Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 1
 

That's right, Arthur - the councils and government will charge more and provide less, and keep the money for themselves........

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 1
 

My apologies but you are asking for the one thing from the Lib Dems many Tories will then use against them.

Another way of looking at it would be if you were the supplier of drills but can only afford to produce one type of drill bit. You have a preference for one that deals with metal but the best chance of getting an order could be with someone needing a wood drill or a masonry drill. Would you then insist on only producing metal bits which could lose you all orders. Or would you keep quiet about your drill bits and still sell the drills.

---------- Post added at 14:29 ---------- Previous post was at 14:22 ----------

No point at all. Indeed it actually further discriminates against whichever partner does not receive this. As, if the person in receipt of this massive £150 goes off and marries someone else they keep this money where the partner left behind gets nothing. At least Child Tax Credit is paid to the main carer of the children.

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 1
 

Can you honestly see the amount of bureaucracy falling with a Tory government?

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 1
 

You appear to be answering a question with a question, rather than answering the question...;)

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 1
 

What on Earth are you on about?

---------- Post added at 13:51 ---------- Previous post was at 13:46 ----------

Seeing as Derek appeared to answer his own rhetorical question, it would have been rather superlative to add yet another answer. ;)

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 1
 

A reasoned response may have been in order, if you disagreed with his hypothesis....

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 1
 

From what I understand from my accountants the increase is going to cost one hundred and fifty pounds per employee. That represents about four thousand pounds extra oper year for my business. Not too bad, considering. Plus there's a couple of extra allowances we can claim.

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 1
 

So you cannot even remember the insult to the nurses that you gave out.
There does that remind you :mad:

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 1
 

You've got to be the first businessman I've known to be
happy about increasing cost to his business,thereby reducing his profit.

IMO the next gov should encourage hard work a lot more by lowering
income tax severly and raising VAT a lot more,say to 25 %.

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 1
 

The proposed NI increases the cost for businesses regardless of how big a profit or not they may be making. It doesn't apply to foreign businesses and so reduces the ability for UK businesses to compete here and abroad. An all round success then.:rolleyes:

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 1
 

Can your employees claim those "extra allowances"?

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 1
 

Arthur, pull your gead out of your arse mate. Tories havnt been in power for 13 years, Thatcher hasnt been the head of the Troy party since 1990. Thats 20 years (for the mathamatically challenged)
We have had to much of "Its all Thatchers fault" Well this country has been dragged into the mire crapness and there is only one party to blame and thats the Labour party.
Oh and Lady Thatcher doesnt have her hand up the arse of Cameron, so he is not a puppet of Thatcher's.

I would rather swing by the neck from the nearest tree than suffer another 4 years of Labour.

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 1
 

Not done the maths but if you like paying taxes that much that's your prerogative. Other businesses and independent think tanks seem to disagree.

A company of say 250 employees will be looking at 37.5k being taken out of the staffing budget, the equivalent of a full time staffer that won't be hired / retained on the same budget.

Fundamentally unnecessary taxation is an unproductive use of money that should be going into the economy, making people wealthier, purchasing goods and services. Having it instead going to the government and only a proportion of it making its' way back into the economy benefits no-one.

That thought is of course only applicable if you aren't of the opinion that the government is the economy as our present PM is.

---------- Post added at 15:46 ---------- Previous post was at 15:42 ----------

That would be horrendous. Income tax is a progressive tax so takes account of some ability to pay while VAT does not. Increasing VAT too highly would reduce consumption of goods and services so people spend less and would potentially reduce overall tax take due to a combination of this reduction in consumption along with increased tax evasion. People buying less would also harm the economy a great deal too. No purchases mean no jobs needed to supply the goods and services in the first place.

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 1
 

I like that idea.

I disagree. A young person starting his/her working life should be encouraged to earn money and save money. Raising income tax discourages people from earning money (ask those at the higher rate threshold), and a low rate of VAT encourages spending, not saving.

Or do you want the young person starting his/her working life to forget about saving and borrow, borrow, borrow to spend, spend, spend - just like the government?

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 1
 

yes but what you aren't realising is income tax is proportional to the ammount you earn ,VAT is not someone on minimum wage pays the same vat as someone on £50,000 so any vat increase will affect the lower earner a lot more