Budget 2009 proposals

Usual bollox when a politician is asked anything. Oh, sorry, did I use a rude word?

Ooh, are you trying to catch me out?

Why would I mention any?

You don't know what I know that you know.

Have I? Where? At least I am quoting you, instead of snipping the hard bits.

I don't post to try to impress people. That would be very sad.

If you say so.

Tell you what though, this has been one of the silliest discussions I've ever had on usenet. You're obviously trying to play some sort of game with misquotes, selective snipping and ridiculous assumptions, or you're just trolling which of course is a common usenet sport which even I have been known to indulge in myself. In the unlikely event you are serious, I think you'd better see a shrink!

Anyway, sorry but I simply CBA reading the rest of your post, or any more bullshit (oops sorry - 10p in the swear box) from you.

Ta ta!

I caught you out ages ago.

Cos you mentioned it first.

Well, I did on this occasion.

No - you've resorted to mis-quoting me regularly.

Ha ha. You started snipping the "hard bits", as you so eloquently call them, from the earliest posts in this tedious thread. Eg yours of 9/4/09

So I see.

Agreed. You'll find that a modicum of accuracy in what you write, and booking yourself on an EFL course, will reduce your silliness in future.

Such a shame - it means you missed the bit where I apologised profusely and confirmed you are right in everything you say.

The end.

In message , Andy Pandy writes

I won't bother checking it, but I've spread-sheeted my tax liabilities since I bought my first PC. Caught them out on my Tax Code for two or three years and claimed it back.

The 73% is after contracted out deductions, BTW.

Better still, have an extension to the scope of zero rated items, and extend the 5% rate to other items that people need to buy. Increase the high rate to say 20%.

People don't need TV sets, cars and luxry overseas holidays. People do need food, heating clothing. So vary the VAT rate accordingly.

So give everyone a tax free allowance that is enough to live on, and impose income tax only on the excess.

Three points here. If we're being "honest" tell everyone that as National Insurance is actually nothing more than another form of taxation, it will be abolished (both employer's and employee's) and Income Tax rates extended accordingly. Then everyone would find that their "Income tax" suddenly more than doubled!!!! But it least it would be an honest rate.

Secondly, stop penalising those who are successful by making them pay a higher percentage rate of tax. They will already pay more as they have higher incomes. If you're going to use a %'age rate, then have a single rate for everything above the personal allowance.

Thidly, abolishing employer's national insurance will abolish a tax on jobs.

This is hardly new !! -- it's called PAYE.

However, what should be done is to abolish all special tax schemes, abolish all the complexities which create loopholes for accountants to find. Go simple. All income (however derived), capital gains and all benefits in kind should be subject to tax at the single rate. This would also enable many people to fire their accountants (simpler system) and many tax mandarins to be made redundant.

NO .... what will give the "poorest" the incentive to work would be the abolition of the benefits system. Replace cash benefits with stamps/vouchers for specific necessities, and THEN you'll be surprised how many people want to earn some cash.

Not all "rich bastards" are incompetent - only rich banking bastards :-)))

The poorest need to be encouraged to work. Non-cash state benefits for primary necessities (food, utilities, rent etc.), plus a tax free allowance which is actually large enough to live on would do the trick.

A good post. A few reservations / comments....

1. Abolition of ER's Ni would (presumably) require pay increases, so the employees can meet their higher income tax bill. This would mean negligible rises for the lowest paid, which (if not understood by all) may well be strongly opposed.
2. A single rate of income tax ("flat tax", but with allowances) would similarly be strongly opposed by many, who would see the higher paid (eg "rich banking bastards" in yoru example) getting an immorally high boost in their net income. And would the tax-free allowance ("large enough to live on") vary by geographic region and, if so, by region of residence or of employment?
3. The mechanics of confining benefits to non-cash "vouchers" would, at first sight, seem insurmountable. Eg would they be in any way means tested (on income and/or capital)?; what about mortgage payments?; preventing fraud?

Short of cross-party agreement pre-election, I cannot see any party sticking this in their manifesto...:-(

Nevertheless, I applaud the sentiments.

So you want to punish the kids for having bad parents?

Or they could buy a house?

I'd put a 100,000% tax on all reality TV shows, "talent" shows, Big Brother, makeover programmes etc.....

I don't think this will be very effective. According to the governments own figures there is very little fraud of disability payments. Any review is likely to result in more payouts IMHO.

Yes.

:-)

Agreed.

Agreed.

Agreed.

I disagree. Having a single percentage rate will increase the burden on the poorer people. I believe that one should contribute what one can afford.

Agreed.

I am continually surprised that people keep bringing this one up. Why on earth do you think that the poor do not have sufficient "incentives" to work already? There are a few lazy people around but the majority of the "poor" are not like this.