Today's demonstration

Not to the businesses that they have disrupted, or to the insurers who
will have to pay to repair their damage, or the tax-payer who has to pay
for the policing.

And before there's more bullshit from you about smashing capitalism the
insurance damage will impact people's pensions one way or another.

'Exercising his rights'; I wish people would spend more time exercising
their responsibilities.

Proportion's greater for the rest of us as well. Your point is what?
An attempt at an insult? Move on old man.

 

My wife and I were there and fall into the group above, walked with
the Royal College of Nursing, good opportunity to join others of a
like mind, have our say and emjoy the freedom to protest within the
law. Was great to see so many organisations and people from across the
public services mingling together without the sadly frequent
tribalism.

Yes, there were a number of, IMHO, poorly informed folks with a less
than well thought out argument.

Can I throw the first device please. These arseholes have highjacked a
wonderful occasion.

Brian

 

....

Sounds a plausible analysis.

 

And who are these 'other'?

Individual Bankers?
- Special tax on their bonuses
- Public pariahs
Doesn't really make the UK an attractive place to work in a global
industry and like it or not their tax is significant, lose the bankers
lose the tax.

'High earners'
- Tax of 51% (on highest earnings)
- No tax-free income from employment (from April the personal allowance
has been removed from them.

'Business'
- Raise corporate taxes... so that businesses set up shop elsewhere;
e.g. boots.

These other are... someone else. The demonstrators want someone else to
pay for the things that they want.

Come again?

So where is the motivation for people to work hard and make something of
themselves?

And even without a progressive tax scale the scheme you talk about
'someone earning five times as much only pays twice as much tax' simply
doesn't happen. Ignoring the effect of the personal allowance they pay
five times as much.

It's seen as something laughable, some old dead-beat trying to insult.

 

Still a good cause, though.

Indeed. However, it strikes me as fundamentally wrong that the current
imbalance between expenditure on the welfare state and the income
needed to sustain it is being restored almost exclusively by reducing
the former and not increasing the latter.

 

I imagine they come from all sections of society. The headline grabbers
will be the types you mention but I would be confident that freeloading
hooligans probably had a few out of all proportion to national figures.

In a sense yes but then that is what this society stuff is all about.
They could have been close on half a million strong when also making the
point that there are those who do pay what society asks of them and those
who don't and there is 24 billion pounds to be had from those who haven't
and should have.

I dunno what you kids call it today but back when I was doing it for most
of us it was called wages.

Not just the one I talk about, this is the basis of the scheme that we
currently have in place in this country, everybody talks about this one.

But it does and this is what the missing 24 billion part of the banner
waving is all about.

 

Cracking idea.

Never happen under this government though or any government with tories in
it really. Can't have the state doing stuff, it must be left to the
individual to manage his own private philanthropic efforts.

 

Hence the "almost" above.

Here we'll continue to disagree. I think it'd be equally logical, and
far more acceptable, to increase tax revenue, and even reduce other
public expenditure, as per ginge's second group.

It'd be a start.

 

If you're so altruistic maybe you might want to suggest a special
optional tax that altruistic people can pay to fund for the 'no cuts'
approach.

 

So what? Are you not allowed to have a view, a genuine concern / need
*and* a political view too? For goodness sake it is about time we have
some proper politics in this country with the voters being the people
who are genuinely concerned.

The problem with many of the Tory cuts is that they are based on
ridiculously simplistic views of the world and what can be done without
affecting public services. Eric Pickles is the prime exponent of such
drivel.

We *will* end up back where we were under Thatcher. We will have more
urban decay, we will have more people thrown on the scrap heap of
unemployment, we will have more crime and vandalism and we will have
more inequality as people have local services ripped away from them.
There will be public enquiries into failings in health, policing, social
services etc where the impact of this government's cuts will be direct
cause of what has gone on. The scale of cuts is such that statutory
provision of key services will be affected and then ministers will find
themselves in a very nasty place.

No government is perfect but Labour did put in place a lot of
initiatives that might seem fatuous to you or to me because we don't use
them. However they are lifelines to the people that do and are often
locally run small schemes that are supposed to be what doolally
Cameron's "Big society" is about. This government has no coherence or
logic when it comes to understanding what people need to live decent
lives with some level of help and support from the state. I don't buy
the angle that everyone can help themselves - they simply cannot do so
no matter how well intentioned or hard working they are.

I also fail to see how we cannot afford to take a different path about
raising the necessary money and properly targeting any required
reductions in expenditure. There are endless examples of really stupid
decisions that have been taken that will cost us a great deal of money
in the future.

 

Not sure where the figure of 24 billion comes from, a simple google on
24 billion london demonstration doesn't find it.

Care to illucidate?

Well if you hadn't snipped all context, no doubt to support your weak
arguments, then the point was what is someone's motivation to work
within a tax regime designed to be punitive.

Again, without context.

The point I made was if tax was at a flat rate on all income (as it
should be) then someone earning five times more would pay five times as
much tax. And... with our 'progressive' system someone earning five
times more pays progressively a greater proportion:

Consider someone earning 20k. Under todays scheme they pay 20% on
everything earned over 7475, 2505 quid.

Consider someone earning 100k. Under today's scheme they pay 20% on
everything between 7475 and 37400 and 40% on everything over 37400. In
total they would pay 31,025 quid.

So someone earning five times more pays more than 12 times more in tax.

And go further up the scale and you lose the personal allowance and drop
into rates of 50%.

So what, exactly, is the point you are trying to make?

See above. It's utter bullshit unless it's the great unwashed whining
about individuals earning large amounts who structure their finances
legally to avoid large tax bills (e.g. Philip Green).

 

I don't agree.

Oh really?

I thought VAT had gone up. I also thought that there were some tweaks
to the tax and NI ongoing that were going to increase the tax take from
higher earners.

And as to the balance being wrong; we're in this situation because we've
spent too much unsustainably. So the only logical solution is to cut
the excess spending.

Maybe we should add 1% onto the 20% band so then everyone pays
something.

 

Tax. There is 24 billion pounds in due tax (gummint figures I believe)
that has not been collected because of people being less than honest with
the taxman. The argument goes that the gummint have been exceedingly
prompt in turning off the cash supply tap and perhaps slightly tardy in
hanging drawing and quartering those who are on the fiddle or taking the
piss.

I have to confess that it seemed to me that for most of today when asked
about this a whole string of coalition spokesmen seemed quite surprised
that they were being asked what they were going to do about it because as
far they knew the plan involved setting up a select committee to discuss
it at some unspecified time in the future. It was all in the budget
speech.

A simple question and the right answer. This is one of these fundamental
underlying humanitarian truths here, it has **** all to do with context,
it just is.

The plane fare out? Money to fund the revolution in which the tax regime
is made more equitable? And any grey's in between.

Yes that is exactly how it should be under a progressive system but there
are a few naughty people who don't play the game like the rest of us do.
Enough of them that they are costing every citizen of this green and
pleasant land their share of the missing 24 billion the bill for which
because of the progressive nature of our system falls heavier on those who
pay a greater proportion of their tax like the loyal upstanding citizens
they are.

Poor old middle classes, there they are watching plod in concentrations
that should be arresting tax dodgers having to protect half a million wage
earners from less trouble than down Southend seafront on a Saturday night
in the summer season and they pay extra extra for it.

Capitalism should be treated like a bonsai tree.

The 24 billion bit is yeah but there are tax issues additional to it which
would warrant matters arising to be an essential part of the agenda for
the committee. to discuss.

There is other stuff as well. The cuts and changes have actually happened
very quickly and when that happens a lot of stupid doctrinal stuff creeps
in and we really don't need the stupid stuff right now for one. Measure
twice cut once is a transferable skill.


It was sponsored by the TUC so stopping immigration would be something
they would want to discuss. Although discuss is probably the wrong word,
they would demand it if they had any respect for the traditional aspects
of cultural stereotyping.

 

wrote in :

no wonder you are grumpy today: you've lost 2 hours sleep to BST. Check
your PC clock.

 

I'd happily cut the diplomatic service and the forces. And the numbers
of MPs, Lords and MEPs. Also MSPs and whatever the Welsh lot are
called.

 

TUC tax avoidance got me this. Which is probably what I am on about.

The exact sum no but mention was made of proposals to consider measures to
do something about tax collection in general was.

Really, you are telling me that wages is not the motivation for people
doing work?

I do have reservations about the working hard bit because if it were
fairer then some of us could work a lot less than we do and a few more
could get off their arses a bit more often than is habitual too.

Show me where. Other than minor discontents with the idea that there are
no practical limits to the rate at this might happen I have no issues with
wealth creation, it is inequality of distribution that gets me going.

Cor is it ever. And it is not some minor little skirmish between tribal
factions either, all of us are involved in this one. Why should we pay
more tax or suffer cuts in services when there is uncollected tax money to
pay for some of it just sitting there waiting to be collected?

 

<reads through>
So nothing whatsoever to do with "being less than honest" (which is
illegal), but by arranging your finances to minimise your tax bill (which
is legal).

I think the word which can be applied to that pamphlet is
"disingenuous"...

I strongly suspect another word which could be applied is "hypocritical".
Unless, of course, the TUC doesn't take steps to minimise the tax bills
of themselves and their supporters? Little things like arranging various
business activities of the organisation into registered charity (oops -
TUCaid, 299832; TUC educational trust, 313741) or encouraging GiftAiding
donations, so that the income tax already paid on those donations goes to
them rather than the exchequer? (oops - http://www.tuc.org.uk/extras/
giftaid.doc)

 

1) Google 24billion and budget. No mention relevant to the UK

2) For the first time ever the inland revenue have estimated my taxable
benefits of employment etc. and put these into my tax code for the next
financial year with the effect of improving the country's cash flow-
bringing in the tax during 2010/11 rather than putting it off until
collection at some point in 2012 as it would normally come in when I pay
what's due according to my tax return.

Well google 24Bn and budget speech then, if it was in the speech it
wasn't documented.

Rubbish. Utter and complete tosh.

Personally I want more people in this country willing to work hard and
create wealth. You seem to want to discourage this.

Again, please provide details of this 24 billion.

Ah, class war again. Yawn.

Ramble, ramble, ramble.

 

It's also rather unlikely.

I notice they didn't storm the offices of the Guardian.

Odd that, seeing as how it's a tax-avoiding offshore entity.