UK Wide protests

[papa smurf]

i wonder what the response from the middle class would be to a conservatory and garage tax

Originally Posted by Hugh

Arthur, I am sorry to hear about your son's predicament, but I must pick you up on one of your points...

The so-called "bedroom tax" is actually a reduction in Housing Benefit for over-occupation (for example, if there are two people, say mother and son, living in a three-bedroomed accommodation, they will have their Housing Benefit reduced).

I don't know many people with pots of money living in five/six bedroomed houses who get Housing Benefit - I am willing to be proven wrong, though....

btw, I live in a four bedroomed home, and was paying £950 per month on a mortgage and another £160 per month in Council Tax, and received no reduction, so how I was paying the same Bedroom Tax as someone living in Council/Social Housing confuses me...

Hugh you misunderstood, Arthur said the rich do not pay their "fair share of taxes", he said that rich pay more or less the same amount of tax (not "bedroom tax") as the poor.

Hugh, I am in the same position like you and our bills, Council tax, water rates etc are huge and we get no reduction. I do not like it
One can say that the "rich" have been squeezed too, for example the Life time Allowance for pensions has been slashed down to 1,250,000 pounds (of which 40% contributed by the taxpayer, nice!), it bloody hurts. The price of a flat in London is over half a million and the stamp duty is/was 15K or so, it bloody hurts.

But on the other hand, for example, the combo of sub-standard school provision and high University fees harms the future of intelligent kids unluky to be born poor. As Arthur said poverty hurts....

To me the problem is corporations do not pay tax and the "benefits" for the rich (expenses, slash funds, bonuses, non-taxable perks, you know what mean). HSBC, DBS, Barclays help the rich with tax advice (or you may call it avoidance).

My favorite, "Corporate hospitality", it pays for all those bloody expensive restaurant bills and plonk....

Carlos, thanks for the clarification.

Arthur, my apologies for misunderstanding/misinterpreting your post.

Originally Posted by Arthurgray50@blu

I get really fed up with people who support Cameron and His bloody cuts.

This is why he didn't mention anything in the election run up. I was brought up in Poverty, and it bloody hurts.

When l retire, l will end up knowing that this government will ruin everything that l have worked damn hard to support.

Am l bitter, yes, my son was sacked on Wednesday due to the cuts. As his employer couldn't afford to keep him on.

Sorry to hear about your son, meanwhile Charlotte Church appears on TV gobbing off about the cuts, whilst sat on a pile of x millions of pounds

Originally Posted by papa smurf

i wonder what the response from the middle class would be to a conservatory and garage tax

It already exists - we pay for planning permission, we pay for them to be built, we pay VAT on that price, and the addition values is reflected in our Council Tax Banding...

Originally Posted by Arthurgray50@blu

They will not care about what cuts they make. The have also got to find money to py for the total refurbish of the Palace of Westminster.

We will end up paying for this, while they live the life of riley

Tax payers will pay for the renovation because we own it ,incidentally tax payers includes MP's

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Carlos Carboni

Hugh you misunderstood, Arthur said the rich do not pay their "fair share of taxes", he said that rich pay more or less the same amount of tax

That statement is just plain wrong.

[heero_yuy]

Originally Posted by Pierre

That statement is just plain wrong.

Indeed:

The highest paid 3,000 people in the UK pay more income tax than the bottom nine million, according to official Government statistics.

The figures show that the very highest earners - amounting to just under 3,000 people with a declared income above £2.7 million - will contribute 4.2 per cent of the total Government revenue from income tax in the current financial year.

By contrast, Britain’s nine million poorest paid workers contribute less than four per cent of the total income tax receipt.

Linky

Facts are your friends.

Originally Posted by heero_yuy

Indeed:



Linky

Facts are your friends.

I hate cliches but


Lies, damned lies, and statistics

What you quoted is a fact and I accept it.

But tax on salary is simply an inconvenience for some not a burden. Most "real" income comes in a different ways other than salary. Tax-sheltered bonuses/intensives/enhancements/dividends, in other words backhanders with a fancy name... I will not dwell on this. But see

Example

It's more widespread than you think.

But people with income between 50-90K are indeed screwed up, they do pay more than their "fair" share.... their bills are astronomical as they do not get reductions for anything, they pay the full wack for everything. On top of that they are means tested for any possible benefits and fail to get any....

[Ignitionnet]

These people are absolutely entitled to protest about the ongoing austerity measures.

I actually agree with them to an extent, however I very much disagree with them to an extent also.

The hypocrisy of the Palace of Westminster if it ends up being renovated and returned to service as seat of government is pretty grim. For a fraction of the cost Parliament could be moved elsewhere, achieving two worthwhile goals in one.

Housing benefit has indeed gotten completely out of control but I'm sure everyone knows my solution to resolving that issue.

All that said I have to wonder just how many of these protesters are actually paying their way in our society. It's very easy to ask for more of other people's money; I wonder if more constructive arguments than just opposing austerity wouldn't be a better choice.

[heero_yuy]

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

All that said I have to wonder just how many of these protesters are actually paying their way in our society. It's very easy to ask for more of other people's money; I wonder if more constructive arguments than just opposing austerity wouldn't be a better choice.

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

The hypocrisy of the Palace of Westminster if it ends up being renovated and returned to service as seat of government is pretty grim. For a fraction of the cost Parliament could be moved elsewhere, achieving two worthwhile goals in one.

I don't see the merit in this. First all whilst there is too much centralisation in London it would seem to be that the centre of Government should be in the capital.

It's not just as if you would need to move the MPs themselves but also large chunks of the Civil Service and the Government machine. The MoD, the Home Office, the Foreign Office and the Treasury are just a few of the departments that would need to move what with ministers having to ferry between them often.

The capital also serves a useful place for meeting. There are direct trains and planes to London from almost every UK city, from almost any major city in the World in fact, that cannot be rivalled by anywhere else. It's not as if moving Parliament to Manchester will suddenly see Manchester Piccadilly gaining more commercial routes just because a few civil servants and MPs have to get up there.

It's also got a lot of history and existing traditions that the famous structures around Whitehall help display. The State Opening of Parliament would work weird if it was in a soulless office block just off the M60. That sense of history in fact is something that it would be a shame to lose. It's the home of the oldest parliamentary democracy in the World and when MPs sit in the chamber then they're surrounded by the history of who went before and what those people did.

Finally we have to renovate Parliament anyway. It's a famous historical landmark and a World Heritage Site. It would be cultural vandalism to let it decay into ruin for temporary populist appeasement and a little bit of saved money. Most of the buildings around it are fit for purpose anyway.

While we're at it I don't think the Government sitting anywhere else in the UK would make them more in-tune with the population. Just because someone lives in Liverpool or elsewhere doesn't make them an expert on the 'regions' across the UK.

[Kursk]

Originally Posted by Damien

I don't see the merit in this. First all whilst there is too much centralisation in London it would seem to be that the centre of Government should be in the capital.

It's not just as if you would need to move the MPs themselves but also large chunks of the Civil Service and the Government machine. The MoD, the Home Office, the Foreign Office and the Treasury are just a few of the departments that would need to move what with ministers having to ferry between them often.

The capital also serves a useful place for meeting. There are direct trains and planes to London from almost every UK city, from almost any major city in the World in fact, that cannot be rivalled by anywhere else. It's not as if moving Parliament to Manchester will suddenly see Manchester Piccadilly gaining more commercial routes just because a few civil servants and MPs have to get up there.

It's also got a lot of history and existing traditions that the famous structures around Whitehall help display. The State Opening of Parliament would work weird if it was in a soulless office block just off the M60. That sense of history in fact is something that it would be a shame to lose. It's the home of the oldest parliamentary democracy in the World and when MPs sit in the chamber then they're surrounded by the history of who went before and what those people did.

Finally we have to renovate Parliament anyway. It's a famous historical landmark and a World Heritage Site. It would be cultural vandalism to let it decay into ruin for temporary populist appeasement and a little bit of saved money. Most of the buildings around it are fit for purpose anyway.

While we're at it I don't think the Government sitting anywhere else in the UK would make them more in-tune with the population. Just because someone lives in Liverpool or elsewhere doesn't make them an expert on the 'regions' across the UK.

Couldn't they decant to somewhere else within London then? Perhaps Buckingham Palace to save HRH all that bedroom tax?

[Arthurgray50@blu]

Hugh, no need to apologise.

My biggest issue is that if major companies paid there taxes, in the proper manner. Then that would ease the biggest burden going.

But Mr Cameron wont chase it up, as these company owners pay money into the purses of the Tory party.

The Tories always hit the poorest, and those on benefits - yes, there are some spongers out there. But there some people out there that have been placed there by being made redundant through cuts.

Food banks are the poor's supermarket, and it must be demoralising going to them And this government are not doing anything to help.

They are planning 12 billion on welfare cuts in the next budget. Where is that going to hit

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by Damien

I don't see the merit in this. First all whilst there is too much centralisation in London it would seem to be that the centre of Government should be in the capital.

The Dutch capital is Amsterdam. Their parliament meet in the Binnenhof in The Hague.

It's not without precedent and given we're the most centralised economy in Europe I'd say some pretty desperate measures need taking.

We are, after all, all in it together. If we end up moving government from the Palace of Westminster for a while anyway may as well ensure we get best use out of the new facilities.