Reply to: The modern Robin Hood, King of Thieves

[AtW]

The 2015 election was all about choosing which party was lying the least - and just how damage would be caused before they faced the hard reality.

There is only one fair way to do it - overall budget reduction by X% for all spending - no ring fencing. That's the fair way - phase in 20% reduction in spending over 5 years (say 4% each year), perhaps with increase in VAT from 20% to 25%, also by 1% per year.

What's the point in reducing Govt debt when people have no disposable income, so they get into crazy personal debt? People should have more money in their pockets to decide themselves what they will spend it on.

[AtW]

No, it's just that Labour wouldn't have had any other choice, just like the Tories didn't.

Oh, no choice in cutting expenditure?

I do contribute into a pension, so I am very annoyed by this proposal - just I don't think for one moment that Labour would have left such a huge cash cow alone, when the humongous hole in their budget became apparent - re-instating the 50% tax band and a couple of percent on corp tax would barely have put a scratch in it.

Well that would be better for me than what Tories did so far, that would have increased tax on dividends but not as much as Tories, and what would stop Labour getting their 50% next time? Tories just made it a lot easier for them, yes the same Tories who said they wanted 40% tax instead of 50% and blamed LibDems for not allowing this to happen!

You tell me, what exactly stopped Tories to increase taxes so much when they were in coalition with LibDems, do you think LibDems would have been against increase in taxes??? I doubt it. Tories just played a nasty game of blaming inability to cut taxes and cut expenditure on LibDems, but now when they got reelected they pursue totally different path - high taxation... all for what? For Osborne to be elected as PM - his whole game is timed to make that happen and I say it's completely wrong approach for which he had no mandate.

[centurian]

Ok, let's say Labour were planning to do it... but that's Labour, not Tories right?

If Tories doing what Labour planned then what's the point in Tory Govt???

More importantly - whatever taxes Tories increase will increase even further under Labour, because we know Labour always does it, so that makes it even more important for Tories to actually be CUTTING TAXES, not increasing them.

If Labour did all tax increases that Tories are doing now then, well, that would be what's expected of Labour, I just can't see the point of Tories if they do same tulip as Labour.

No, it's just that Labour wouldn't have had any other choice, just like the Tories didn't.

They can all promise whatever they like - when cold hard reality hits - none of that matters.

You only ever get a real choice when you have plenty of dosh available - the 1997 election - and maybe the 2001 election. When you are up to your eyeballs in debt, the amount of choice narrows to a tiny margin.

Syrizia in Greece - the hardest left part of Europe are doing things more right wing than Thatcher - not because they want to - but because the alternative is worse.

The 2015 election was all about choosing which party was lying the least - and just how damage would be caused before they faced the hard reality.

I do contribute into a pension, so I am very annoyed by this proposal - just I don't think for one moment that Labour would have left such a huge cash cow alone, when the humongous hole in their budget became apparent - re-instating the 50% tax band and a couple of percent on corp tax would barely have put a scratch in it.

[AtW]

Because if you believe in progressive income taxes, I'm not sure I do, then allowed wing the wealthier to build up a bigger pot, reducing the tax that they pay and then only paying 20% tax, if any, when they retire is not fair on the lower paid of our society.

This word fair... fair is EQUAL, that's fair. Everything else is populism and lies.

Fair is to have flat rate tax.

Fair is to have opportunities to get rich, which this country provides (albeit taxes very heavily that one asks the question if it's worth going on after certain point).

Fair is also putting politicians in jail for political fraud - making promises and failing to fulfil them, or not providing material information on what they will do when elected.

[AtW]

It makes no sense to keep spending and borrowing as we are/have been, spending has increased each year since 2010 despite what we are led to believe.

Yes spending increased even though Tories had mandate to cut it! Ok, they were able to blame LibDems for it, but now it's clear the last administration was actually pretty fooking sensible compare to majority Tory Govt, and by the way the problem of getting deficit under control was far more accute in 2010 than it is now.

[Waldorf]

Lies, they had plans, only not to do it as fast as Gidiot promised (and failed) - he is trying to time it for his own election as PM in 2020 and that's totally wrong approach.

In 2010 Labour had a plan, to reduce it by half by 2015, funnily enough what Osbourne achieved.

In 2015 they did not have a plan, Milliband denied the previous Blair/Brown disaster had over spent, and the debt bubble would have exploded under Milliband.

It makes no sense to keep spending and borrowing as we are/have been, spending has increased each year since 2010 despite what we are led to believe.

[Waldorf]

They "only pay 20%" because their pension is not enough to reach the higher rate. How is it "not fair"?

It was the only thing making the risk of future pension pot robbery and restrictive rules worthwhile. Otherwise forget it.

Because if you believe in progressive income taxes, I'm not sure I do, then allowed wing the wealthier to build up a bigger pot, reducing the tax that they pay and then only paying 20% tax, if any, when they retire is not fair on the lower paid of our society.

[AtW]

No, I voted Tory partly because Labour had NO plan to cut the deficit.

Lies, they had plans, only not to do it as fast as Gidiot promised (and failed) - he is trying to time it for his own election as PM in 2020 and that's totally wrong approach.

[Waldorf]

oh, and Waldorf voted for Tories because Labour would have been so much worse with their plan to pay off deficit later

No, I voted Tory partly because Labour had NO plan to cut the deficit.

[AtW]

When it comes to pensions relief, he's probably right. Labour definitely had it in their sights before the election. They promised to cut the additional rate relief, but it's naïve to think they would have stopped there.

Ok, let's say Labour were planning to do it... but that's Labour, not Tories right?

If Tories doing what Labour planned then what's the point in Tory Govt???

More importantly - whatever taxes Tories increase will increase even further under Labour, because we know Labour always does it, so that makes it even more important for Tories to actually be CUTTING TAXES, not increasing them.

If Labour did all tax increases that Tories are doing now then, well, that would be what's expected of Labour, I just can't see the point of Tories if they do same tulip as Labour.

[fullyautomatix]

oi admin, may we have a new smilie: :gidiot: --->

Pretty please...

Great idea AtW.

Also @Admin, give us a :corbyn: while you are at it. --->

[centurian]

But as Waldorf says - it would have been much worse under Labour ...

When it comes to pensions relief, he's probably right. Labour definitely had it in their sights before the election. They promised to cut the additional rate relief, but it's naïve to think they would have stopped there.

Labour’s proposed pensions takeaway - Election 2015 - IFS

Labour sets out its raid on pensions: how you should adjust your savings plans - Telegraph

[AtW]

if the plan to merge tax and NIC comes off.

That will only happen in one case - if Govt takes more tax from people, otherwise it will never happen.

So it's best that it will never happen, any "tax reforms" they make, especially "simplification" is just to tax a lot more.

[AtW]

Higher rate taxpayers currently get 40/45% relief yet when they retire they only pay tax at 20%

No, my Labour loving friend, the real unfair part is that those taxpayers are paying tax at 40/45% tax band in the first place.

[AtW]

They "only pay 20%" because their pension is not enough to reach the higher rate. How is it "not fair"?

I am pretty certain that people in 20% tax bands don't have any money to save for pension - there is no disposable income to just have normal live, nevermind pension.

I reckon around 70-80% of pension contributions come from 40-45% taxpayers AKA mugs who voted for Tories because they promised to move 40% threshold to £50k... oh, and Waldorf voted for Tories because Labour would have been so much worse with their plan to pay off deficit later