Reply to: I said it first

[wendigo100]

If the Tories get back in at the next election, they might only last one term because Labour will cover and put off the underlying problems they have caused until Cameron's watch. You know how stupid voters are - they'll then blame the Tories and vote the socialists back in to clear it up, and off we go again for another 12 years of New Labour.

So, either the economy has to collapse before the next election, with other fiascos like the tax credit system and immigration coming to a head and leaving no doubt who is to blame, or the Tories would be better off losing the next election. Either way it is a depressing thought, especially when I remember how the UK got back on its feet in the 1980s. The thought of having to go through all that again, but worse!

[Mailman]

Malv,

I think you are right in that history will repeat itself BUT I fear the history that will be repeated at the next general election will be the history of the last general election and Labour will be voted back in to power!

Mailman

[malvolio]

The middle class got Tony in and the working class got Maggie in, there is some irony in that somewhere.

In both cases, in response to a general perception that the incumbent government ("What Crisis?" Labour and "What Problems?" Major respectively) were a crock of beans and unfit to govern.

Hopefully history will repeat itself - I've no axe to grind for the New Tories, but the sooner we lose the current bunch of useless, mendacious self-improvers, the sooner we can start to get back to reality.

[Bagpuss]

The middle class got Tony in and the working class got Maggie in, there is some irony in that somewhere.

[hyperD]

Do you really think the majority of the underclass vote?

That is a very good point and I would answer probably not. It is a chunk of "middle class" that votes liebour as our own Dodgy has pointed out many times. And I think there is a similar amount of people that simply believe everything they are told via the media from this government.

[hyperD]

The reason why Cameron will not discuss Tax abolition or reduction is not so much for the fear of closing down hospitals as the article notes, altough its interesting to reflect that it did not consider the potential vast savings to be made by closing down other arms of the State other than the Health Service, eg millitary bases ,nuclear weapons etc

The true reason is thanks to NL.there are too many people in the UK who are dependent on unproductive State jobs, they would be horrified if their parasitic way of life was to be challenged by ending the Tax burden and ipso facto would never vote for any party which offered Tax reduction.

A case in point is to consider the sheer number of UK contractors who are now dependent on assignments via Government Projects rather than the Private Sector, which is the only sector which generates genuine wealth and employment.

Unfortunately the current crop of politicans lack the courage to make unpopular but critical decisions, yes there would be a rise in unemployment initially when the State Jobs are cut, but this would be offset over a few years by free enterrpise.

This means a very gloomy outloook for the UK as the State Sector dominates the entire country supported by pandering politicians, meanwhile private enterprise is taxed to unbearable levels.

Well spoken sir! It is exactly why Cameron has to behave like this and not go down the traditional right wing view of tax cuts etc

He needs to win by simply avoiding "unpopular" views. Once he's in I reckon he'll slowly introduce, by stealth, some of the essential trad. right wing actions that are needed to get this country competitive again by dismantling the state and reducing taxes.

[Bagpuss]

Do you really think the majority of the underclass vote?

[Fungus]

The true reason is thanks to NL.there are too many people in the UK who are dependent on unproductive State jobs, they would be horrified if their parasitic way of life was to be challenged by ending the Tax burden and ipso facto would never vote for any party which offered Tax reduction.

I think there is a lot of truth in that. New Liar creates its own voter constituency.

[Fungus]

Unfortunately the current crop of politicans lack the courage to make unpopular but critial decisions, yes there would be a rise in unemployment initially when the State Jobs are cut, but this would be offset over a few years by free enterrpise.

This means a very gloomy outloook for the UK as the State Sector dominates the entire country with pandering politicians and private enterprise is taxed to unbearable levels.

Unfortunately the idiot populace would not vote for a party that proposed to cut public sector spending. So what will happen is that the economy will gradually slow down until a crisis hits. Then politicians will respond, and if they have sense, cut taxes. But remember that it took a long while before Mrs T. took the required steps last time.

Fortunately Cameron is wise to the current Nescafe politics, and knows to avoid saying unpalatable truths, and dress everything up in New Liar speak. That sadly is the legacy of Flash and Teflon: Treat the electorate like dumb children and use superficial lifestyle statements rather than policy.

[AtW]

The issue is not how much should we tax - that's just a function of how much we choose to spend.

Did that take into account indirect taxes?

[AlfredJPruffock]

The reason why Cameron will not discuss Tax abolition or reduction is not so much for the fear of closing down hospitals as the article notes, altough its interesting to reflect that it did not consider the potential vast savings to be made by closing down other arms of the State other than the Health Service, eg millitary bases ,nuclear weapons etc

The true reason is thanks to NL.there are too many people in the UK who are dependent on unproductive State jobs, they would be horrified if their parasitic way of life was to be challenged by ending the Tax burden and ipso facto would never vote for any party which offered Tax reduction.

A case in point is to consider the sheer number of UK contractors who are now dependent on assignments via Government Projects rather than the Private Sector, which is the only sector which generates genuine wealth and employment.

Unfortunately the current crop of politicans lack the courage to make unpopular but critical decisions, yes there would be a rise in unemployment initially when the State Jobs are cut, but this would be offset over a few years by free enterrpise.

This means a very gloomy outloook for the UK as the State Sector dominates the entire country supported by pandering politicians, meanwhile private enterprise is taxed to unbearable levels.

[IR35 Avoider]

The issue is not how much should we tax - that's just a function of how much we choose to spend. As this blog points out (near the bottom) we could abolish income tax, NI and Corporation tax altogether and have tens of millions in change if we abolished all social spending.

If we want to keep our current level of spending then (if the personal allowance stays roughly the same as now) the flat tax would have to be introduced at a rate of 40%. You should not be surprised the rate is so high. Most people get their taxable income from employment, and are already effectively taxed at a marginal rate of something like 40% once they are earning over £7K, if you take into account hidden taxes like employers NI as well.

[Mailman]

If Ive said it a hundred times before, Ill say it a hundred times again...the only answer is a flat rate tax regime. Its as simple as that.

Tax people once with a uniform rate and encourage the rich to get in to the tax system (after all, it would be cheaper for them to actually pay tax than to avoid or evade paying tax).

Take the poorest and most vulnerable out of the tax system altogether and everyone becomes a winner.

Honestly, its not like its rocket science or anything!

Mailman

[AlfredJPruffock]

The increasing spiraling levels of Socialist UK taxation reduces personal freedom prosperity and liberty therefore it is tantamount to State Terrorism.

For those whom would doubt this statement the following list of countries makes depressing reading, will Britains Taxation Addiction lead to our inclusion on the Axis of evil?

The British political elite’s thick-headed refusal even to think about how to reverse the country’s plummeting competitiveness stands in stark contrast to the tax debates ranging in almost every other country, with the possible exceptions of North Korea, Cuba and France.

[Davros]

Tories, Labour and Liberal Democrats are all committed to retaining the 40% top rate of income tax; they all agree that the tax burden should continue to creep up to reach an all-time high as a share of non-oil GDP by the end of the decade; they do not lose a wink’s sleep over the fact that taxes in the United Kingdom are now higher even than in Germany.

It's only fair.