do in Brazil I might start feeling sorry for them."
Such views will be more prevalent after a long period of economic gloom.
I agree - the right thrives on turning ordinary working people against each other so that they do not ask questions about the people who fund the right: people who believe they should not have to share the money they have been gifted by this country and so many others. People like this:
The problem the left has is that when people fail to exhibit the necessary solidarity (which is fairly inevitable given human nature) they in the pasrt resorted to forcing them to. Examples range from Stalins Gulags to British Trade Unionists hounding scabs and blacklegs. The left now carries that historical baggage.
Rich people do not just need their bins emptied; their quality of life is also dependent on transport infrastructure, independent policing and justice systems, ensuring that all other members of their society having proper access to health and education. So come on: just pay your tax - it really is not too much to ask.
Even on their current "avoiding" number the top 1% pay for about a third of the country. The continued envy and cried to pay more is a little unedifying.
If I was a billionaire, even though I am British and proud of it, I wouldn't live in the UK, its so conspicuously despises the successful and especially the self made rich. It wants to ever take more money from them but is dismissive of their philanthropy and other good works. A man can start from nothing, building up a successful multi-billion pound business, give millions of pounds to charity, employ thousands of British workers, and yet the establishment looks at him with a sneer and a look of disgust contorting their collective face.
It is not entirely clear because there are systemic issues with HMRC's reporting, but HMRC estimated its compliance yield in 2014 to be £23.9 billion, an increase of £5.3 billion or 28% since 2012. That's not too shabby.
I don't understand your point about QE. Quite apart from it being a central bank policy (begun under Labour, of course) and not directly under the control of the Government, the purpose of QE is to support the whole economy. Governments of every colour across the globe implemented it in the face of an unprecedented demand crisis. Of course it distorts the market, and some of those distortions massively benefit the wealthy (eg increasing asset prices). The Government will recoup some of that through tax. But without it the consequences would have been massive job losses and a global depression.
There is a legitimate and interesting debate about whether QE will only serve to make the second crisis worse and whether we would have been better served in the long run just to take our medicine. By saving ourselves from a brutal readjustment we may have doomed our children (or possibly, ourselves!) to a far worse one, not least because we have encouraged parties like Syriza to believe that Governments alone can fund comfortable lifestyles.
I am not here to defend the super rich. I pay tax on all my income, and refuse to engage with financial advisers who pitch complex (lawful) tax avoidance schemes to me. I applaud every step any government takes to clarify the law on avoidance and crack down, fairly, on abusive schemes. I think the actions of some of the super-rich are devastating to the social contract on which we all depend. But I have not seen a single constructive idea emerge from HM Opposition to address this issue.
I think we can both agree that QE would not happen without government support and that on balance it was necessary. Where we seem to disagree is on whether this Tory-led government could do more than it has to ensure that a far larger part of the additional wealth that has been handed on a plate to the super-rich is returned in the form of taxes.
@CarlottaVance How much tax has HMRC collected from information contained in the stolen files? Does this compare favourably as a percentage with other countries? and if not, why not?
Do your own research! Do you know?
Or are you arguing that the government should intervene in the operation of HMRC?
It should fund the HMRC so that it has the tools it needs to do the job we all need it to do.
In 2010 the government allocated HMRC £917 million from efficiency savings to reinvest in generating additional compliance revenues of £7 billion a year by 2015.
@CarlottaVance How much tax has HMRC collected from information contained in the stolen files? Does this compare favourably as a percentage with other countries? and if not, why not?
Do your own research! Do you know?
Or are you arguing that the government should intervene in the operation of HMRC?
The Tory does not answer given it is circa 300 to 3200 and skewed against the poor so that not many of their chums get caught, and if they do they get away with it , only the poor are jailed.
At the heart of this debate is a fundamental belief on the left that it is impossible for an organisation to improve its performance while also cutting its budget. It is not. It is quite possible for HMRC to have reduced headcount through greater automation or reducing the amount of low-value add activities it undertakes, while ringfencing or enhancing its budget for high-value tax avoidance activities. Good management can be transformational. Whether or not that is the case, I don't know. Clearly you can cut too far.
One of the other positives about this Government is that they have shown real appetite for transforming the efficiency of government departments. That was something Labour badly neglected - for years Brown denied it was necessary or possible, before belatedly becoming a convert when he needed to include some efficiency savings in his budget. But Labour ministers never had that necessary zeal or focus to drive through changes. Businesses have transformed the way they operate over the last ten years. Government is playing catch up.
I'm very willing to accept that it is misleadingly presented (possibly leading to erroneous conclusions) but, on the face of it, it does appear to be a misallocation of scarce resources
Not really true. The unemployment rate changed dramatically in the 70s. Prior to thatcher with the pursuit of full employment the total number (can't remember the %) was about 700 000, rising up to about 1.4m in 1978. Then when Thatcher came in it famously went up to 3 million and spent most of the time bouncing around in the 2s.
But I'm not talking about the Unemployment Rate (which is a SECONDARY measure of the economy). I'm talking about the primary measure - Employment Rate. It hasn't change. At all.
Something you're concluding far too much from based on 40 years of a single measure.
If the primary measures of an economy - Employment Rate and Growth rate - do not change AT ALL no matter what type or philosophy of government, the idea that government can do anything which improve them has no merit.
UK GDP Growth is ALWAYS roughly 2.5% on average. UK Employment Rate is ALWAYS roughly 73.5% on average.
This is at least since the 1950s for GDP and 1960s for Employment.
Nothing any government has done has changed these trends, the UK Economy always returns to this position from any short term movement.
It is the fundamental flaw of both the mainstream political establishment in the UK (and other countries) that they believe that they can change these fundamental measures.
Once you understand and accept this, you realise that government can never, ever make things better for the country as a whole.
OT. Very sad this morning to hear of the death of Professor Oliver Rackham, perhaps one of the greatest writers on the British Countryside. If you have never read his 'History of the Countryside' then may I suggest it would be well worth your while to hunt down a copy.
You really are in a world of your own, aren't you?
A record-breaking number of people are now in work,
It is something of an economic miracle and it has the unemployed of Europe beating a path to our door.
David, I know you mean well but you really do not live in the real world, you are of the "let them eat cake" philosophy. Do you ever look about you , there is for sure no economic miracle except for people who had plenty to start with, the poor and the working are worse off than previously.
@Flockers - How much extra money has the government recouped from all its initiatives around tax avoidance? It has significantly cut funding for HMRC which means that in practice it is far harder for money to be located and then collected. When will the government start recouping the money that has been supplied to the super rich via QE?
Largely, it cant.
Someone had the bright idea of joining the incipient European superstate, with a free movement of capital, goods and labour. The first of these is the important one here. The structure of the EU not only permits, but actively encourages businesses to move their offices to low tax counties, and to arrange their affairs within the EU in the most tax efficient way possible. When Boots moved its head office to Switzerland in 2007, under a Labour government, the government was warned it would cost the UK £100bn in tax revenue, and yet no one complained or acted to prevent it, why not, because they couldn't, it was legal under EU law.
QE has nothing to do with the EU. In fact, we were able to do it because we are not a part of the single currency. It has made the very wealthiest - the people who bankroll the Conservative party - richer than they have ever been before.
I believe it was the Conservative party that signed up to Maastricht ad the creation of the single market.
Yes, yes, I mean you have no real chance of getting it back, because the structure of the EU is designed to help people move money away from high tax areas to low tax areas, so any attempt to get that money back from "the rich" is going to fail.
You really are in a world of your own, aren't you?
A record-breaking number of people are now in work,
It is something of an economic miracle and it has the unemployed of Europe beating a path to our door.
David, I know you mean well but you really do not live in the real world, you are of the "let them eat cake" philosophy. Do you ever look about you , there is for sure no economic miracle except for people who had plenty to start with, the poor and the working are worse off than previously.
I like the timing of the attack on the feral fat that we are seeing this weekend from the Tories. After a week defending their poor, misunderstood, put-upon hedge fund backers it must be good to be back on more solid ground. Obese spongers to be punished, for it is they who have forced this country into penury.
Do you believe, in principle, that people should take responsibility for their own actions?
Rich people do not just need their bins emptied; their quality of life is also dependent on transport infrastructure, independent policing and justice systems, ensuring that all other members of their society having proper access to health and education. So come on: just pay your tax - it really is not too much to ask.
Even on their current "avoiding" number the top 1% pay for about a third of the country. The continued envy and cried to pay more is a little unedifying.
If I was a billionaire, even though I am British and proud of it, I wouldn't live in the UK, its so conspicuously despises the successful and especially the self made rich. It wants to ever take more money from them but is dismissive of their philanthropy and other good works. A man can start from nothing, building up a successful multi-billion pound business, give millions of pounds to charity, employ thousands of British workers, and yet the establishment looks at him with a sneer and a look of disgust contorting their collective face.
Yep, the super-rich are victims. I blame the feral fat.
"Nearly 300,000 taxpayers are forecast to contribute the equivalent of £45.9 billion in income tax between them by the end of this year, equivalent to £150,000 each. The amount they have paid has risen from 25 per cent of the nation’s tax bill when Labour came to power to 27.3 per cent this year.
The figures will be welcomed by the Conservatives, after repeated accusations from Labour that the party has given tax breaks to the rich."
A meaningless statistic. The rich are considerably richer than they were five years ago. The poor poorer. It also takes no account of the hike in VAT which disproportionately hits the poor
Indeed. There has never been a better time to be in the top wealth percentile:
All that chart says is that people with assets get wealthier during a period of asset price inflation. Accurate, but not very interesting.
The charts showing the net impact of government decisions are much more interesting. IIRC, the richest 10th did worst, followed by the 2nd richest, then the poorest and the 2nd poorest. No one in the middle did that badly, although I think (from memory) 5/6/7 (with 10 being the richest) did slight better than 3/4.
@Charles You mean that the heads of banks should carry the can instead of shrugging their shoulders and saying... "Not me, it was someone else's fault"?
Not really true. The unemployment rate changed dramatically in the 70s. Prior to thatcher with the pursuit of full employment the total number (can't remember the %) was about 700 000, rising up to about 1.4m in 1978. Then when Thatcher came in it famously went up to 3 million and spent most of the time bouncing around in the 2s.
But I'm not talking about the Unemployment Rate (which is a SECONDARY measure of the economy). I'm talking about the primary measure - Employment Rate. It hasn't change. At all.
Something you're concluding far too much from based on 40 years of a single measure.
UK Employment Rate is ALWAYS roughly 73.5% on average.
This is at least since the 1950s for GDP and 1960s for Employment.
@CarlottaVance How much tax has HMRC collected from information contained in the stolen files? Does this compare favourably as a percentage with other countries? and if not, why not?
Do your own research! Do you know?
Or are you arguing that the government should intervene in the operation of HMRC?
I like the timing of the attack on the feral fat that we are seeing this weekend from the Tories. After a week defending their poor, misunderstood, put-upon hedge fund backers it must be good to be back on more solid ground. Obese spongers to be punished, for it is they who have forced this country into penury.
Do you believe, in principle, that people should take responsibility for their own actions?
In principle, yes I do. But I also believe that their actions are not independent of a variety of factors that lie beyond their control and that demonisation and punishment are not the most effective ways to help them - though I do understand that politically it plays well.
The polls suggest a 6% swing to labour in England.
And then I look at the real world. A local election in Shropshire where there is a swing to the conservatives.
Whenever there has been a real election since 2014, the polling has been a shockingly poor indicator of the result.
And that is why the betting markets aren't enabling certain backers of the left to be in clover
I cannot believe that anyone is still trotting out the "All the national polls must be wrong because of what has happened in a local by-election with a 25% turnout" Absolutely unbelievable, for your own sake I hope you don't play for high stakes on your political bets!
@CarlottaVance How much tax has HMRC collected from information contained in the stolen files? Does this compare favourably as a percentage with other countries? and if not, why not?
Do your own research! Do you know?
Or are you arguing that the government should intervene in the operation of HMRC?
It should fund the HMRC so that it has the tools it needs to do the job we all need it to do.
Since a large proportion of HMRCs work is data processing and collection, they're a department that really should be doing more for less, given the advances in computing power, storage and data mining.
@Flockers - How much extra money has the government recouped from all its initiatives around tax avoidance? It has significantly cut funding for HMRC which means that in practice it is far harder for money to be located and then collected. When will the government start recouping the money that has been supplied to the super rich via QE?
Largely, it cant.
Someone had the bright idea of joining the incipient European superstate, with a free movement of capital, goods and labour. The first of these is the important one here. The structure of the EU not only permits, but actively encourages businesses to move their offices to low tax counties, and to arrange their affairs within the EU in the most tax efficient way possible. When Boots moved its head office to Switzerland in 2007, under a Labour government, the government was warned it would cost the UK £100bn in tax revenue, and yet no one complained or acted to prevent it, why not, because they couldn't, it was legal under EU law.
QE has nothing to do with the EU. In fact, we were able to do it because we are not a part of the single currency. It has made the very wealthiest - the people who bankroll the Conservative party - richer than they have ever been before.
I believe it was the Conservative party that signed up to Maastricht ad the creation of the single market.
Yes, yes, I mean you have no real chance of getting it back, because the structure of the EU is designed to help people move money away from high tax areas to low tax areas, so any attempt to get that money back from "the rich" is going to fail.
Switzerland is not in the EU. We are also a member of the EU and so have the capacity to do something about it, if we chose to.
I'm very willing to accept that it is misleadingly presented (possibly leading to erroneous conclusions) but, on the face of it, it does appear to be a misallocation of scarce resources
Not really true. The unemployment rate changed dramatically in the 70s. Prior to thatcher with the pursuit of full employment the total number (can't remember the %) was about 700 000, rising up to about 1.4m in 1978. Then when Thatcher came in it famously went up to 3 million and spent most of the time bouncing around in the 2s.
But I'm not talking about the Unemployment Rate (which is a SECONDARY measure of the economy). I'm talking about the primary measure - Employment Rate. It hasn't change. At all.
Something you're concluding far too much from based on 40 years of a single measure.
UK Employment Rate is ALWAYS roughly 73.5% on average.
This is at least since the 1950s for GDP and 1960s for Employment.
I think we can both agree that QE would not happen without government support and that on balance it was necessary. Where we seem to disagree is on whether this Tory-led government could do more than it has to ensure that a far larger part of the additional wealth that has been handed on a plate to the super-rich is returned in the form of taxes.
With respect SO, we can't even agree to disagree! I think the Government could be doing more. It always can. But what exactly are you suggesting? It's very hard to target taxes at the "winners", impossible to distinguish between "producers" and "predators" as Miliband naively tried to do. This Government simplified CGT to remove reliefs that meant many of those benefiting from inflated asset prices were paying very little tax. It increased stamp duty and cracked down on the use of corporate vehicles to mitigate stamp duty. It has set the upper rate of income tax at a level higher than Labour used for 98% of its time in power, while lifting millions out of the tax net. I am very open to suggestions as to what more government can do, but I have heard nothing sensible from Labour on this. And its interventions so far indicate it has little idea how markets operate, how incentives work or how much of the burden for funding its spending aspirations is borne by the "few" it so cheerily criticises.
@CarlottaVance You do seem to have a problem finding some statistics, were the ones in the article I linked to wrong, and if so, which ones should I believe?
All that chart says is that people with assets get wealthier during a period of asset price inflation. Accurate, but not very interesting.
The charts showing the net impact of government decisions are much more interesting. IIRC, the richest 10th did worst, followed by the 2nd richest, then the poorest and the 2nd poorest. No one in the middle did that badly, although I think (from memory) 5/6/7 (with 10 being the richest) did slight better than 3/4.
It is very interesting because the goal of QE is not to inflate asset prices, it is to introduce liquidity into the economy. That all the liquidity created was locked up in assets and never touched the real economy just meant it completely and totally failed.
The best way to introduce liquidity (and also the fairest) is to send a cheque to every individual with a current NI stamp. This money would create the necessary price inflation into the economy and through the multiplier boost growth in the short term.
As those were the two alleged goals of QE the fact it wasn't done and instead wealth was effectively transferred to the already rich, demonstrates the actual goal of the political establishment.
@CarlottaVance How much tax has HMRC collected from information contained in the stolen files? Does this compare favourably as a percentage with other countries? and if not, why not?
Do your own research! Do you know?
Or are you arguing that the government should intervene in the operation of HMRC?
LOL, scared they might come for you if they did
I hope you declare all those cash in hand minicab jobs to Prestwick airport Malky.
Comments
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31468781
Who has 'offended?' nobody. Are any conservative, liberal or labour backers being prosecuted for tax evasion? no
Everything that has been done is legal under the laws set out by labour, liberal and tory legislators in the last 20 years.
The state is bankrupt, and looking for someone else to blame. It is angry at people who have earned or husbanded their money better than the state ever could. It is seeking ways to steal that money.
Is it more legitimate to hate the rich [particularly when they're obeying the law]?
Having wealth doesn't make someone a legitimate target for loathing.
As I said below, when benefits and healthcare are taxpayer-funded, and health costs rise the worse and more prolonged a [self-inflicted] health problem, it is legitimate to consider personal responsibility when it comes to receiving benefits. Not only that, it's better for individuals to have the lowest level of health problems possible. Languishing on benefits and suffering every-worsening health is not a good choice for the individual or the taxpayer.
Edited extra bit: reply to Mr. Observer's post just above this: a complicated tax code is the problem. We should simplify it enormously, reducing loopholes and helping ensure not only that the dubious cannot avoid paying their fair share, but also that honest people do not accidentally transgress because the system's so damned complicated.
International agreement is also necessary. Threatening to blacklist British overseas territories is the act of a narrow-minded delinquent.
Off shore money can be spent even in the UK, it comes down to how you spend it.
An expert on these matters could help you out on the "tricks" and "wheezes".
Dave could have helped you out, but apparently he knows nothing about where his money came/comes from.
Ignorance is bliss.
"Ed Miliband has the negative Midas touch, but the real problem for Labour is that the entire front bench is a talent free zone. If ever there was a team capable of blowing it, it is this one!"
I agree with you. A month ago I'd not have been disappointed if the Tories had scraped in. They've presided over a large increase in my wealth and the tax demanded by them is pretty paltry. As one of their luminaries once said 'you've never had it so good' and for the reasonably wealthy that's true.
However Lord Fink and the 'dinner for donors' made me re calibrate my moral compass.
Most people are struggling and the sight of rich bankers pumping their money into the Tory party was a timely reminder that isn't the interests of the underclass that are being attended to. I don't know whether Labour will be any better but at least I trust their instincts.
In 2010 the 1% level earned £6,730 (which is £7,872 in current money), and yet the current income at the 1% level is £9,770, even if everything they bought was 20% VAT rather than 17.5% VAT, they are massively better off now than then.
Taking hundreds of thousands of earners out of income tax all together has made big difference.
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140206164307/http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/statistics/tax-statistics/table2-4.pdf
100% correct. So go with what you see whenever there is a real election.
Are you really saying a man who obeys the law and chooses to donate/give loans to a political party is such a horrid thing it should be abhorred? Is the same true of Lord Paul? Or Lord Sainsbury?
The alternative is complete state funding, which is vile indeed.
Demonising the law-abiding is a strange way to behave, but seems increasingly commonplace.
How are swings calculated? In a By-election result in the previous thread it was stated that there was a swing from UKIP to the Tories. UKIP are down 7% and the Tories up 1%. The Lib Dems and the Greens are up more, so does the 'swing' actually mean anything?
Bar Hill on Cambridgeshire (Con Defence)
Lynda Harford (Con) 787 (46% +1%)
Martin Hale (UKIP) 251 (15% -7%)
Fiona Whelan (Lib Dem) 238 (14% +6%)
Alex Smith (Lab) 235 (14% unchanged)
Claudia Roland (Green) 200 (12% +3%)
Conservative HOLD with a majority of 536 (31%) on a swing of 4% from UKIP to Con
This is particularly the case with C1s and C2s, a disproportionate amount of whom run their own small business/professional practice and will be the people who decide the election (as well as being prone to turning a blind eye to a bit of cash in hand themselves).
The Employment Rate in the UK has been roughly 75% for the last fifty years (possibly longer, I don't have figures to hand).
From mecantilism, through socialism, through Thatcherism, through Blairite patriarchism to coalition whateverism, it's not changed. There's the odd short term movement caused by shocks but other than that, it's just not moved.
Your misconception is not uncommon sadly. There is a great belief that governments can do things to change the long term "big" economic numbers. But that's just not true.
This is unfortunate, because when you realise that the big numbers can't be changed, you can focus on the conditions. If you realise this, you can run a very substantial minimum wage because you know it doesn't change the employement rate (this is trivial to understand due to price (in)elasticity), you can make companies pay Final Salary Pensions because not doing so is a state subsidy and requires taxation to meet state pension costs, you can have a Flat Tax System because the "incentives" government use DON'T EVER WORK.
The problem is that despite this being such a clear and fundamental truth, if you accept it, why do you need politicians and an establishment?
I remain convinced that the ordinary person will vote on matters like their costs, their jobs, their pensions, their taxes, their services, not those of 1% of the population they are not involved with.
Minority issues like the empty room handout and the tax affairs of millionaires are not the significant issues that most people will vote on no matter how much Miliband keeps going on about them in the hope that people will not notice his economic policies for the vast majority.
Trying to do it for more parties gets complicated, and where parties are new/gone it's even more so.
"So what, I don't use anything except having my bins collected and if it means my council tax is frozen at the still extortionate £1500 a year rather than going up 10% a year the more cuts the better.
"I'm fed up with being fleeced in council tax to pay for lazy public sector workers pensions which are higher than my pension"
"F*** Them, if they got off their a**es and worked they could provide things for themselves and not expect the rest of us to. When they end up picking up food from rubbish dumps like they do in Brazil I might start feeling sorry for them."
Such views will be more prevalent after a long period of economic gloom.
Almost all the better off think that they have managed to get where they are by dint of being smarter and working harder than the "others", and that luck, connections, and circumstances have nothing to do with it (actually true in some cases though not really the majority)
The poor by comparison, are poor because they lack these qualities.
On the other side, the Government has targeted those claiming excessive amounts of welfare, those who are improperly in receipt of welfare and waste in the system. Some of those interventions have been clumsy or inappropriate. I would cite removing the spare room subsidy without making appropriate allowance for disabled people or the structure of the housing market as being an example of a poorly considered policy. Although it is worth noting we have not seen the tens of thousands of homeless and destitute some were predicting. But these interventions are not designed to blame or to hurt those at the bottom. They are designed to ensure we have sustainable public finances for future generations and that work - the liberator of the impoverished - is properly incentivised. It literally beggared belief that non-working families were able to claim benefits equivalent to a working salary of £35,000+ - it had created a structural disincentive to work which in some parts of the country entrenched deprivation and destroyed the life chances of the next generations.
This latest policy is an extension of the previous work the government has done. It needs to be debated - one could well argue that the cost of withdrawing support for addicts in terms of increasing healthcare and policing/justice costs will outweigh the benefits. But the philosophy that people should be expected to take what steps they can to help themselves if they are to receive state support is a good one. Of course it leads to many cases of individual unfairness. Of course no system is perfect. But the alternative is no longer sustainable.
People are offended by social security scroungers, including those who legally claim huge benefits which are hard to justify. Likewise they are offended by people who appear to pay very little tax on huge incomes, whether that is through evasion or legal avoidance.
OK?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2945341/The-3m-bash-Dave-doesn-t-want-know-ANDREW-PIERCE-tonight-s-Tory-Black-White-Ball.html
100% correct. And often these people (bloody heroes in my book), live close to or rub shoulders with the type of people the tories are targeting. They see them living just as good a lifestyle for doing nothing.
If Osborne has any sense he will throw any spare cash at these people in the coming budget. Don;t freeze fuel duty. CUT IT. Don't freeze beer wine spirits duty, CUT it. CUT VAT.
The tories could still claim that if you want the rich to pay more, vote for us.
Because the rich are paying more than they did under labour
And there's no way EdM could impose further cuts on England to find bribe money for the SNP. His English backbenchers (not to mention the unions) will never allow it.
But that doesn't mean he wouldn't try it in desperation.
Someone had the bright idea of joining the incipient European superstate, with a free movement of capital, goods and labour. The first of these is the important one here. The structure of the EU not only permits, but actively encourages businesses to move their offices to low tax counties, and to arrange their affairs within the EU in the most tax efficient way possible. When Boots moved its head office to Switzerland in 2007, under a Labour government, the government was warned it would cost the UK £100bn in tax revenue, and yet no one complained or acted to prevent it, why not, because they couldn't, it was legal under EU law.
How out of touch do you need to be to write that?
A Labour MEP it would appear......
http://leftfootforward.org/2015/02/milibands-measures-for-tax-avoidance-beat-camerons-empty-promises/
I believe it was the Conservative party that signed up to Maastricht ad the creation of the single market.
Hows to make the super rich part with a little of their cash to make life better for the rest of us is a conundrum that is proving very difficult to solve.
Try to tax them and the money simply flees. It really is a difficult one.
I think the TV show secret millionaire is quite interesting. Asking wealthy people just to hand over vast amounts to the state to do whatever it wants with gets you nowhere.
But if you give wealthy people a stake in the enterprise they are supporting, they become much more generous.
Recognition (maybe even honours??) for tax paid might be an idea.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10102190/Donor-John-Millss-gift-to-Labour-avoided-tax-bill-of-1.5m.html
How much tax has HMRC collected from information contained in the stolen files?
Does this compare favourably as a percentage with other countries? and if not, why not?
You describe Ed as a "narrow-minded delinquent" and unfortunately that does chime with people. I'm in a minority here by quite liking Kinnock, and I voted for him. And the same goes for Darling had he made it to the top. But I basically see Ed as a shouty schoolboy. I can't see past the delinquent to consider the policies.
It may be an age thing to some extent, but will Ed ever grow up? Perhaps he has a problem with old people?
Time I fancy in relation to this thread for OGH to arrange a PB.com poll to gauge the collective wisdom of PBers as regards our expectaion of the GE Result in terms of seats for each of the major parties.
It is not entirely clear because there are systemic issues with HMRC's reporting, but HMRC estimated its compliance yield in 2014 to be £23.9 billion, an increase of £5.3 billion or 28% since 2012. That's not too shabby.
I don't understand your point about QE. Quite apart from it being a central bank policy (begun under Labour, of course) and not directly under the control of the Government, the purpose of QE is to support the whole economy. Governments of every colour across the globe implemented it in the face of an unprecedented demand crisis. Of course it distorts the market, and some of those distortions massively benefit the wealthy (eg increasing asset prices). The Government will recoup some of that through tax. But without it the consequences would have been massive job losses and a global depression.
There is a legitimate and interesting debate about whether QE will only serve to make the second crisis worse and whether we would have been better served in the long run just to take our medicine. By saving ourselves from a brutal readjustment we may have doomed our children (or possibly, ourselves!) to a far worse one, not least because we have encouraged parties like Syriza to believe that Governments alone can fund comfortable lifestyles.
I am not here to defend the super rich. I pay tax on all my income, and refuse to engage with financial advisers who pitch complex (lawful) tax avoidance schemes to me. I applaud every step any government takes to clarify the law on avoidance and crack down, fairly, on abusive schemes. I think the actions of some of the super-rich are devastating to the social contract on which we all depend. But I have not seen a single constructive idea emerge from HM Opposition to address this issue.
Rich people do not just need their bins emptied; their quality of life is also dependent on transport infrastructure, independent policing and justice systems, ensuring that all other members of their society having proper access to health and education. So come on: just pay your tax - it really is not too much to ask.
How many staff work on tax evasion, and how many deal with benefit fraud?
How much loss does each cost the country?
:-)
Or are you arguing that the government should intervene in the operation of HMRC?
Is it a bird?
Is it a plane?
No, its a point sailing right over malcolm's head......
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/britain-leads-clamp-down-on-international-tax-avoidance
https://www.gov.uk/government/policies/reducing-tax-evasion-and-avoidance
"Do your own research! Do you know?"
I am not very clever, I need people like you to show me which set of figures I should believe.
Workless households in UK fall to lowest level since 1996, ONS says
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/oct/29/workless-households-lowest-level-ons
"If Labour had presided over an economy that had added over 1 million jobs, reduced unemployment below 2 million and the jobless rate below 6% you would declare it an unalloyed success. I am pretty confident that you would even declare the rise of part-time working a vindication of Labour's policies........."
I was speaking to a policeman who told me that in his force in 2010 most voted Tory this time hardly any will. Though some reorganization was needed and welcomed their treatment by this government has been shabby.
This is the result of treating the public service-even the likes of the police-like they're leeches on the wealth creators. Tories have no understanding that society interconnects and there is nothing demeaning about public service. This I suspect is the reason why a relativelly successful government facing a poor opposition will lose.
I mean, are these figures real, or a commie plot?
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/its-time-to-bust-some-myths-about-benefit-fraud-and-tax-evasion-9520562.html
If I was a billionaire, even though I am British and proud of it, I wouldn't live in the UK, its so conspicuously despises the successful and especially the self made rich. It wants to ever take more money from them but is dismissive of their philanthropy and other good works. A man can start from nothing, building up a successful multi-billion pound business, give millions of pounds to charity, employ thousands of British workers, and yet the establishment looks at him with a sneer and a look of disgust contorting their collective face.
https://www.gov.uk/government/policies/reducing-tax-evasion-and-avoidance
One of the other positives about this Government is that they have shown real appetite for transforming the efficiency of government departments. That was something Labour badly neglected - for years Brown denied it was necessary or possible, before belatedly becoming a convert when he needed to include some efficiency savings in his budget. But Labour ministers never had that necessary zeal or focus to drive through changes. Businesses have transformed the way they operate over the last ten years. Government is playing catch up.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVdQ6A0IkDw
:dunderheed-watch:
UK GDP Growth is ALWAYS roughly 2.5% on average.
UK Employment Rate is ALWAYS roughly 73.5% on average.
This is at least since the 1950s for GDP and 1960s for Employment.
Nothing any government has done has changed these trends, the UK Economy always returns to this position from any short term movement.
It is the fundamental flaw of both the mainstream political establishment in the UK (and other countries) that they believe that they can change these fundamental measures.
Once you understand and accept this, you realise that government can never, ever make things better for the country as a whole.
RIP
The charts showing the net impact of government decisions are much more interesting. IIRC, the richest 10th did worst, followed by the 2nd richest, then the poorest and the 2nd poorest. No one in the middle did that badly, although I think (from memory) 5/6/7 (with 10 being the richest) did slight better than 3/4.
You mean that the heads of banks should carry the can instead of shrugging their shoulders and saying... "Not me, it was someone else's fault"?
I've been trying to find the stats & can't!
You do seem to have a problem finding some statistics, were the ones in the article I linked to wrong, and if so, which ones should I believe?
The best way to introduce liquidity (and also the fairest) is to send a cheque to every individual with a current NI stamp. This money would create the necessary price inflation into the economy and through the multiplier boost growth in the short term.
As those were the two alleged goals of QE the fact it wasn't done and instead wealth was effectively transferred to the already rich, demonstrates the actual goal of the political establishment.
In 2010, the Conservatives were the opposition, so swing-back worked against them.
This time they are the government, so it should work for them.
And they have SNP/Greens on their side.
All they've got to do is convince enough Kippers...