Gordon Brown crashes the Labour Campaign....!

[tech_guy]

Watching Gordon today was like witnessing a car crash. We all slowed down to get a good look at the wreckage.

[mattx]

The problem is, if you push the rich too far, they simply up sticks and leave. We are in a global economy now. Monies, companies etc can move to more favorable countires at the drop of a hat. When it is reported that a multi-millionaire businessman paid 20p in tax last year he gets ridden rough-shod through the media. Imagine in that same person then up sticks and moves their entire business (that proberbly contibutes many millions per year to the UK economy) elsewhere. Simply screaming 'I want some of their cash because I'm poor' is not a relistic way of looking at things, even though many left-wing leaning politicos and media types like to portray it that way for their own purposes. What we should do is use available funds more wisely, because, and lets face grown up facts here, we as a nation are skint.

 

One min you say we are in a global economy, the next you say we are skint. Maybe we wouldn't if some of the companies and non-doms paid their tax - but hey the Lord Ashcroft's of this world want it both ways, they want a Tory Government but don't want to pay tax.........which is a typical 'I'm alright Jack' Tory attitude. Can't stand Tories, Can't stand Nu Labour, give the Lib Dems a chance, although I'm not a fan of Clegg's Tory background.

[Jamo]

The problem is, if you push the rich too far, they simply up sticks and leave. We are in a global economy now. Monies, companies etc can move to more favorable countires at the drop of a hat. When it is reported that a multi-millionaire businessman paid 20p in tax last year he gets ridden rough-shod through the media. Imagine in that same person then up sticks and moves their entire business (that proberbly contibutes many millions per year to the UK economy) elsewhere. Simply screaming 'I want some of their cash because I'm poor' is not a relistic way of looking at things, even though many left-wing leaning politicos and media types like to portray it that way for their own purposes. What we should do is use available funds more wisely, because, and lets face grown up facts here, we as a nation are skint.

 

Yes but is it a fair society where the rich can afford lawyers to get them out of paying tax? Or that people earning 70,000 get the same child tax benefits as those with less than 30,000? Its not about scamming the rich because they have done well. Its about not allowing unfair practices to continue amongst the elites. Why should they enjoy free will in society and freely laugh as they pay 3/4 of their would be tax bill to lawers so that they can get out of paying a penny in income tax to the country? Its madness how anyone can see it as anything but greed.

[DrCheese]

How often in our daily routines do we think that the people we work with are idiots, have done something stupid etc?

 

How would we like it if our personal discussions on them were publicised for all, especially the person in question could see?

 

Oui exactly, he's only human.

It's a shame but I can see this really damaging labours campaign, the right wing press won't let it lie.

Edited April 28, 2010 by DrCheese

[Dos_Box]

One min you say we are in a global economy, the next you say we are skint. Maybe we wouldn't if some of the companies and non-doms paid their tax - but hey the Lord Ashcroft's of this world want it both ways, they want a Tory Government but don't want to pay tax.........which is a typical 'I'm alright Jack' Tory attitude. Can't stand Tories, Can't stand Nu Labour, give the Lib Dems a chance, although I'm not a fan of Clegg's Tory background.

 

A gobal economy means that funds can be shifted very, very easily now from one part of the world to another electronically, just as goods and services can be ordered cheaply and quickly from abroad. It does not mean 'one economy'.

[torledo]

One min you say we are in a global economy, the next you say we are skint. Maybe we wouldn't if some of the companies and non-doms paid their tax - but hey the Lord Ashcroft's of this world want it both ways, they want a Tory Government but don't want to pay tax.........which is a typical 'I'm alright Jack' Tory attitude. Can't stand Tories, Can't stand Nu Labour, give the Lib Dems a chance, although I'm not a fan of Clegg's Tory background.

 

will it be enough for the libdems to take some disillusioned labour votes ? under the current system, surely they need labour to do reasonably well, or atleast after today a lot better than expectations now are.

 

we could well get to a situation where the libdems have talked themselves up and up as kingmakers, when infact the tories won't need their help to secure a majority in the end.....not saying that's the preferred outcome. but it would atleast wipe the smirk off nick clegg's mug.

[Guest Guest]

Apparently She said:

"you can't say anything about immigrants, all these Eastern Europeans, where are they coming from?"

Define:bigot

"a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his own"

"bigoted - blindly and obstinately attached to some creed or opinion and intolerant toward others; "a bigoted person"; "an outrageously bigoted point of view":

 

Cant see whats bigotted with that. From what ive seen and heard it was infact Brown who was the bigot by not accepting an opinion differing from his own

[DrCheese]

Just watched it.. Sky news had no right to release that given that Brown is in his parties PRIVATE car. I am all for freedom of information but come on.

[torledo]

Yes but is it a fair society where the rich can afford lawyers to get them out of paying tax? Or that people earning 70,000 get the same child tax benefits as those with less than 30,000? Its not about scamming the rich because they have done well. Its about not allowing unfair practices to continue amongst the elites. Why should they enjoy free will in society and freely laugh as they pay 3/4 of their would be tax bill to lawers so that they can get out of paying a penny in income tax to the country? Its madness how anyone can see it as anything but greed.

 

can't they just move their money somewhere else....or atleast have their earnings or be based in another jurisdiction ? there will always be places where they will be welcome.

 

london has actually done very well out of performing 'wealth management' for wealthy individuals and families. i'm sure the wealthy would rather not have all their income command punitive rates of taxation in the uk, and all the while they shift their money around and have it managed in london. plus, labour didn't get rid of the non-dom rule regarding foreign earnings...that's another reason why london is a favoured location for the foreign superrich. they aren't clobbered by taxes, and the tax authorities take a smaller slice of a much larger pie than it otherwise would have been.

[Dos_Box]

Indeed, the very wealthy also do the following things:

 

Employ people and pay wages + tax

Buy bigger 'toys' and pay tax on these

Invest their wealth in smaller companies and charities

 

And a whole host of other things that I've just forgotten..........

[localzuk]

Indeed, the very wealthy also do the following things:

 

Employ people and pay wages + tax

Buy bigger 'toys' and pay tax on these

Invest their wealth in smaller companies and charities

 

And a whole host of other things that I've just forgotten..........

 

The George W Bush administration in the USA used a 'trickle down' economic policy, ie. lower taxes on the rich lead to more investment and more income for the government. It was shown not to work, plain and simple.

[mattx]

A gobal economy means that funds can be shifted very, very easily now from one part of the world to another electronically, just as goods and services can be ordered cheaply and quickly from abroad. It does not mean 'one economy'.

 

Oh you mean like what happened 18 months ago with the banks and all that ?! Or when the banks are supposed to lend money to each other now, and they still arn't ? Thatcher and Regan got THEIR global economy alright when they got rid of the regulation back in the 80's, and now we are ALL paying for it.

But the most annoying part of all this is the fact that the warning signs were there but no-one did a thing !!

[tmcd35]

will it be enough for the libdems to take some disillusioned labour votes ? under the current system, surely they need labour to do reasonably well, or atleast after today a lot better than expectations now are.

 

Very roughly speaking (based on playing with 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

[AyatollahPies]

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.

[localzuk]

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

 

It wouldn't happen - LD have said they wouldn't work with Labour.

[DrCheese]

It wouldn't happen - LD have said they wouldn't work with Labour.

 

No, they've said they won't work with Labour and prop up Gordon Brown if they come third in the popular vote.

[Jamo]

Indeed, the very wealthy also do the following things:

 

Employ people and pay wages + tax

Buy bigger 'toys' and pay tax on these

Invest their wealth in smaller companies and charities

 

And a whole host of other things that I've just forgotten..........

 

So the wealthy should be given more benefits than those without wealth? Is that the way things work, ah then its my fault! I should have been born into one of those wealthy families then I would be able to pay less tax!!

 

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!

[GrumbleDook]

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!

[srochford]

Indeed, the very wealthy also do the following things:

 

Employ people and pay wages + tax

Buy bigger 'toys' and pay tax on these

Invest their wealth in smaller companies and charities

 

Be lovely if it was all true but frequently it isn't. Some of the very rich seem to do their utmost to employ as few people as possible and avoid the tax (Cameron has said they won't even have to pay tax if they're employing 10 or fewer people; you can see a lot of companies that used to have 100 employees suddenly becoming several small, 10 employee companies so they don't pay tax) If all the people who have become so rich under Thatcher, Blair and Brown were really employing so many people then we wouldn't have got to the state where half the population is employed in the public sector.

 

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.

[torledo]

The George W Bush administration in the USA used a 'trickle down' economic policy, ie. lower taxes on the rich lead to more investment and more income for the government. It was shown not to work, plain and simple.

 

sure, the trickle down thing is a red herring......but you have to look at the tax and regulation environment for wealthy individuals in totality. and how that shapes the economy of an area...

 

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.

[tmcd35]

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.

[teejay]

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%.

[localzuk]

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%.

 

Put it slightly differently - 53.6% of income is going to just 10% of the population... Whilst those lower down are earning squat.

 

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...

[teejay]

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?

[tmcd35]

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?

 

Actually my personal opinion wouldn't be too far off of that. Get rid of tax credits and personal allowances and significantly up the national minimum wage. At the other end of the scale there should be a national maximum wage - really can you justfy earning £250,000 per year?

 

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.