High Street Sales Slumpm Government...
News0 min ago
Why Can't Lefties Stop Themselve Hiking Taxes?
22 Answers
http://
When we abolished the 50p rate it increased tax receipts by £8bn, so what do you think Jimmy Krankie wants to do? yup you got it! So anyone earning on that range in Scotland will move to England this lowering tax receipts even further!
When we abolished the 50p rate it increased tax receipts by £8bn, so what do you think Jimmy Krankie wants to do? yup you got it! So anyone earning on that range in Scotland will move to England this lowering tax receipts even further!
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ToraToraTora. 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.
//Osborne had been at No.11 for just a few days when he hiked VAT up to 20%.//
that was a bit disingenuous to suggest it was the then government's choice - their hands were tied by EU directive.
http://
that was a bit disingenuous to suggest it was the then government's choice - their hands were tied by EU directive.
http://
Mushroom
// their hands were tied by EU directive. //
No it wasn't and your accompanying document does not say that.
The EU does not set VAT rates. In other parts of the EU, VAT rates are less than the UK, most notably in Germany.
Increasing VAT from 17.5% to 20% was wholely a George Osborne decision. From page 33 of your document, it says the move raised (ie, the chancellor took an extra) £14billion from us.
Where the EU does interfere, and what your linked document is mainly about, is what goods and services are at a lower rate, or exempt. But none of that ties Osbornes hands to raise VAT.
// their hands were tied by EU directive. //
No it wasn't and your accompanying document does not say that.
The EU does not set VAT rates. In other parts of the EU, VAT rates are less than the UK, most notably in Germany.
Increasing VAT from 17.5% to 20% was wholely a George Osborne decision. From page 33 of your document, it says the move raised (ie, the chancellor took an extra) £14billion from us.
Where the EU does interfere, and what your linked document is mainly about, is what goods and services are at a lower rate, or exempt. But none of that ties Osbornes hands to raise VAT.
For 13 years, from winning the General Election in 1997 to April 2010 the higher tax rate was 40% under Labour (as it had been under John Major).
In 2009, as a response to the financial collapse Labour increased that to 50% coming into effect April 2010. Labour were kicked out in May 2010, so the the Labour Goverment had the high rate for 1 MONTH.
For the 6 years of Osbornes Chancellorship it has always been higher than 40%.
For the record:
Labour, 13 years at 40%
Conservatives, 6 years at 45-50%
In 2009, as a response to the financial collapse Labour increased that to 50% coming into effect April 2010. Labour were kicked out in May 2010, so the the Labour Goverment had the high rate for 1 MONTH.
For the 6 years of Osbornes Chancellorship it has always been higher than 40%.
For the record:
Labour, 13 years at 40%
Conservatives, 6 years at 45-50%
For pity's sake, how often do you have to be told this simple truth, TTT? Nobody ever claimed Scotland "owns the North Sea". On the other hand, IF the Scots had voted for independence at the 2014 referendum, they WOULD have acquired ownership of part of it, just as England would and just as Norway, Denmark, Holland, Belgium and Germany already DO own parts of it! In other words, a dividing line separating the Scottish and English areas would of necessity have been internationally agreed.
The big difference, as England would have discovered, is that the (southern) English bit would be the one where oil/gas resources are dying out, whereas the (northern) Scottish part...ie the North Atlantic as well as the northern North Sea...still has ample recoverable resources. These will one day be brought into use, barring some currently unknown energy source being discovered to drive the world's transport needs!
A separate England would have had no share of these whatsoever and I have always been convinced that is why Westminster did everything it could to stymie the independence referendum.
The big difference, as England would have discovered, is that the (southern) English bit would be the one where oil/gas resources are dying out, whereas the (northern) Scottish part...ie the North Atlantic as well as the northern North Sea...still has ample recoverable resources. These will one day be brought into use, barring some currently unknown energy source being discovered to drive the world's transport needs!
A separate England would have had no share of these whatsoever and I have always been convinced that is why Westminster did everything it could to stymie the independence referendum.
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.