But the most annoying part of all this is the fact that the warning signs were there but no-one did a thing !!
BBC News - Election seat calculator) - Labour would need around 35% of the national vote for a majority, Torys around 40% and LD would need 42%.
Current poll of polls on Beeb put Tory's at 33%, Lab at 28% and LD at 30% so all of them falling very far short of their respected marks. These percentages apparantly give Labour the most seats from the smallest share of the votes but the LD's announce on Sunday they'll work with a Tory govenment (assuming the Torys agree to PR?) based on the percentage share of the national vote.
So current predictions would be a hung parliament with David Cameron as PM.
Given the percentages needed the LD's are never going to win outright the best they (we?) can hope for is a hung parliament. I'd personally hate to see the Tory's get a majority, but GB is certainly doing his bit to make it easier for them! I'd love to see a bit of a Labour bounce so we get a Labour-LD coellition, but that's looking very unlikely at the moment :(
This has made my day. I realise why Spitting Image called it a day now. They realised that the politicians are lampooning themselves these days.
I'd have an ounce of respect for Gordy if he hadn't apologised, and in fact stood by his opinion.
I just don't get it, we shouldn't bash them for being wealthy but they shouldn't be able to get out of these things. Also things like plane tax.... its on per person.. so a plane carrying a full load of packages but no passengers it is taxed almost nothing but a plane full of passengers is taxed more? Surely we should be encouraging the use of full passenger planes?!?!? I swear things are backwards!
With the wealthy it is a tough balancing act. One one side you need to tax them a certain amount because they have more available funds ... and it varies how they got this money. In ages gone past you could say that it was down to privilege and nobility ... and money was inherited ... so it was not earned through hard graft (or at least not that of the rich supposedly), but those days are gone and we are still in a position of where we view the rich as the bad ... unless they have become rich because they are a rock star, footballer or have made it big on reality TV.
The thing about the rich ... we need to get just enough money out of them to be a healthy contribution to the pot on an individual basis, but also make it enticing enough to stick in the country, keep their money in the country and keep jobs here too. It can work out that by leaving some of the tax loopholes it costs a few million to the tax pot from rich individuals but increases the other pots by tens of millions.
I know it is an over-simplifiaction and that you can go to lots of newspapers to see different variations of the figures, but most will only do the sensationalist stuff ... and gloss over how the figures work.
I honestly can't remember where the quote is from but it is something like dealign with cows ... trying to get the most milk with minimum moo!
They might buy bigger toys but so many of them will magically find ways to make them company assets and avoid paying VAT and the income tax they could have paid because these purchases are offset against profits.
There are some rich people who put huge amounts of money into charity - Bill Gates is a good example - but on the whole, poor people give a much higher percentage of their income to charity.
it isn't simply the amount of taxes paid in the UK that has made london a top financial centre.....but i think the non-dom rule has been significant in wealthy foreginers choosing to base themselves here.
and there's no doubt they bring their money with them.....that's not to say it does trickle down, but it has helped to boost this wealth management industry and financial services.
i'd say it's crumbs falling off a very rich cake. the crumbs going to those who stick near the cake.....
and those crumb eaters service the financial and leisure needs of the rich.
you could argue that paying full tax wouldn't stop the niche services and businesses from continuing to do business....the posh boutiques, the luxury car dealers, the high end interior designers, the wealth managers, the premium property developers. But it has to be agreeable tax environment in the first instance which put london in the position it's in now....raising taxes now might not make much of a material difference only becuase it's position is well set, and the plusses outweigh the cons as far as the option of moving away.
but if a non-accomdative tax and regulation policy was pursued in the beginning would companies and individuals not have flocked elsewhere ? that's why there must be a significant reason why they won't touch the non-dom tax.
All this talk of over taxing the rich, filling in tax loop holes, etc reminds me of me way I agree with UKIP's stance on tax. I think the major problem with the tax system is it's too complicated. But of course that's the way the major parties want/need it to be. For Labour the more complex the tax system is the easier it is for them to hide stealth taxes and take more from us. The Tory's on the other hand have their paymasters to consider. The more complex the tax system is the more loopholes there are for the super-rich's lawyers to pick through to unfairly reduce their clients tax burden.
One of UKIP's policies (the one I agree with) is to combin NI and Income Tax into one Flat Rate Income Tax. Everybody pays the same, percentage whys, it's simple, easy to understand and we all know where we are. Sure they are just two of meny different taxes levied but it's a good example of an existing tax system that is a little more complex than it probably needs to be.
This is quite interesting snippet-
The top 10 per cent of earners are already set to pay 53.6 per cent of income tax in 2008-09; the top five per cent will pay 43 per cent and the top one per cent 23.9 per cent. Yes, that’s right, just one per cent of the population will pay close to a quarter of the total income tax take, funding a massive chunk of the welfare state.
So basically, drive the top 10% earners out of the country and our income tax payments more than double, drive the top 1% out and income tax for the rest of us goes up 50%.
Also, one of the reasons those people are in the country in the first place is because it is a good place for them to earn the income to pay tax on in the first place. Sure, the could all move to Somalia, and pay no tax, but would they do well there? No...
So basically your solution is that everyone in the country, no matter what they do, gets exactly the same income? Nice idea, but why would any of us work then?
Of course that's just fantasy and is pretty much unworkable, especially in the financial sector. Nothing'll drive the top 1% away quicker than putting a cap on how much they can leagly earn. Sociallism is a nice ideology until it meets capitalism.