This story just won't go away will it? Today, 30 "expert" economists have called for the 50p rate of tax to be abolished at the "earliest opportunity" to boost growth.
Despite there being no reason to suppose that cutting the 50p rate would actually boost growth at all, I think George Osborne should definitely do it.
It seems that on the whole, the UK public are oblivious to the disasters our coalition are cooking up. The NHS can be privatised, the gap between rich and poor widened, unemployment can rise, hospital waiting lists can go up, soldiers, police officers, fire fighters and nurses can all lose their jobs, university can be made unaffordable for most, our welfare state can be all but dismantled but at some point, something must surely filter into the public consciousness?
What better than showing people that as their living standards fall, they can't afford to buy or rent a home, VAT is up, inflation is making everything they buy more expensive and their wages stagnate, our politicians want to give the richest 1% in our society a tax cut!!
Surely nothing else could show people just how hopeless those in charge of our lives are? How few ideas they have, how out of touch they are, how contemptuous they are of ordinary people and how little they know about real life?
Go on George I dare you. As the economy tanks give your rich buddies a tax break. Stand up at the ballot box when you deliver your next budget and try to explain to the UK public how giving rich people a few more quid to spend will help. You can try outlining the Laffer curve or the trickle down effect - I'm sure they'll take it well.
I couldn't agree more - cut 50% rate of tax? Let's remember the risible statement 'we're all in this together'ReplyDelete
I don't know why there seems to be such apathy. Perhaps there isn't, but people are too busy fighting their own corner? The only time the people really get to say what they think is the ultimate sanction of a general election.ReplyDelete
Online communication helps, I think. A letter-writing campaign to MPs is quiet, but when it is organised and monitored by a group like 38 Degrees, it gets seen. Seems to have gotten up Lanlsey's nose to get a mention in Parliament. Some hope there.
I also think folk have too much faith in the engines of government. The thought that someone will 'do something' so they don't have to. The Brits aren't going to take to the streets unless something really riles them.
I don't know. There are so many possible causes. Most of the time I'm afraid I settle for the idea that people are just plain stupid.
The problem is yachts, private islands and large estates; second, third mansion homes etc. are also going up in price and the rich are feeling a little less wealthy. If the sheeple could only be persuaded to work longer hours for less pay and more TAX the problem would be solved. :>)ReplyDelete
"We are still all in this together"ReplyDelete
Thats why we are going to dismantle the NHS, cause we are all in this together.
Thats why we are cutting mass loads of local services, cause we are all in this together.
Thats why we are re-struturing the Welfare system, cause we are all in this togeter.
So there you have it straight from all the horses mouths, we are still all in this together.
It's odd how socialists never protest about what David Beckham or Robbie Williams earns but business people are all 'fat cats' who are 'paid far too much'.ReplyDelete
Why? Because they perceive value in the output of entertainers but because they don't understand business or what business leaders do, they have no method of appraising their worth or contribution. They're just boring men in suits.
The reason business leaders earn much more than most people is that they have high end business skills that others don't. I'm not talking about using a photocopier. I'm talking about highly-skilled negotiators who have the ability to make incredibly shrewd strategic business decisions that end up creating thousands of jobs and multiplier wealth effects for the economy.
Socialists would love to strip everyone down to the same level of mediocrity (the 'ordinary people' that they are always mentioning) but the fact is not everyone is ordinary.
A lot of these people don't have to live in the UK. They could take themselves and their tax liabilities elsewhere. If we need to cut tax to encourage them to stay, then so be it.
Could anonymous be any more patronising? I've taken on directors in a billion pound turnover company and fought them to a standstill in head-to-head meetings. They don't seem that different to me. More willing to shiv someone in the back, yes, but still just another human being.ReplyDelete
Certainly I have more respect for their financial acumen than David Beckham, but that's just a case of specialisation and right man for the job, I certainly wouldn't want any of them taking the field for England....
The problem with the wealthy, as Warren Buffet pointed out so eloquently just a few weeks ago, is that they pay a lower proportion of their income as taxes than do any other group, in fact the less well off pay most pro rata. The wealthy are, to be blunt, not pulling their weight. Things like 50p tax rates serve to narrow that advantage of theirs, but only to narrow it. Warren Buffet pointed that out in America, a whole horde of the French wealthy have echoed his call for the ultra-rich to be taxed far more extensively, why hasn't anyone in Britain's bonus-loving classes taken up the baton?
anonymous at 19.52ReplyDelete
Lol, thank you so much for reminding me of the specialness, nay, the superhuman intelligence, wait, wait, the astute uniqueness of our great, thrusting, aspiring, entrepreneurial business and financial sector, who never ever (no never) plundered all our wealth, gambled our futures, lied, cheated , avoided tax ,kept wages low, piled it high to sell it cheap.....
Sheesh, unless you have several SMEs or own a FTSE 100 company or something, there is absolutely no excuse for spouting that kind of blind, misguided nonsense out loud.
Wow, did an entrepreneur bully you as a kid?ReplyDelete
Let's examine of the statements here.
"They plundered all our wealth" and "gambled our futures".
Some banks were part Nationalised because to allow them to go bust would have been worse.
They were in that situation because the banking industry gave mortages to people that couldn't afford to repay them. In other words, it lent large sums of money to people with little income, and no assets, because it believed that since house prices were rising, it could always sell the asset to recoup its loan should the loan go bad. At the time that was considered a valid risk model based on the evidence available. If it wasn't considered a reasonable model then no bank would have done it because they wouldn't risk serious damage to their capital base. It's as simple as that. All businesses take risks, from the greengrocer buying apples that he might not be able to sell to the financial industry making loans. Without risk, there would be no mortgage market. People who never be able to buy houses.
It's all very well to sit here after the fact, and say, "Ooh, those nasty, greedy bankers," but
no-one came forward at that time to say "this is a bad thing". Members of the public weren't out demonstrating in the streets at five-times-your income-and-no-deposit mortgages. Politicians weren't warning of dire risks. Everyone wanted to own their own home, regardless of whether they had any justification for thinking thinking they could afford it. Now, I ask myself whether the real cause of the Crash was bankers thinking "Hell, yeah! Let's put the country's future and the future of our employer on number 6 red!" or was it the fault of the people who took out loans they patently couldn't afford. Did I buy a house I couldn't afford? No. Why not? Because I have a brain.
Incidentally, entrepreneurs don't 'keep wages low'. They create jobs. Without them there would be more unemployment. And 'avoiding' tax is done by 'ordinary' people every day. It's what you do when you open an ISA, or buy Premium Bonds or make a Will or buy National Insurance contributions. Minimizing tax liability is a normal part of life. With the well off, it's just a different scale. There's no difference in principle.