On Thu 9 Aug at 10:06am cockshute wrote:
The NHS is short of money, the schools are short of money, the councils are short of money.
The employment figure is the highest ever so there is lots of extra tax payments coming in. The benefits are lower and the council tax goes up every year.
Where is all of the money? Serious answers welcome because I'm confused.
On Thu 9 Aug at 10:26am Tory Tim wrote:
All my friend's and I have it. Now please be quiet and keep working.
On Thu 9 Aug at 11:12am Jeremy wrote:
It's paying of the debt Labour made under the clowns Blair and Brown
On Thu 9 Aug at 11:15am Jan wrote:
Money spend on lots you donít sea like roads bins clean streets
On Thu 9 Aug at 11:38am Local resident wrote:
A great shame more isn't spent on basic education, such as literacy, eh Jan?
On Thu 9 Aug at 11:43am Green Sleeves wrote:
@jeremy. The war against "terror" in Iraq and Afghanistan was indeed costly financially, on innocent lives on all sides and for the reputation of this country, however public spending in general under Labour was overall on balance a positive. The debt you are referring to is now up to £1.8tn after 8 years of tory leadership...up from 0.85bn when Labour were voted out in 2010. So they've not paid off the debt, they have just very slowly reduced the deficit, but failed their own targets every time.
Plus that UK debt was mostly down to a global banking crisis, to which the Tories offered no alternative solution in opposition (plus they were totally in support of the expensive wars).
On Thu 9 Aug at 11:51am bored wrote:
Offshore accounts, siphoned off under bizarre financial arrangements by various large companies and wealthy people. See the panama papers etc.
Those who talk loudest about turning our country round and regaining sovereignty are the ones who refuse to pay their way and hide behind the "we pay all tax we are legally meant to bs". If you make the rules it's easy to make that minimal. If I buy a property to live in I pay stamp duty. If a wealthy person buys at least 7 they pay no stamp duty.
On Thu 9 Aug at 11:55am Mark wrote:
All of what Greensleeves said plus the fact that we are most certainly not doing well economically. The unemployment figures have been massaged downwards (fiddled effectively) as people are forced into gig economy jobs and zero hour contracts. Our recent GDP growth lags well behind the US, Europe and the rest of the G20. Tory Britain.
On Thu 9 Aug at 12:04pm jake wrote:
The bankers caused the financial crisis pure and simple. Egged on in their
dangerous foolhardy games by big business and the 'filthy rich'.The UK is the only country where these evil gamers have been let off scot free. i wonder why that is? Recently RBS was let off the hook once again. We have paid the price and continue to do so. This is so rarely stated.
On Thu 9 Aug at 12:17pm silversurf wrote:
Tory Britain. It's great isn't it Mark.
A lot out of people would be unemployed if there was an alternative government right now.
If you don't like your situation take a long hard look in the mirror (Not the paper) tomorrow morning and ask yourself what you're going to do about it.
Don't wait for a government to resolve your woes. You'll be waiting forever.
Life could be far worse. Get out there and work hard. There are plenty of opportunities for people who apply themselves.
On Thu 9 Aug at 12:17pm The peg wrote:
The Domme EU is pegging Britain - but not for long now.
On Thu 9 Aug at 12:18pm Silver scurf wrote:
I use Head+Shoulders
On Thu 9 Aug at 12:31pm Captain Obvious wrote:
Wasn't this the "hot question" for 2008?
This is the UK, home of tax avoidance schemes, tax dodgers and offshore account holders.
Isn't the answer obvious, it's been stolen by the rich (again).
On Thu 9 Aug at 1:37pm My thinking wrote:
Jeremy. Yes I totally agree that the Labour government under Blair and Brown got us into so much debt together with Brown ransacking the pensions and Blair allowing anyone to enter the United Kingdom regardless of whether they were here to work, seek asylum, study or just scrounge off our benefit system. We are a small country and we don't have the schools, hospitals etc to cope with so many people. If Labour get in again - draw your pension money out and hide it under your bed - it will be safer.
On Thu 9 Aug at 1:53pm Mark wrote:
You know nothing about my situation, Silversurfer.
On Thu 9 Aug at 4:15pm Clifford wrote:
Churchill once said the best argument against democracy is to have a five minute conversation with the average voter. And here, on cue, comes My thinking with every unthinking cliche of the past decade:
'Yes I totally agree that the Labour government under Blair and Brown got us into so much debt together with Brown ransacking the pensions and Blair allowing anyone to enter the United Kingdom regardless of whether they were here to work, seek asylum, study or just scrounge off our benefit system.'
No wonder the rich laugh themselves silly.
On Thu 9 Aug at 4:55pm Nevillman wrote:
The simple answer to the original post is that the electorate votes for a party that pledges to keep tax low, thereby reducing the amount it has to spend. People then complain about a lack of government spending. You can't have low tax and high (enough to sustain public services at a reasonable level) government spending at the same time. Too many people fell for it at the last election.
On Thu 9 Aug at 5:25pm @Nevillman wrote:
Actually you can if people/corporations paid their taxes instead of avoiding them.
On Thu 9 Aug at 7:25pm Nevillman wrote:
A slightly naive view that enables one to blame 'them' instead of 'us'.
On Thu 9 Aug at 8:03pm Citizen Smith wrote:
A good post, Nevillman (at 4:55) - apart from the last sentence.
Most people want low taxes. The sensible ones know that means self- reliance, with only the basic services provided by the state.
There are those who think they can live off benefits, and let others support them. Then there are those who are employed in a cushy "post" in the state sector- and winge vociferously when the local authorities merge and try to lose the dead wood.
Low taxes, hard work and minimal state spending is the only way forward.
On Thu 9 Aug at 10:02pm @Nevillman wrote:
Expecting people to pay taxes is a naive view? Oh how funny, at what point do I tell you I work for the hmrc?
On Thu 9 Aug at 10:41pm Nevillman wrote:
Expecting that large companies will carry on trying to dodge the taxman is not naive. I am very pleased that people like you work to get them to pay it and wish you luck but I get the impression that they keep finding new ways to dodge it. If you can raise enough to mean the rest of us taxpayers can pay less tax then great. Until then, the reality is we should pay more tax to pay for the spending. I disagree with the above poster over the level of public services that should be provided. We should expect and be prepared to pay for an excellent health, welfare and education system from the state.
On Fri 10 Aug at 10:52am bastian wrote:
Jake nailed it earlier in the thread.
In Britain if you have a bank account your money is protected up to the value of £50,000 ( in 2008, time of the crash) and £85,000 now. When the government bailed out the banks, they paid out of taxes all the money up to the value of £50,000, or whatever they had in the bank at the time, to each customer ( you and me, the little people) so that our wages weren't lost. This promise is to protect us, but what happens after that is that we get austerity in our public services becaus thta money must be recouped, and the bankers get off scot free. We didn't, however, lose our wages, so when people say, "let the banks crash, don't bail them out", that is what would have happened - you and I would have lost our money to live on and that months our wage, on the ground that seems unreal, but it is fact.
On Fri 10 Aug at 11:50am Mark wrote:
I doubt that it's all that difficult for the corporations to avoid taxation. I've read (Owen Jones) that HMRC largely subcontracts the drafting of the rules for Corporation Tax to Price Waterhouse and other City accountancy firms. This, of course, is very helpful when it comes time to advise companies on their strategies for tax avoidance.
On Fri 10 Aug at 1:36pm @Bastian wrote:
Yeah that's totally wrong though, when the banks were bailed out the account protection scheme wasn't invoked, people weren't paid out up to 50k on their account balances, their balances remained unchanged.
As you said yourself "the government bailed out the banks".
On Fri 10 Aug at 1:54pm bored wrote:
The electorate only returned a government in favour of low tax rates once since 1997, in 2015, the others were Labour victories or coalitions so it's not accurate to paint it as a definitive choice.
Also, there's a difference between wanting low tax rates and accepting further, more complex ways that tax is avoided. Every party vows to crack down on tax avoidance and evasion every election but still we wait.
US had a decent scheme with an alternative minimum tax but I think Trump has removed that. Plenty of ways we can improve tax collection (see my earlier post about stamp) but they involve government intervention. Seems fair to hold them to account for something they promised to do.
Check it out here »