News2 mins ago
Do They Think None Of Us Can Remember Pre 2010?
Just watching the news. The Labour Party is accusing the Tories of pandering to the rich by suggesting that they are thinking of cutting the top rate of income tax from 45% to 40% (which, incidentally, the Tories deny):
http://
Mr Balls is suggesting that a cut to 40% would mean a “tax cut of hundreds of thousands of pounds for the very richest in our country”
For all but about a fortnight of Labour’s term in office from 1997 to 2010 the top rate of income tax was 40%. Only a few weeks before they were certain to be booted out of office did they implement the 50% rate for incomes over £150k (which the Coalition reduced to 45%).
If Labour thought 40% was an inadequate rate to tax top earners why did it take them thirteen years to do something about it? The BBC, of course, when covering the issue, "rolled back" only to 2010 and stated that it was the new (Tory led) government that reduced the top rate tax but neglected to mention that it had taken Labour 13 years to introduce it. But that's par for the course.
http://
Mr Balls is suggesting that a cut to 40% would mean a “tax cut of hundreds of thousands of pounds for the very richest in our country”
For all but about a fortnight of Labour’s term in office from 1997 to 2010 the top rate of income tax was 40%. Only a few weeks before they were certain to be booted out of office did they implement the 50% rate for incomes over £150k (which the Coalition reduced to 45%).
If Labour thought 40% was an inadequate rate to tax top earners why did it take them thirteen years to do something about it? The BBC, of course, when covering the issue, "rolled back" only to 2010 and stated that it was the new (Tory led) government that reduced the top rate tax but neglected to mention that it had taken Labour 13 years to introduce it. But that's par for the course.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by New Judge. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Gromit, ‘the Big Bang’ didn’t refer to bank deregulation – it referred to the deregulation of the financial markets. Labour deregulated the banks in 1997.
//In 2011 Gordon Brown said that deregulation of the banking sector by the incoming Labour Government of 1997 had also contributed by failing to understand how interdependent the banks were.//
http://
//In 2011 Gordon Brown said that deregulation of the banking sector by the incoming Labour Government of 1997 had also contributed by failing to understand how interdependent the banks were.//
http://
Naomi,
I'm sure you read the paragraph before that.
// Nigel Lawson, Thatcher's Chancellor at the time, appeared on the Analysis program to discuss banking reform, explaining that the 2007–2012 global financial crisis was an unintended consequence of the "Big Bang". He said that UK investment banks, previously very cautious with what was their own money, had merged with high street banks putting depositors' savings at risk and ...according to the program leading US banks to follow suit. //
The setting up of the FSA in 1997 wasn't deregulation, it was a change in regulation. The flaw with the FSA was it didn't realise how globally entangled the banking system was. So UK banks that had previously been seen as healthy by the FSA were actually vunerable. And when they were scared to lend to each other, it made matters worse.
Apologies to Linda,
Labour apologised for setting up the FSA which wasn't up to the job. When the crisis came, the regulator was out of its depths. But the crisis itself wasn't caused by changes made by Labour to the regulator.
I'm sure you read the paragraph before that.
// Nigel Lawson, Thatcher's Chancellor at the time, appeared on the Analysis program to discuss banking reform, explaining that the 2007–2012 global financial crisis was an unintended consequence of the "Big Bang". He said that UK investment banks, previously very cautious with what was their own money, had merged with high street banks putting depositors' savings at risk and ...according to the program leading US banks to follow suit. //
The setting up of the FSA in 1997 wasn't deregulation, it was a change in regulation. The flaw with the FSA was it didn't realise how globally entangled the banking system was. So UK banks that had previously been seen as healthy by the FSA were actually vunerable. And when they were scared to lend to each other, it made matters worse.
Apologies to Linda,
Labour apologised for setting up the FSA which wasn't up to the job. When the crisis came, the regulator was out of its depths. But the crisis itself wasn't caused by changes made by Labour to the regulator.
Thanks everybody - a lively debate.
Of course on the topic of government requiring to raise money they would not need to raise so much if they did not waste so much. But that's another argument.
What really intrigues me about Labour's current stance is that 40% top rate was seen as adequate for all of their term in office - including a couple of years beyond the crisis of 2008. But now even 45% is seen as a "cut for the rich" (when in reality 50% had not been levied for very long anyway). The BBC, of course, is conspicuously reluctant to bring this aspect to the debate.
The "Best Answer" still awaits !!
Of course on the topic of government requiring to raise money they would not need to raise so much if they did not waste so much. But that's another argument.
What really intrigues me about Labour's current stance is that 40% top rate was seen as adequate for all of their term in office - including a couple of years beyond the crisis of 2008. But now even 45% is seen as a "cut for the rich" (when in reality 50% had not been levied for very long anyway). The BBC, of course, is conspicuously reluctant to bring this aspect to the debate.
The "Best Answer" still awaits !!
I've found this where Brown apologised and Milliband was his aide.
http://
And another with Balls apologising.
Ah, I've found it.
http://
Is that enough Gromit?
http://
And another with Balls apologising.
Ah, I've found it.
http://
Is that enough Gromit?
Linda,
Both those links Labour are aplogising for their failure in Regulation, not deregulation.
Previously the Bank of England was responsible for Regulating the Banking System. But by the late 90s this had become a very difficult task. At the same time as making the BofE independent, Brown hived off its Regulatory responsibilities, and eventually the FSA took over that responsibilty.
The FSA was financed by a levy on the very banks it was supposed to be regulating, so that wasn't very satisfactory. And, when it mattered, it wasn't up to the job. The crisis was sorted out by the Treasury and the Bank of England.
The FSA could and should have been better, and that is what the apology is for. But the FSA was the fire engine, it didn't start the fire.
Both those links Labour are aplogising for their failure in Regulation, not deregulation.
Previously the Bank of England was responsible for Regulating the Banking System. But by the late 90s this had become a very difficult task. At the same time as making the BofE independent, Brown hived off its Regulatory responsibilities, and eventually the FSA took over that responsibilty.
The FSA was financed by a levy on the very banks it was supposed to be regulating, so that wasn't very satisfactory. And, when it mattered, it wasn't up to the job. The crisis was sorted out by the Treasury and the Bank of England.
The FSA could and should have been better, and that is what the apology is for. But the FSA was the fire engine, it didn't start the fire.
Gromit. Your first sentence about deregulation and failure to regulate is the same?!? Brown was culpable when it came to taking away the responsibility of bank regulation from the Bankof England. Nobody twisted his arm up his back to do that. You are saying that in 13 years of a Labour Govenment nobody noticed that the FSA we're going a *** job. You'll be telling us next that someone put a gun to his head to sell the Gold reserves at Rock bottom prices. He even announced it aheadof the transaction so it fell even further.
Balls and Milliband were his close advisers and putting those two in charge would be like giving them a wrecking ball.
Balls and Milliband were his close advisers and putting those two in charge would be like giving them a wrecking ball.
Toxic debt, sucking up to the likes of Fred the Shred, allowing him to take over the toxic Dutch bank and giving him a Knighthood shows brilliant judgement do you think? Northern Rock giving 120% mortgages. Higher taxes (apart from so called rich people paying 40% tax). Throwing money at welfare because it created a Client State, and open immigration for the same reason. Then you wonder why it all went wrong.
Some of you may be able to remember, few of you appear to Learn from it.
( apart from quibbling about who did what, and when - all Past no Future thinking)
All of the current political parties see their obligation to Capital and not the people.
Scaled progressive rates of Income Tax could be relative to the minimum wage and use the minimum wage as a Base Line.
http://
( apart from quibbling about who did what, and when - all Past no Future thinking)
All of the current political parties see their obligation to Capital and not the people.
Scaled progressive rates of Income Tax could be relative to the minimum wage and use the minimum wage as a Base Line.
http://
Latest Posts
Crosswords3 mins ago
Anti -Vaxxer Named Health Secretary
News3 mins ago
Jobs & Education6 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles21 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.