Reply to: Dig deep - Brown is after small businesses again

[configman]

Splitting income if it means you can donate more to the Labour party is ok, but to give an income to another not ok. Total hypocrisy

[Diver]

Looks like some of the richer fekkers are going to ne hit:

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/to...cle3013608.ece

About time too.

So we lose a few! so what?
most of them are only using us as a tax haven because the rest of Europe and the states already tax them.

[Clippy]

Looks like some of the richer fekkers are going to ne hit:

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/to...cle3013608.ece

About time too.

[AtW]

I think as we get closer to the elections many NL MPs will get their knifes out because Brown has never been exactly a likeable person, if he was not working in Threasury where he was handing out money to people, then his attitude would have finished his Govt career long time ago.

I don't think the position is the same as 2 years ago, or even 2 months ago - it seems to me that the wheels are really coming off NL bandwagon, the only big concern I have is that the economy will tank too.

[Gonzo]

You think that MPs in marginals are not important - I am not so sure: Govt has got advantage of just 66 votes, so it won't take many MPs to rebel to lose vote to Govt.

You are right and we could be in for some interesting times.

But they have been in this position for the last two years and the whips have kept a lid on it very well so far. I have been waiting for the more "socialist" members of the Labour party to kick up and bring the whole thing down but it hasn't happened yet.

[AtW]

No, margin does not matter

Margin matters. A lot. But not the margin you think about. I am talking about number of MPs on party sides. To MPs it matters if defeat is heavy (many their sites are lost) or minor (not many seats lost). In both cases they are out of Government, but the heavier the defeat the more MPs, in marginals, are affected, and they will be very vocal because it is their own neck that is on the line. Ministers are likely to be better known than other MPs, so even in case of defeat they might still be elected, but backbenchers are the ones who will take the kicking.

You think that MPs in marginals are not important - I am not so sure: Govt has got advantage of just 66 votes, so it won't take many MPs to rebel to lose vote to Govt.

[Gonzo]

I don't think so - it is one thing to lose elections by small margine and another by big one - specific MPs will lose their cushy seats, so I reckon NL MPs will be very nervous indeed next year.

No, margin does not matter. Our first past the post system means that winning is everything.

Our post war history shows that our governmental history is as follows:

1945 - 1951 Labour re-elected once.
1951 - 1964 Conservative re-elected twice.
1964 - 1970 Labour re-elected once.
1970 - 1974 Conservative did not get re-elected
1974 - 1974 Labour - I think this was their no overall majority period
1974 - 1979 Labour did not get re-elected
1979 - 1997 Conservative - re-elected 3 times
1997 - ? Labour - relected 2 (possibly more times, but I doubt it)

Now that I have looked all that I up, I realise that in their position they probably don't care. The ones in the inner circle have safe seats that they can occupy until retirement. The ones in the more marginal seats are not so important.

But if you have friends in government then that doesn't matter. Some of us remember watching Chris Patten on TV having orchestrating the Conservatives winning the 1992 election he lost his own seat in bath. He stood on the steps and cried.

And then he was appointed Governor of Hong Kong. Nice work if you can get it.

[AtW]

Strategically the best thing for them to do would be to increase taxes on the people that aren't going to vote for them anyway.

I don't think so - it is one thing to lose elections by small margine and another by big one - specific MPs will lose their cushy seats, so I reckon NL MPs will be very nervous indeed next year.

[Gonzo]

They are moving into elections in a very bad shape - it would be really stupid for them to introduce any new taxes next year. On the other hand they might be thinking that next year actually is their last chance to introduce new taxes because they would not be able to do so in 2009 just before the elections.

Strategically the best thing for them to do would be to increase taxes on the people that aren't going to vote for them anyway.

Oh no, what am I suggesting.

[Jog On]

How will they enforce it though? Will they have as much success as they have with IR35?

Has IR35 been a profit or loss for them? (Sorry I don't know the answer to that question but I'd be interested to know it all the same!)

[TimberWolf]

I have a feeling that the diamond on a silver platter handed to Brown in 1997 will be handed back to the Tories as a Trud on a shovel. Talk about Golden legacy, the Tories will get a "Brown" legacy, in all senses of the word

[AtW]

They are moving into elections in a very bad shape - it would be really stupid for them to introduce any new taxes next year. On the other hand they might be thinking that next year actually is their last chance to introduce new taxes because they would not be able to do so in 2009 just before the elections.

[TimberWolf]

Can't they just double council tax again? That way no one will notice

[moorfield]

Why do I get the feeling this is heading for another shambolic implementation of taxation rules ?

PS. What about unmarried partners companies - will that count ?

[lilelvis2000]

One thing about the UK I have noticed....You all know how to tax.

The royals - when they were running the joint - couldn't think up anything like the taxes you have here. I get taxed if I put money into my Son's savings account if it is above a certain level....how the hell do I keep track of that!