Tory economic policy (or lack of?)

[SlackDad]

Good post Foreverwar, but just for the sake of accuracy and at the risk of being pedantic, the current Personal Tax Allowance for 06/07 is £5035, and National Insurance is now 11%.

Originally Posted by SlackDad

Good post Foreverwar, but just for the sake of accuracy and at the risk of being pedantic, the current Personal Tax Allowance for 06/07 is £5035, and National Insurance is now 11%.

Thanks for the update

[Pierre]

Tax levels in this country are too high, and tax cuts will be possible with proper management of public services.

Once we stop pouring billions into the NHS and get it properly managed we will save millions.

Once we stop spending millions on PFI , schools, hospitals etc that we can't afford to run.

Labour, as usual, have gone doolally spending public money with (generally) no results.

The NHS is no better off. They have put in record investment into the NHS yet 18,000 redundancies and ward closures are the result.

No public transport initiative

They've built new schools that local authorities can't afford to run.

Hopefully, the tories will get into power look at the books and get public services managed properly.

Perhaps if we're lucky we can reduce our council tax by getting rid of "Lifestyle Consultants" out of the Local Authority and other non-jobs there seems to be plenty of that we pay for.

Originally Posted by foreverwar

"Traditional socialist reasons" - I would call them common-sense reasons, myself, and I have voted Tory all my life.

If you think socialist tax policies are common sense I am surprised you have voted Tory all your life, although I suppose it depends on how long a life you have had.

Originally Posted by foreverwar

It's just like running your household - you work out your income, calculate your outgoings, and anything left over, you have to make decisions on what to do with it. You could just go down the pub (tax-cuts), or you could save up the money and invest it in your house, thus investing in the future.

Of course.

Originally Posted by foreverwar

If we must have tax-cuts, they should be focussed on the less well paid, and we should raise the tax threshold, and lower the bottom rates of tax to distribute the money to those who need it most - lower-paid working people (you should like this, as the "work-shy scroungers" don't benefit).

Of course, but do you think "work shy scroungers" (your words, not mine) should benefit?

Originally Posted by foreverwar

If we dropped the higher-rate tax to 35%, that means (roughly) someone earning over £37k pa would be £1 per week better off for every thousand pounds they earned over £37k, so if they earned £45k a year, they would be £8 per week better off. Don't you agree this £8 per week would be more useful to someone earning the minimum wage of £5 per hour, £10k per year - it would make a big difference to them, and (usually) only a small difference to someone on £47k pa.

Yes, and nor do I disagree with the figures you quoted.

Originally Posted by foreverwar

Before I was made redundant, I earned a reasonable amount of money (well over the higher rate threshold, with company car, fuel, etc) - my monthly total "tax" bill (income tax and NI) was not above 38%, so it would be interesting to see where your "close to half" figure comes from.

I was actually thinking of the Labour party under Neil Kinnock who wanted a top tax rate of 50%, and government spending always goes up, never down, and as the Tory Party has said it might put taxes up, I am not confident that in the future it will not reach those dizzy heights! In 2003 total public spending was £456 billion and this year £552 billion, and it is projected to rise to £610 billion for 2008 - 2009.

Originally Posted by foreverwar

I also fail to see your connection between tax cuts and people "scrounging off the state"

I would have thought the connection between taxes and benefits fairly obvious. Benefits are paid by tax payers. Less claimants = a lower tax burden. The government's benefits system is now so enormously complicated that even the staff are making millions of pounds worth of mistakes every year. And there are other problems too.

Originally Posted by foreverwar

btw, 12% of tax-payers pay the higher rate of income tax, and when I am working, I am one of them, and proud of it; I see it as paying for the future, for my children, and other's children - I wish sometimes it was spent more wisely, but with rising expectations of the electorate, and short-termism the name of the game in politics and business, that won't be easy to change.

Turnouts at the last two elections have been pitifully low (just 61% in 2005) so it seems to me that a great number of voters have given up expecting anything at all. So given that no mainstream party is even trying to change it, I hope you will carry on being proud to pay you tax bill.

Originally Posted by hatedbythemail

im a higher rate tax payer and dont begrudge it. but i watch friends struggle by on minimum wage, or wading through tax credit forms, or battling with the csa to try scrape cash together to support their kids. im ashamed that our country, one of the world's richest, allows such a shabby state of affairs.

So should employers be forced to pay lower wage earners more? The tax credit system is a scandal, and the CSA has failed miserably. What's the answer?

Originally Posted by Pierre

Tax levels in this country are too high, and tax cuts will be possible with proper management of public services...

It depends on your viewpoint - I believe the tax rates are reasonable at the moment - I would like to pay less, but I believe in social justice - helping those who are less able.

Originally Posted by Pierre

Once we stop pouring billions into the NHS and get it properly managed we will save millions..

I would turn that around - once we get it properly managed, we could possibly save money (by the way, the private health system in the US costs much more, percentage wise, to run than MediCare)

Originally Posted by Pierre

Once we stop spending millions on PFI , schools, hospitals etc that we can't afford to run..

I don't agree with PFI, but how else would you fund the building of new infrastructure?

Originally Posted by Pierre

Labour, as usual, have gone doolally spending public money with (generally) no results..

mmmmm - emotive statement . More people are being treated by the NHS, and more people are going to university.

Originally Posted by Pierre

The NHS is no better off. They have put in record investment into the NHS yet 18,000 redundancies and ward closures are the result..

Because (imho) of short-termism - they are being given conflicting targets to achieve, overspend to meet them, and are then punished. I think you will find that there have been more than 18000 new staff in the NHS since 1997, so to put it coldly, the 18000 is offset by the gains (not that that helps the 18000).

Originally Posted by Pierre

No public transport initiative.

Totally agree with you there - unfortunately, the UK (along with a lot of countries) has a love affair with the car - major investment would be needed to provide a proper public transport system, which I guess you would not be keen on (major investment, not the transport system).

Originally Posted by Pierre

They've built new schools that local authorities can't afford to run..

Please see my PFI comment above.

Originally Posted by Pierre

Hopefully, the tories will get into power look at the books and get public services managed properly..

Good luck (and that is speaking as a Tory) - how do you manage rising expectations of choice and service, and reduce costs; tricky one.

Originally Posted by Pierre

Perhaps if we're lucky we can reduce our council tax by getting rid of "Lifestyle Consultants" out of the Local Authority and other non-jobs there seems to be plenty of that we pay for.

Whilst there may be some waste, and it should be cut, using examples that use up 0.000001% of the Council Budget doesn't help the argument (imho).

[hatedbythemail]

Originally Posted by foreverwar

I don't agree with PFI, but how else would you fund the building of new infrastructure

higher rate tax band? :-)

Originally Posted by freezin

If you think socialist tax policies are common sense I am surprised you have voted Tory all your life, although I suppose it depends on how long a life you have had.?

49 (nearly 50) years, of which I have paid tax for nearly 32 years (including the six I spent in the Royal Air Force).
You know, you remind me of the US Republican party - using a mantra of "socialist tax policies" to ram a point home - if being a socialist means believing in equality of opportunity, wanting to help those less able/well off than myself, and not being selfish and greedy at the expense of others, well call me a socialist and paint me red, mother (although, that might surprise all the members of the Conservative Party I used to work with in the 80's and 90's, at local and national level).

Originally Posted by freezin

Of course, but do you think "work shy scroungers" (your words, not mine) should benefit??

No, but than again, I don't think we should tar all unemployed/disabled people with the same derogatory label - the majority shouldn't suffer for the few, the few should be sorted out.

Originally Posted by freezin

I was actually thinking of the Labour party under Neil Kinnock who wanted a top tax rate of 50%, and government spending always goes up, never down, and as the Tory Party has said it might put taxes up, I am not confident that in the future it will not reach those dizzy heights! In 2003 total public spending was £456 billion and this year £552 billion, and it is projected to rise to £610 billion for 2008 - 2009.

I would have thought the connection between taxes and benefits fairly obvious. Benefits are paid by tax payers. Less claimants = a lower tax burden. The government's benefits system is now so enormously complicated that even the staff are making millions of pounds worth of mistakes every year. And there are other problems too.?

Oh, and there was I thinking you were quoting an actual figure, rather than those from a leader who didn't get into power. I agree with you about the complexity of the state benefit system, but like all complex systems, it is easier to complain about than to fix.

Originally Posted by freezin

Turnouts at the last two elections have been pitifully low (just 61% in 2005) so it seems to me that a great number of voters have given up expecting anything at all. So given that no mainstream party is even trying to change it, I hope you will carry on being proud to pay you tax bill. ?

I am, thank you - and it cheers me up knowing you are making your contributions too.

Originally Posted by freezin

So should employers be forced to pay lower wage earners more? The tax credit system is a scandal, and the CSA has failed miserably. What's the answer?

I agree with you about the tax credit system and the CSA - it needed to be kept simple, such as with the Tax Credit system proposed by the TRG (Tory Reform Group) in the 80's. Why don't we cut employer's wage bills even more, and bring back indenture? Do you actually think it is easy to live on £5.35 per hour?

---------- Post added at 11:57 ---------- Previous post was at 11:56 ----------

Originally Posted by hatedbythemail

higher rate tax band? :-)

B*gger off, I wasn't talking to you, commie pinko bed-wetter!

[hatedbythemail]

Originally Posted by foreverwar

B*gger off, I wasn't talking to you, commie pinko bed-wetter!

right! wheres that report post button? i was cured of that bed wetting problem weeks ago! :-)

Originally Posted by hatedbythemail

right! wheres that report post button? i was cured of that bed wetting problem weeks ago! :-)

Mostly - hbtm, you need to get that problem "sorted out" fully, before you put your electric blankie on your bed for the cold winter nights.

I think having a big public sector and good public services is really good but you have to keep in mind that we need to keep our economy competitive. There is now a global economy, businesses are deciding where to locate. If you tax businesses to death, they will not locate in this country, and may relocate abroad if they are already here. With China and India emerging as big powers and offering a more skilled and cheap labour there are less reasons to locate into this country, so higher taxes are generally worse for the economy in the longer term. I think if the Tories get in they will definitely bring in tax cuts, it's what Tories do, this is one of the reasons why they are supported by big business. They have been hinting on 'making the economy more competitive', I don't know how they can do that without tax cuts. I just hope they don't do it so it becomes unfair for people.

I think the Lib Dems have got the right idea on tax - they want to reduce overall direct taxation and then introduce green taxes onto things to discourage activity which is harmful for the environment, and also abolish all taxation for those earning less than £10,000 a year. It's a shame they're unelectable lol

[hatedbythemail]

i dont really understand the lib dems tax position because if green taxes work in encouraging people to be environmentally friendly then tax revenues will fall. how do they plug the gap. and if they dont work, whats the point?

Originally Posted by hatedbythemail

i dont really understand the lib dems tax position because if green taxes work in encouraging people to be environmentally friendly then tax revenues will fall. how do they plug the gap. and if they dont work, whats the point?

Good question I've no idea! I think it's a good idea in theory though.

[Chrysalis]

Originally Posted by freezin

Does anyone think that the Tories refusal to cut taxes if in power, after 9 years of Labour tax rises, is right? They have even said tax rises are not inconceivable. Osborne is Shadow Chancellor, and it's a more important issue than the silliness over the autism comments!

Yes for the following reasons.

1 - You cant decide economic policy years before knowing what state the economy will be in.

2 - The tories have been promising tax cuts for the last 3 elections and it didnt win them the election.

3 - The proposed cuts are on income tax and corporate tax in other words to benefit the richest people the most, proper cuts would be reducing it where labour raised it.

If the economy in 4 years was in the same state as it is now I would propose something like this.

Raise the tax threshold for not paying income tax at all to benefit lower earners.
Raise the top rate of income tax to tax those more who can afford it and close the gap between rich and poor.
Raise the inheritance tax threshold so doesnt affect so many people but also raise the rate to make up for the shortfall, again passing the burden onto the richest people.
Replace council tax with local income tax.
Stop the mass privatisation which always leads to short term gains and long term problems.
Hand over power back to local councils from central government.
Do a corporate tax hit on wholesale electricity/gas providers or give them an alternative of reducing prices.
Give help to low income people on electricity/gas bills.
Pay for this by taxing the fuel suppliers that raise prices above inflation.

Benefits shouldnt be cut because their are some scroungers since their are people who have no choice and need these to survive but as someone else suggested lower paid jobs can be made more worthwhile motivating people to work and the beenfits system can be changed to allow ill people to try working without been penalised so much.

[TheDaddy]

Can't see myself voting Tory after the shenanigans of the last few days, I'll I saw was a room full of very smug individuals having a jolly, they say it's to early to tell the public a policy but obviously it's not to early to arrogantly toast victory.

[etccarmageddon]

I propose to abolish income tax completely and instead just have a windfall tax on hot air. So all political party confrences will be taxed to the hilt and pay for everything else.