Chesterfield Online Forum
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: Pete on May 05, 2012, 04:54:14 PM
-
Just reading a letter from Michael Meacher MP about the Sunday Times Rich List, published last weekend.
It shows that the richest 1,000 persons, just 0.003% of the adult population, increased their wealth over the last three years by £155bn. That is enough for themselves alone to pay off the entire current UK budget deficit and still leave them with £30bn to spare.
Also, this mega-rich elite, containing many of the bankers and hedge fund and private equity operators who caused the financial crash in the first place, have not been made subject to any tax payback whatever commensurate to their gains.
Their wealth now amounts to £414bn, equivalent to more than a third of Britain's entire GDP.
The increase in wealth of this richest 1,000 has been £315bn over the last 15 years.
Taxes? It seems that Osborne takes the notorious view of the New York heiress, Leonora Helmsley: "Only the little people pay taxes.
:o >:(
-
POST DELETED AT USER'S REQUEST
-
>> The 14,000 people that earn over £1m, will pay almost the same ammount in tax as the 14 Million tax payers that earn up to £20,000.
Then they aren't paying enough.
*runs for cover*
-
POST DELETED AT USER'S REQUEST
-
>> ...those that have the ability to create jobs.
Cameron's argument two years ago. No chance with a flat-lined economy and no business confidence.
Lack of investment in this country cannot be laid at the feet of pensioners, the youth and a few dole scroungers - it is because our government is useless.
-
POST DELETED AT USER'S REQUEST
-
Wasting public money really pisses me off - if you knew about this £10,000s wastage WTF didn't you do something about it?
-
POST DELETED AT USER'S REQUEST
-
Interesting thread - thanks for posting Chris.
Leaving aside the individual example and common rhetoric - what would you specifically suggest Cameron should do?
-
POST DELETED AT USER'S REQUEST
-
>> Remove the 50% (soon to be 45%) bracket with immediate effect
Explain?
>> Anyone making job cuts in the council should be under the instruction/orders that should it be identified that they could have saved the same figure by purchasing products or services more effectively as they did by making someone redundant, they will be dismissed.
One of the best sentences I've ever read on these forums.
-
>> Anyone making job cuts in the council should be under the instruction/orders that should it be identified that they could have saved the same figure by purchasing products or services more effectively as they did by making someone redundant, they will be dismissed.
One of the best sentences I've ever read on these forums.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
It's been tried many times in Local Government, such things as CCT, Best Value and Gershon. But at the end of the day the same people who screw up are the ones who then check to see if they screwed up. And before you say it independant scrutiny such as the Audit commission are as bad.
I was told on any number of occasions that I couldn't use certain companies as suppliers because they weren't of sufficient 'standing' to supply the council.
-
Chris, a man of my own heart indeed.
Though I don't agree with everything you've said.
Child Benefit: In my opinion it, nor any other form of benefit should be paid out to people who are high earners. Benefits are there for those in need, and someone earning over £40K is not in need. Furthermore, I would restrict it to the first 2 children. This doesn't need to be applied retrospectively, but if they said for example that as of next April, any child born that is not the first or second, won't receive CB, then taxpayers won't be funding peoples life choices.
Look at the family in Derby, in the news this week because they've been firebombed. Put that tragedy to one side, the father was called Britain's biggest scrounger, with 17 kids all paid for by us. Apparently he did a TV show with Anne Widdecombe and she found him a job, but he never turned up. But there is no justification for high earners being paid taxpayers money, unless its simply the fact that they should get something back for all the tax they pay, but that's the other side of the coin, once spending is under control, we need to see a massive reduction in the tax burden.
Another big story of the week was the paedophiles in Rochdale. The victims were mainly in care, that's an oxymoron, they got anything but care. But reading some of the reports oer the weekend, the cost of the care is appalling. Two of the girls were meant to be in individual care, ie a care home to themselves, and yet the carers just let them do what they want. Sometimes they would walk out for days and weeks at a time, so what exactly were the cares doing? Well the private companies running these homes were charging the local authority nearly £300K per year for one girl, and £200K for another. That's almost 10 times what it costs to send a child to Eton......and the LA just handed the money over, just like that. Absolutely appalling, and no doubt the people responsible won't feel any sanctions.
As Chris said, when it comes to making cuts, councils just go for the easier option of redundancies, instead of controlling their spending.
Other things Cameron should do;
As I said I would like to see a program of tax cuts. I would start with slashing fuel duty, followed by VAT on domestic fuel. These tax cuts benefit everyone, not just earners, and would also have a positive impact on inflation.
He should insist on massive reform of the EU, so bureaucratic, inefficient and full of frauds. Even their own accountants refuse to sign off the books because they don't know where the moneys gone. Cameron should refuse to pay anymore until every single penny can be seen to be spent wisely. And that also includes keeping afloat bankrupt economies. Everyone knows Greece is going to default and end up out of the Euro, this has been dragging on for 2 years and will drag on a lot longer yet, which means that banks and industry, not to mention the public, are massively lacking confidence to spend, billions are being hoarded because they are scared of the collapse of the Euro. Cameron should force the farce to end, if Greece wants to go bankrupt, let them do it in isolation. It will be tough, but its going to happen, so the sooner it does, the sooner we can start recovering.
He should do what he sad he would, and sort out immigration, which has actually got worse. This needs serious addressing. For years Labour told us we needed immigration because the hundreds of thousands that came here were not claiming benefits, they are working. well now we have 2.5 million British NOT working, so get them to do the work and send the immigrants home.
He could apply the same rules to other industries that he applies to the banks. The banks get in trouble so they get bailed out with billions of taxpayers money. This doesn't add to our deficit because its done "off the books", by means of a loan, the intention being that at some point, the bank shares will be privatised and we taxpayers get our money back. So why not use that argument to build a couple of new nuclear plants, Thames estuary airport, High Speed broadband infrastructure, water movement infrastructure, etc, etc, and create jobs along the way.
Massive reform of all the Quangos, he said he was going to get rid off but hasn't.
In fact, given more time, I could come up with lots of things he could do to help the countries economy....but he's busy thinking about Lords reform and gay marriage to worry about something as trivial as the countries finances.
-
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
It's been tried many times in Local Government, such things as CCT, Best Value and Gershon. But at the end of the day the same people who screw up are the ones who then check to see if they screwed up. And before you say it independant scrutiny such as the Audit commission are as bad.
I was told on any number of occasions that I couldn't use certain companies as suppliers because they weren't of sufficient 'standing' to supply the council.
Thats because there's no accountability while we have our "pretend" democracy. Some councils will always be Labour no matter what happens, and others will be always Tory. What we need is REAL democracy, real accountability, with people responsible being treated exactly as they would be if they were in the private sector, meaning people could be fired, (without all the perks) or even sent to prison if they don't do their job right. In the public sector, poor performance is rewarded even more so than it is in big business.
-
It's no better in the private sector - my brother in law served his apprenticeship at BAE and worked for them until in his late 50s when he was made redundant. Why? Because they needed to remain competitive in a diminishing market - i.e. their income had fallen, just like councils and they needed to be leaner, just like councils. BAE has laid off thousands of skilled workers across the country and it's costing the taxpayers tens of millions - Google it for the details.
The private sector is just as bad, jobs go first everytime, everywhere - bosses I know are still taking four holidays a year while laying off their staff. It all stinks, no matter where you look.
-
POST DELETED AT USER'S REQUEST
-
The motivation to do well comes from the fact that the more you earn, the more you take home, if we didn't have a penalative tax system, that is.
And its daft comparing it to the cost of a loaf of bread, you could take your arguemnt to the other extreme and suggest the likes of multi-millionaires should get tax credits, etc, In fact they do get the winter fuel allowance if they are pensioners. As for as I'm concerned, taypayers money should be used to help those in need, not to help people make life choices.
You give your own example, and I agree with you, its up to individual families to decide what they want, but if they choose to have kids, why should the state pay for that. I don't expect the state to buy me a bigger car or house, etc.
And the examples you give, however the monies split, they are hardly on the bread line.
But as you suggest, they shouldn't be penalised for doing well. Their reward comes because they have more in their pocket due to lower taxes being paid. Or do you think lower taxes should be funded by just penalising those at the bottom of the pay scale?
-
POST DELETED AT USER'S REQUEST
-
>> Either everyone should get it (for their first two children) or nobody should
I like this idea - I've always thought that two people have two kids - anyone wanting a large family should pay for it themselves.
-
Chris, I think we agree on the principles, (mostly, and certainly the flat tax idea has proven to be very successful around the world), but in relation to CB the issue is where you draw the line. Where ever that is there will be winners and losers, and while ever there are loses, someone will be finding an argument to change the principle.
I know you are new on here, but regular readers will confirm that I'm the last person that wants the rich to be treated worse than the rest, not that I am rich, but like yourself take a view that's less political and more economic, and looking at it from that stance it is ridiculous to penalise the rich or success. I've even dared to support bankers in the past. (Not everything they do though.)
Its good to have a bit of company amidst this blaggard of lefties. :) :) :)
-
POST DELETED AT USER'S REQUEST
-
>> Its good to have a bit of company amidst this blaggard of lefties.
I do hope you're not classifying me as a leftie - I admit to being on the side of the old, youth and certain other under-represented groups when called for an opinion.
I classify myself, on these forums, as a topic starter, that's all. ;)
And stop inventing new collective nouns! :P
-
:) :) :) :) :) :) Admit it, you was secretely in love with Gordon Brown......
Again I agree with what Chris saying about the backlash about taxes, but I think its more than just the waste in the public sector. I think people wouldn't mind a little hardship if it was genuinely for "the better good". Which is why the Tories didn't suffer much in the polls in the first two years, people know what needs to be done.
The problem is we are going through the pain without any of the gain. We are in recession not because of spending cuts but because of fear and lack of confidence due to all the financial mismanagement across the western world over the past 5 - 10 years.
In reality public spending is still increasing, and hardly a day goes by without we hear of more waste and incompetence. Councils go out and spend countless thousands on new branding, something I doubt was mentioned in any manifesto or discussed publicly, but as a consequence of tighter funding, people will get laid off. Thats why there's a backlash against the way politicians are running things.
-
>> Admit it, you was secretely in love with Gordon Brown......
You're kidding, I loathe the man - wouldn't trust him with our yard brush. >:(
Otherwise, I find myself generally agreeing with you again. Hard to believe I know... :P
-
Otherwise, I find myself generally agreeing with you again. Hard to believe I know... :P
Looks like this could be the start of a beautiful friendship?! 8)