The 2015 Popularity Contest (aka UK General Election )

[roydo]

They lowered it from 17.5% to 15% when the recession was really starting to bite. Didn't take long for the Tories to push it up by a 1/3rd.

Oh, and Darling increased it back to 17.5%.

 

[Mrk]

They lowered it from 17.5% to 15% when the recession was really starting to bite. Didn't take long for the Tories to push it up by a 1/3rd.

In the interests of factual correctness, Labour increased it back to 17.5% shortly thereafter.

 

[daylightrobber]

Well the nil rate band almost doubling could be argued benefits the poorer more than the rich. As a % of income and all that. I reckon the tax take is about maxed out if I am honest, and there have been quite a few tax changes that do hit the wealthy pretty hard. And I am not on about the non doms and squillionaires, I mean those earning £100-200k. The effective rate for some one on about £130k is something close to 60%.

Doesn't benefit those already earning below the threshold

 

[roydo]

Doesn't benefit those already earning below the threshold

No, it doesnt. Which includes me and Mrs R.

 

[Mrk]

It's why the "taken out of tax altogether" argument from the Tories holds no water - they haven't been; they've simply been taxed harder elsewhere. Living standards are through the floor not just because of Income Tax.

At the very least, in the interest of fairness, the poor and rich alike should be taxed identically - which means that in a period of austerity, the rich should be paying 43% alongside the poor if using the above figures.

Arguably, the rich should be taxed more, as the burden on them in relation to living cost is a lot more tolerable. But to suggest the current system is "fair" in any way, shape or form is just mind-boggling to me.

That's politics for you.

My instinct is to tax people less. Instead of bringing the amount the rich pay up to 43%, I'd just radically slash the amount of tax the poorest 10% pay. I really do see no reason why anybody on low pay should pay any kind of income tax or national insurance - it is just as exploitative as businesses who exploit the low paid.

I'm okay to an extent with VAT, ideally it wouldn't exist but that's fanciful.

 

[roydo]

I really do see no reason why anybody on low pay should pay any kind of income tax or national insurance - it is just as exploitative as businesses who exploit the low paid

Totally agree.

 

[The Esk]

He wouldn't if he's a laissez-faire advocate, which I'm 99% sure he is

Whilst this is true, the policy of laissez-faire would be implemented by the executive i.e. politicians. Therefore it is entirely fanciful to say that politicians do not "control" the economy. Using an extreme example, if politicians had no control over the economy why is North Korea not as wealthy as South Korea?

 

[daylightrobber]

In the interests of factual correctness, Labour increased it back to 17.5% shortly thereafter.

The fact remains that Labour used VAT as a tool to relieve the pressures of a recession and to boost the economy, whilst the tories used it as part of an ideological attack.

 

[Mrk]

The fact remains that Labour used VAT as a tool to relieve the pressures of a recession and to boost the economy, whilst the tories used it as part of an ideological attack.

I like the way you start your post by saying it is a "fact" before making a statement that is patently not a fact by any definition of the word. Doesn't bode well if you can't get that right, does it?

The reason for increasing VAT wasn't an ideological attack, it was for the following reason: "The advantage of VAT is that it brings a lot of money, it would have allowed you to do a lot to take down the deficit but also given you money to spend on things that actually matter.".

Oh, and that quote is from Alistair Darling, explaining why he also wanted to increase VAT to reduce the deficit.

Horrible Labour ideological attacks, eh.

 

[daylightrobber]

I like the way you start your post by saying it is a "fact" before making a statement that is patently not a fact by any definition of the word. Doesn't bode well if you can't get that right, does it?

The reason for increasing VAT wasn't an ideological attack, it was for the following reason: "The advantage of VAT is that it brings a lot of money, it would have allowed you to do a lot to take down the deficit but also given you money to spend on things that actually matter.".

Oh, and that quote is from Alistair Darling, explaining why he also wanted to increase VAT to reduce the deficit.

Horrible Labour ideological attacks, eh.

Did you read the article you linked to before forming that argument? It quite clearly states that the boss man vetoed any plans to raise VAT.

 

[Mrk]

Did you read the article you linked to before forming that argument? It quite clearly states that the boss man vetoed any plans to raise VAT.

Yes. Darling was setting out why increasing VAT allows you to cut less and also provides extra revenue to the exchequer. He didn't want to increase VAT to attack people, he wanted to do it so he could make shallower departmental cuts, which is exactly what happened.

 

[ToffeeDoug]

In the interests of factual correctness, Labour increased it back to 17.5% shortly thereafter.

But the cut was only ever meant to be temporary and flagged up as such beforehand.

 

[Mrk]

But the cut was only ever meant to be temporary and flagged up as such beforehand.

Yep.

 

[daylightrobber]

Yes. Darling was setting out why increasing VAT allows you to cut less and also provides extra revenue to the exchequer. He didn't want to increase VAT to attack people, he wanted to do it so he could make shallower departmental cuts, which is exactly what happened.

It took us into a double dip recession is what happened. Or maybe that was the pasty tax.

 

[Clint Planet]

Yes. Darling.

What, honey?