Originally Posted by Flyboy (Post 35022012)

The first thirteen years of Tory rule, the average percentage against GDP was thirty-six point three, the thirteen years of Labour it was thirty-five point three.

Originally Posted by Flyboy (Post 35022019)

A self-employed person does not claim anything back, because they haven't paid anything to HMRC, before they calculate their taxable profit at the end of their accounting period. Any mileage allowances are added to expenditure, therefore reducing the taxable profits, I have not said that someone cannot use a mileage allowance. I think that you are the one who is confused and are trying to do a bit of wriggling.

As far as VAT is concerned, you may have noticed that I wrote "standard rate." So, no misunderstanding at all then, eh.

Originally Posted by Xaccers (Post 35022027)

Oh for pete's sake :rolleyes:
You really are mandleson aren't you?
You are claiming expenses by claiming mileage, the tax man dictates what you are allowed to claim and what you can't (such as "entertainment").
Everyone I know of refers to it as claiming expenses back off the tax man, because you are, you declare your expenses to the tax man and he approves them or not.
That you don't actually hand all the money over then get it back is by the by.
You still don't seem to understand the bit about income tax being reduced when VAT went up.

Originally Posted by Flyboy (Post 35022030)

But, have you now realised that one cannot "claim" a "net" of four thousand pounds based on a calculation of forty pence per mile?

Originally Posted by danielf (Post 35022023)

But it seems like you're just cherry-picking the data. And the data cannot be interpreted without taking the economic circumstances at the time into consideration.

This is what I hate so much about UK politics, and why I love the fact that we have this unlikely coalition now. UK politics revolves around slagging off the other party to gain support for your own. In a way, it would be funny, if it weren't so bloody inconstructive (if that's a word). Get a grip, get some perspective, and start working for the country rather than your party. This is something that, given the election result, Cameron and Clegg were forced to accept. Let's hope they recognise that it's actually a really good way to do politics.

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet (Post 35022018)

Yes, let's compare an administration that inherited double-digit inflation, a nice fat recession (2.36% drop in GDP in Q3 1979), and militant trade unions with one that inherited a stable, surplus running economy shall we?

Makes it impossible to compare the tax take, which is the stat you are looking at. The actual tax rates, no idea of, however it would probably be somewhat fairer to take the Tory numbers a bit later on once they'd had a while to work on the economy.

This is interesting reading.

Oh here's a thought for you Flyboy, despite the crap the Tories inherited they still managed better average GDP growth than Labour.

Thought number 2 - Brown removed the tax credit on share dividends, increasing the size of or causing pension deficits within companies, and causing people to invest in property instead of standard pension funds - cost to pension funds of this by the way is guesstimated at upwards of 100bln. People investing in property caused a housing bubble, more demand for similar supply. As part of satiating this demand and due to the ever increasing house prices lenders such as Northern Rock began to offer riskier and riskier mortgages on the assumption that the non-stop and rapid rises in house prices would continue.

You see where I'm going with this. That smash and grab on pension funds caused incalculable damage to our economy. From people not being able to afford homes due to the housing bubble through to mortgage backed debt bringing down lenders through to people using their homes as cashpoints, fuelling their consumption with debt while bankers fuel the economy from their end gambling away the liquidity the housing market generated.

This was the basis of a good part of Labour's economic growth, public sector employment was responsible for a good part of jobs growth.

One thing you really, surely, honestly aren't going to do is try and say that Labour's policies were good for the economy?

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet (Post 35022018)

Yes, let's compare an administration that inherited double-digit inflation, a nice fat recession (2.36% drop in GDP in Q3 1979), and militant trade unions with one that inherited a stable, surplus running economy shall we?

Makes it impossible to compare the tax take, which is the stat you are looking at. The actual tax rates, no idea of, however it would probably be somewhat fairer to take the Tory numbers a bit later on once they'd had a while to work on the economy.

This is interesting reading.

Oh here's a thought for you Flyboy, despite the crap the Tories inherited they still managed better average GDP growth than Labour.

Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 35019475)

cam and sam are at buck house

Originally Posted by keepitreel (Post 35022432)

cam and sam = scaamm!!

Originally Posted by Flyboy (Post 35022429)

Had a look for the figures myself:

UK GDP since 1948

I couldn't spot a recession in nineteen seventy-nine, in fact, net growth for that year was just over two per cent. I thought that was right, but had to double check, just in case the memory was playing tricks.

What method are you using to theorise the GDP growth comparisons?

Originally Posted by Flyboy (Post 35022429)

Had a look for the figures myself:

UK GDP since 1948

I couldn't spot a recession in nineteen seventy-nine, in fact, net growth for that year was just over two per cent. I thought that was right, but had to double check, just in case the memory was playing tricks.

What method are you using to theorise the GDP growth comparisons?

Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 35022617)

meanwhile back on planet earth

THE government last night accused Labour of pursuing a “scorched earth policy” before the general election, leaving behind billions of pounds of previously hidden spending commitments.

The newly discovered Whitehall “black holes” could force even more severe public spending cuts, or higher tax rises, ministers fear.

“There are some worrying early signs that numbers left by the outgoing government may not add up,” said Francis Maude, the Cabinet Office minister.

David Willetts, the universities minister, claimed that Labour had left behind “not so much an in-tray as a minefield”

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle7127819.ece

Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 35022460)

[/COLOR]

obviously not the same mathemagic your using -is it the Brown equation your employing;)
divide reality by six