ChatterBank3 mins ago
The Con Party.
Watching Duncan Smith on Sky News, He said that Osborne will go down in History as one of the Greatest Chancellors ever. Does anyone on AB agree with Mr Smith
Answers
The Labour party did what necessary to correct the excesses created by Thatcher when she removed all restrictions and credit and borrowing. If they hadn't have done that, the situation would have been catastrophic
14:30 Sun 23rd Mar 2014
Nothing Mr Osborne has done (including his announcements last week) is particularly memorable.
The plaudits are sounding off about his radical Budget last week. There is nothing remotely radical about it. The only things of note to Mr & Mrs ordinary revolve around pensions. The idea that people will no longer be forced to invest their savings in extremely disadvantageous schemes run by spivs is not radical. Allowing people to control their own cash is exactly what should be the norm. Increasing the ISA allowance is similarly no big deal. On £15k you might just manage to scrape £200 a year in interest at the moment. If this was taxed the Exchequer would get £40 (or £80 if you were unlucky enough to pay tax at the higher rate - see below). Yet this is announced as the greatest thing for savers since sliced bread
Even the much lauded personal allowance of £10k is disingenuous. People start paying tax at 12% (in the form of National Insurance) on earnings over £7,956. Huge numbers of ordinary working people have been sucked into a 40% income tax bracket by his policies. People such as nurses, teachers, police officers and train drivers now pay tax at the higher rate which was originally introduced to target high earners. Savers have seen their savings crippled by low interest rates - much of the blame for which lies with his “funding for lending” policies and with printing worthless money.
Meantime, what the Chancellor taketh away he giveth back (via an army of overpaid and unnecessary scribes). Low paid workers who are paying a small amount in tax and NI become eligible for the ridiculously named “Tax Credits”. As an example, somebody earning £15k with two children will pay around £1,800 in tax and NI next year. But they will be eligible for about £7k in tax credits. What on earth is the point in paying two lots of people - one to deduct £1,800 and one to dole out £7k - to the same person? Even people earning as much as £35k are eligible to receive cash from this preposterous scheme dreamt up by that truly great Chancellor, one Gordon Brown.
No there is nothing great about Mr Osborne’s tenure at No 11. The UK remains an excessively taxed, overly governed and bureaucratic economy. Armies of people are paid to administer schemes that shuffle money backwards and forwards between individuals, companies and government (VAT being the greatest of these). Virtually every movement of money attracts some form of tax and much of the revenue is being squandered on worthless schemes and organisations which provide nothing of any note for anybody except employment for those involved. A truly great Chancellor would, together with the rest of the government, get to grips with this and transform the UK an efficient, low-cost, high worth economy.
Mr Osborne does not fit the bill.
The plaudits are sounding off about his radical Budget last week. There is nothing remotely radical about it. The only things of note to Mr & Mrs ordinary revolve around pensions. The idea that people will no longer be forced to invest their savings in extremely disadvantageous schemes run by spivs is not radical. Allowing people to control their own cash is exactly what should be the norm. Increasing the ISA allowance is similarly no big deal. On £15k you might just manage to scrape £200 a year in interest at the moment. If this was taxed the Exchequer would get £40 (or £80 if you were unlucky enough to pay tax at the higher rate - see below). Yet this is announced as the greatest thing for savers since sliced bread
Even the much lauded personal allowance of £10k is disingenuous. People start paying tax at 12% (in the form of National Insurance) on earnings over £7,956. Huge numbers of ordinary working people have been sucked into a 40% income tax bracket by his policies. People such as nurses, teachers, police officers and train drivers now pay tax at the higher rate which was originally introduced to target high earners. Savers have seen their savings crippled by low interest rates - much of the blame for which lies with his “funding for lending” policies and with printing worthless money.
Meantime, what the Chancellor taketh away he giveth back (via an army of overpaid and unnecessary scribes). Low paid workers who are paying a small amount in tax and NI become eligible for the ridiculously named “Tax Credits”. As an example, somebody earning £15k with two children will pay around £1,800 in tax and NI next year. But they will be eligible for about £7k in tax credits. What on earth is the point in paying two lots of people - one to deduct £1,800 and one to dole out £7k - to the same person? Even people earning as much as £35k are eligible to receive cash from this preposterous scheme dreamt up by that truly great Chancellor, one Gordon Brown.
No there is nothing great about Mr Osborne’s tenure at No 11. The UK remains an excessively taxed, overly governed and bureaucratic economy. Armies of people are paid to administer schemes that shuffle money backwards and forwards between individuals, companies and government (VAT being the greatest of these). Virtually every movement of money attracts some form of tax and much of the revenue is being squandered on worthless schemes and organisations which provide nothing of any note for anybody except employment for those involved. A truly great Chancellor would, together with the rest of the government, get to grips with this and transform the UK an efficient, low-cost, high worth economy.
Mr Osborne does not fit the bill.
But the nation would be less likely to approach the brink of financial ruin (whoever was in charge) if it ran its affairs properly, Baldric. For various reasons (only some of which I have mentioned) it does not. It prefers to tax everything that moves and squander the money on, among other things, useless non-productive government departments, contributions to the EU, Foreign Aid and Quangos (remember "the bonfire of the Quangos"? I think they sent out for some firelighters - which are subject to VAT, of course - and found the shops had closed early).
A truly great chancellor would get to grips with such matters and make truly radical changes to the way the nation runs its affairs. He (or she) would stop all the non-productive money shuffling that goes on at enormous expense, would stop doling out money in Foreign Aid which often ends up buying holiday villas and Mercedes cars for foreign despots, would stop tinkering with pennies at the edges of the tax and benefit systems which cost enormous sums to change whilst producing little alteration in overall revenue. In short he or she would seek to reform the structures which are throttling the life out of this country. But no such individual is forthcoming or is likely to be so because, despite what they say, governments don't like radical change. Radical Change almost always upsets a few people. Governments are not in the business of upsetting people. It makes them uneasy and fearful for their jobs. Most of all it upsets the "humble functionaries" who really run the country - the senior civil servants.
A truly great chancellor would get to grips with such matters and make truly radical changes to the way the nation runs its affairs. He (or she) would stop all the non-productive money shuffling that goes on at enormous expense, would stop doling out money in Foreign Aid which often ends up buying holiday villas and Mercedes cars for foreign despots, would stop tinkering with pennies at the edges of the tax and benefit systems which cost enormous sums to change whilst producing little alteration in overall revenue. In short he or she would seek to reform the structures which are throttling the life out of this country. But no such individual is forthcoming or is likely to be so because, despite what they say, governments don't like radical change. Radical Change almost always upsets a few people. Governments are not in the business of upsetting people. It makes them uneasy and fearful for their jobs. Most of all it upsets the "humble functionaries" who really run the country - the senior civil servants.
-- answer removed --
10clarion.You are speaking of the same Gordon Brown who sold British gold reserves, raided pension pots and left us with a huge deficit even worst than the last time they were in power. He also created the benefits society aided and abetted by that slimeball Blair who allowed uncontrolled immigration which is now beginning to show where our money is having to be spent.
Yes and it's also very strange that the said Mr Brown did sod all about the "terrible mess left by Mrs Thatcher" in the eleven years from 1997 until the excrement hit the air conditioning in 2008. One assumes that he was perfectly happy with the status quo during that decade. But it does strike as odd that the serious and fundamental problems which are alleged to have caused the problems in 2008 were not identified and addressed by the Greatest Chancellor The World Has Ever Known.
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
Clarion....I am talking about 24 years ago (about 1997).........not 8 years ago.
The annuity rates were about 10% of the pension pot...then cam 10 years of Labour, then the "crash" now you are looking at 2-3% BUT.....the public sector pensions haven't suffered.
To be honest Clarion....I am getting sick and tired of the "poor" bleating about their lot............I was brought up in a working class (poor) family, got a scholarship in a Conservative Constituency, when to University paid for under a conservative Government.....paid at on time 90% top rate of income tax under a Labour Government, so I feel i have done my bit for the "poor."
The annuity rates were about 10% of the pension pot...then cam 10 years of Labour, then the "crash" now you are looking at 2-3% BUT.....the public sector pensions haven't suffered.
To be honest Clarion....I am getting sick and tired of the "poor" bleating about their lot............I was brought up in a working class (poor) family, got a scholarship in a Conservative Constituency, when to University paid for under a conservative Government.....paid at on time 90% top rate of income tax under a Labour Government, so I feel i have done my bit for the "poor."
-- answer removed --
Here comes the third (I really don't know why I bother with you) I also seem to remember that Gordon (voted the worst Prime Minister that Britain has ever had) left us with complete financial disaster, pensions were raided by Gordon and it was only him who sold the gold reserves. Or has it slipped your mind that the present Government are trying to pay off the national debt now? Credit and borrowing went through the roof with Brown in charge and after 13 years of Labour misrule that is why we are having to tighten our belts now. It was a gimme gimme society, a free for all with no structure to repay the money being spent and no provision for the millions of immigrants allowed to stay here. And Miliband would do the same again if we let him. Brown did stand by and do nothing at all to rein in the banks. If anyone should be hanged it should be Blair and Brown for bringing this country into the mess it's in now.
Latest Posts
ChatterBank12 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles62 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles73 mins ago
News87 mins ago
