Author Topic: The UK's punishment: 12 years hard Labour  (Read 1516 times)

Offline thrila

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3190
      • The Few Squadron
The UK's punishment: 12 years hard Labour
« Reply #60 on: April 06, 2005, 06:23:16 AM »
I'll be voting Labour too.:D

Primarily because i think the tory's will do a worser job.
"Willy's gone and made another,
Something like it's elder brother-
Wing tips rounded, spinner's bigger.
Unbraced tailplane ends it's figure.
One-O-nine F is it's name-
F is for futile, not for fame."

Offline beet1e

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7848
The UK's punishment: 12 years hard Labour
« Reply #61 on: April 06, 2005, 07:01:17 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Momus--
My current constituency is Altrincham and Sale West in Manchester (Conservative). Before that, I lived in Feltham and Heston (Labour), before that in Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Labour), and before that Hampshire North East (Conservative). Quite what this info has to do with the discussion I'm not sure.
Like I said, I was just curious.
Quote
The UK is amongst the lightest taxed countries in the EU. The tax burden as a proportion of GDP has actually fallen since 2001. It was at it's peak in 1993 under the Conservatives.
  • Employee National Insurance UP from 10% to 11%.
  • Employer NI UP from 12% to 13%, and the ceiling removed.
  • Council Tax UP
  • Stamp Duty UP - the rate on houses costing £250,000 - £500,000 was TRIPLED.
  • Tax credit on dividends -  cut
I could go on, but I don't want to have to type in all 66... The biggest blow for me was IR35, which redefines the terms for self employed workers - entrepreneurs - people about whom Labour does not give a shirt. They define those with one man limited companies as companies for the purposes of collecting corporation tax and employees for the purpose of collecting national insurance. I interviewed a guy in the High Street of a Berkshire town just a few Saturdays ago. His national insurance liability had risen by £13,000 PER YEAR under Labour since IR35. Great incentive to start your own business - NOT.

Our daily lives - Labour meddles in things which do not concern it. My brother is a retired maths teacher. He had a booklet which was sent from central government, telling him how he should conduct his maths lessons. WTF do government ministers know about teaching, as compared with teachers who have undergone 2 years teacher training and (in my brother's case) have 15 years of teaching experience? But this is the party that thought it would be a good idea to be in the business of running airlines...  :rolleyes:
Quote
The fuel duty escalator was introduced in 1993 by the Conservatives. Labour froze it in 2000.
True, so it's funny that the fuel tax revolt took place in 2000 and not in 1993. Do you think the fact that the pump price of fuel had risen by 50% in the three years that Labour had been in office might have had something to do with it?
Quote
Actually, the cost of motoring has been going down since 2000.
Actually, Britain is (or was) self sufficient in oil, and yet we have the second most expensive petrol in the world, and the most expensive road diesel in the world - around 90p per litre. 18 months ago, I was able to buy diesel at 75p/litre, so the price has risen by more than 15% in that time. So if motoring is now cheaper, what costs have gone down?
Quote
There's plenty to reflect the increased funding since 2001. Just because the Mail, er I mean the Telegraph, isn't reporting it doesn't mean it isn't happening. Staff levels are up, staff moral is up, an increased number of conditions are now treated. Huge hospital building program. Waiting lists are down. This is in an organization rooted in the 1940s and largely starved of funding for 2 decades. I'm quite willing to wait until 2010 before making a judgement, unlike the ideologically driven Telegraph and its dogmatic view of the issue.
I didn't say that funding hadn't increased. What I said was that we have bugger all to show for it. As for waiting lists being down, didn't you see the case of a woman whose operation had been cancelled seven times? Did you miss the news item whereby a woman (who had voted Labour) had switched to Tory because of frustration about not being able to get the right treatment for her son with special needs?

As for NHS hospitals - I'm voting with my credit card. I'm keeping my BUPA membership, even though it costs me hundreds of £ every year - because I don't want to have to wait 2-3 years for "non-urgent" treatment, should the need arise. I also want to minimise my chances of dying from a hospital infection.
Quote
There's a shortage of affordable housing. I have no sympathy for nimbyism.
In the last 6 years or so, people have lost money on the stock market, and have therefore been investing in property, thereby driving prices up. Shoving blocks of flats into former gardens, thereby altering the character of the neighbourhood, is not the answer.
Quote
Move if you don't like it.
Easier said than done. Labour has increased the cost of moving to punitive levels. I have only a 3-bed detached house in the Thames Valley, but when I moved to it in 2003, the move cost me a total of £15,300 - more than half of which was stamp duty.
Quote
Because world stock markets haven't been performing. This is the fault of the UK government? Hmm, ok. Are you advocating government intervention in the pensions market? You did say you were a Tory didn't you?
I'm talking about Gordon Brown's raid on private pensions - to the tune of Five BILLION pounds per year.

Offline Momus--

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 651
The UK's punishment: 12 years hard Labour
« Reply #62 on: April 06, 2005, 09:32:57 AM »
Ok mate, I understand some of your complaints, but I don't have a lot of sympathy over the IR35 issue, which as far as I am concerned was the justified closure of a loophole that previously allowed contract staff to get away with paying far less tax and NI than their directly employed counterparts. The point still stands, we amongst the most lightly taxed nations in Europe as far as i can see.

Regarding the maths teacher, I don't really see this as interfering in people's personal lives. Schools are centrally funded and subject to this kind of direction. If the teacher in question was already doing a good job, he could probably just ignore such bumpf. Now, how about ID cards? Why aren't the Tories opposing these, given that they are supposed to be the defenders of individual liberties? I see stuff like this as much more intrusive than some daft missive sent out to school teachers myself.

NHS - the case of the woman who missed her operation 7 times was woefully misreported - she was not fit enough to undergo the surgery on at least some of the occasions - but I didnt see the Mail mentioning this part. ;)

Quote
The FTSE has shown by far the smallest increase. The Cac and Dow have both risen by more than 50%, the Dax by 23%, the FTSE by less than 4%.


That is undoubtedly the case Nashwan, but do you attribute this poor performance to the Labour government? I'm interested in how you think that works?

Quote
You are aware that Labour brought in a special £5 billion a year tax on pensions funds in 1997, aren't you?


Yes, I was aware that Brown abolished certain tax credits on dividend payments from UK equities and that this has had a certain effect on pension funds.  I think this action may have been mistaken but equally I don't think that all the blame on the current pensions shortfall can be laid at Browns door by any possible stretch. Part of the problem is simple demographics, another part is the pension fund's overexposure to the UK stock market with its attendant bad performance since 2000. Also, pension fund "holidays" allowed in the 1980's have to take at least part of the blame. Also, last time I checked the projected pension shortfall was actually shrinking.

Offline Nashwan

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1864
The UK's punishment: 12 years hard Labour
« Reply #63 on: April 06, 2005, 10:14:31 AM »
Quote
That is undoubtedly the case Nashwan, but do you attribute this poor performance to the Labour government? I'm interested in how you think that works?


A large part of it is down to the government.

The British Chamber of Commerce has claimed that the extra regulations Labour has loaded on them have cost over £40 billion to administer.

The tax changes Brown introduced (apart from the pensions one) had the result of increasing tax on dividends by 16%, resulting in lower investment in the UK stock market (much of the money has fled abroad)

According to the CBI, Gordon Brown's tax changes have cost British businesses another £40 billion (that's on top of the £40 billion in administrative costs caused by the increases in regulation)

In 1998 the World Economic Forum ranked Britain 5th in their world competiveness table, by 2003 Britain had dropped to 15th.

Labour's culture has always been anti-business, and anti-profit (from investment). That's why they had their stupid "un-earned" income surcharge, ie a surcharge on the returns on investment. The stock markets have declined in real terms under every Labour government Britain has had, and this one has not been an exception.

Quote
I think this action may have been mistaken but equally I don't think that all the blame on the current pensions shortfall can be laid at Browns door by any possible stretch.


About half to two-thirds is directly caused by the tax increases on pensions. The rest is down to the under performance of the UK stock market, which is again down to Labour.

Quote
Also, last time I checked the projected pension shortfall was actually shrinking.


Along with the projected benefits. Many companies have been so badly burned over the last few years they have abolished their final salary schemes, or closed entry to new members.

Quote
Ok mate, I understand some of your complaints, but I don't have a lot of sympathy over the IR35 issue, which as far as I am concerned was the justified closure of a loophole that previously allowed contract staff to get away with paying far less tax and NI than their directly employed counterparts.


The IR35 issue caused another decline in competiveness. Where companies before could employ contractors on short term contracts, which offered huge flexibility, much of that has now gone.

As to the use of IR35 to avoid tax, remember that the contractor does not have continuity of employment, sick pay, holiday entitlement, training etc.
« Last Edit: April 06, 2005, 10:17:06 AM by Nashwan »

Offline Skydancer

  • Parolee
  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1606
The UK's punishment: 12 years hard Labour
« Reply #64 on: April 06, 2005, 11:44:37 AM »
This thread reads like a Common's debate!

:lol

Offline Seagoon

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2396
      • http://www.providencepca.com
The UK's punishment: 12 years hard Labour
« Reply #65 on: April 06, 2005, 11:52:20 AM »
Beetle,

I don't know if I'm excluded for commenting given that while I still hold a British Passport, I am a permanent resident in the US and the 15 year rule makes it impossible for me to vote in the UK. Please let me know if the "too Americanized" rule excludes me from commenting here.

I hate to admit it, but after the Coup D'etat that drove Maggie out of office, and then the tepid Major government I lost almost all interest in British politics. The philosophical differences between the main parties have narrowed to almost nothing at all, with all of the parties firmly committed to socialism and social liberalization in principle and only differing in the degrees to which they are willing to implement them. When I go back to the UK to visit family, I am forced to realize that culturally at least I have become a stateless person.

Of course I'm not arguing that the differences have been erased to the point that in local elections you don't still occasionally see the truly Looney Left red brigade candidates and the Fox-hunting old-guard Torries, but it seems to me that both major parties are largely rudderless and soul-less and neither has anything resembling a full-complement of statesmen.

But then again that does seem to be a reflection of our British culture, which appears to set short-term personal peace and prosperity as its only goals. Our pop-culture is a thin imitation of American pop-culture, and we seem to have been drinking deep at the Euro-well of cynicism, enui, and contempt for anything that smacks of "tradition" or moral certainty these days. Oh, and we all agree that we must roll our eyes and/or spit at the mention of "George Bush" or "neo-cons."

All of the bills I see introduced these days seem to be aimed at cheapening the culture, erasing the things that made us distinctively British as opposed to merely European, and of course erradicating the last vestiges of morality unless they are knee jerk restrictions aimed at mismanaging the economy or dealing with the increasing violence and anti-social behavior that goes hand-in-hand with cultural collapse. Meanwhile, the fastest growing religion in England is Islam and each month more and more Churches are closed down to be replaced by Masjids and Maddrassas.

Its just my ultimately worthless opinion, but the UK seems hell-bent on committing slow cultural suicide and at this rate the children of the builders of the "sceptred isle" (those that aren't sacrificed on the altar of convenience that is) are not going to have an inheritance. We have created a cultural vacuum and stronger cultures will inevitably fill that vacuum, especially because we no longer can offer anything worth assimilating into. "Come destroy your family" generally doesn't sell well with cultures that don't view that as inevitable or even necessary.

I'm saddened when I think of what the UK once was; a thriving global center of thought, art, religion, missions, science, trade, and vision, and then reflect on what she has become; decadent, cultureless, moribund, cynical, shallow, amoral, balkanized, and visionless.

What I pray for is revival and reformation in our country, and I pray that someday a party will arise from the ashes that stands for something other than tearing down the old order, promising hand-outs, cultivating envy, and complaining about the opposition. I long to see a party arise with the old spirit, vigor, vision and certainty of Pitt, Burke, Wilberforce, and Churchill. Will that happen? Well not without considerable change in the culture and not unless and until we realize that agendas that merely offer welfare, legal drugs, porn on demand, mandated sexual confusion, dumbed down schools, situational ethics, "animal rights," euthanasia, and laxer sentences have never and will never sustain a society.

- SEAGOON
« Last Edit: April 06, 2005, 11:54:29 AM by Seagoon »
SEAGOON aka Pastor Andy Webb
"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion... Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." - John Adams

Offline Seagoon

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2396
      • http://www.providencepca.com
The UK's punishment: 12 years hard Labour
« Reply #66 on: April 06, 2005, 11:57:18 AM »
Synopsis of the Above: Seems to me that Britain's problems aren't so much party political as much as they are philosophical and ethical.

We don't just need a change of government, we need a cultural sea-change, or all the political dickering will be to no avail.

- SEAGOON
SEAGOON aka Pastor Andy Webb
"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion... Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." - John Adams

Offline Steve

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6728
The UK's punishment: 12 years hard Labour
« Reply #67 on: April 06, 2005, 01:27:56 PM »
Quote
That's why, after the Tories reformed our tax situation, tax receipts actually went up


Ironically, here in the US the libs cannot understand this.  Lower taxes stimulate the economy on  several levels actually causing more tax revenue.  The overseas parrallel is amazing.
Member: Hot Soup Mafia - Cream of Myshroom
Army of Muppets  Yes, my ingame name is Steve

Offline Steve

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6728
The UK's punishment: 12 years hard Labour
« Reply #68 on: April 06, 2005, 01:29:59 PM »
Quote
Well not without considerable change in the culture and not unless and until we realize that agendas that merely offer welfare, legal drugs, porn on demand, mandated sexual confusion, dumbed down schools, situational ethics, "animal rights," euthanasia, and laxer sentences have never and will never sustain a society.

Wow,  a conservative!   God bless you.
Member: Hot Soup Mafia - Cream of Myshroom
Army of Muppets  Yes, my ingame name is Steve

Offline Seagoon

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2396
      • http://www.providencepca.com
The UK's punishment: 12 years hard Labour
« Reply #69 on: April 06, 2005, 03:19:06 PM »
Hi Steve,

Well these days I'd be a small "c" conservative.

The British Conservative party is generally only conservative when it comes to fiscal matters (read some of the Brits on this board, you'll find that many if not most of them lean towards fiscal conservatism, lower taxation, etc. Keeping the money you earn is generally a matter of concern for anyone who works for a living these days) on most other issues, by American standards they'd be considered "moderates" and aside from some vague language about schools and immigration there isn't much in the 2005 Conservative manifesto or coming out of Michael Howard that a fiscally conservative American Democrat would get really hot and bothered about. They want a slightly stronger military than Labour, slightly better national schools, slightly lower taxes, slightly less immigration, slightly less regulation. Essentially its the same philosophy only with less of it.

For instance, they talk about eliminating paperwork and cleaning up the hospitals but never suggest even discussing whether Nationalized Healthcare itself should be scrapped.

On the social agenda side (which they seldom discuss anymore), they view the liberalization of divorce laws, the legalization of abortion, and the steady advance of the homosexual agenda as positive things. In fact when they do talk social order issues, they sound positively libertarian. Except on guns of course - sorry Laz - there they sound like HCI.  

To be fair, I'm closer to their agenda and at least they don't view actually being British, straight, non-vegan, or being mildly patriotic to be "problems one should try hard to overcome." But even when I do agree with them, we've arrived at the same conclusions for entirely different reasons. In speaking with British Conservatives, I realize we may have some things in common, but worldview is seldom one of them.

So if you believe lower council taxes and slightly less regulation will save the UK, they are the answer. Not that they have much chance of being reelected in any event.

So, to the Brits on the board: do you think that the inability to get elected, despite the stumbles of Labour wil continue to drive the Torries leftwards?

- SEAGOON
SEAGOON aka Pastor Andy Webb
"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion... Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." - John Adams

Offline Nashwan

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1864
The UK's punishment: 12 years hard Labour
« Reply #70 on: April 06, 2005, 03:42:49 PM »
I don't think the Tories have gone leftwards. Then again, I don't class "libertarian" as left wing. Since when has allowing people more freedom from government regulation been a left wing policy?

Quote
For instance, they talk about eliminating paperwork and cleaning up the hospitals but never suggest even discussing whether Nationalized Healthcare itself should be scrapped.


The problem is, even after Labour's disasterous management, the NHS is efficient. It provides very good treatment at very low cost.

The US has socialised healthcare as well, of course. Medicare and Medicaid will cost about $500 billion this year, compared to about £80 billion for the NHS in the UK (the US has about 4.5 times the population). (And that's not counting the "socialised" way hospitals treat people who can't pay, and recover the costs from those who can)

Offline Otto

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1566
      • http://www.cris.com/~ziggy2/
The UK's punishment: 12 years hard Labour
« Reply #71 on: April 06, 2005, 05:11:21 PM »
Your Politicians Lie...?   :rofl

Offline beet1e

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7848
The UK's punishment: 12 years hard Labour
« Reply #72 on: April 07, 2005, 05:07:55 AM »
Seagoon! All are welcome in my threads. My current prediction for the election result is a Labour win of between 10 and 50 seats. I wouldn't have thought they could get 100. A hung parliament is even a possibility, and would be messy. An overall Conservative majority is remote. A Conservative win over Labour without having an overall majority is probably a nightmare scenario. They would lack the power needed to put through any of their proposals and might well end up with egg on their faces. If Labour wins, I don't see their administration running full term; I think we could be looking at some sort of crisis in 2007/2008 - just a gut feeling. The European referendum springs to mind...

Momus - I agree entirely with Nashwan's assessments, including IR35. The situation is this: Before 1975, agency workers (eg. self employed IT contractors as I once was) could take a contract in some distant town where they were not known, and open a bank account in a false name. They would invoice the agency, who would pay them in that false name and the contractor would bank the cheques. At the end of the contract, the contractor could cash out the account and close it, then return home and not pay any tax/NI. OK, that part was a loophole which needed to be closed. So in 1975, there were two Finance Acts. The second of these stipulated that agency workers must be taxed at source. But that meant that agencies would have to run a payroll department which none was equipped to do. The only solution was for a contractor to form a Limited Company in which he would be the sole director, and an employee of that company. The company would invoice the agency for the director's services, and would receive the full amount. It was up to the company to sort out the PAYE and to submit audited accounts to Companies House etc. If after receiving reasonable living expenses the company still had profits, the company could declare a dividend. Tax is payable on dividends, but not national insurance. This was fair enough because when operating as a company, there are expenses to be met, so it follows that the company should not be paying tax or NI on these business expenses. There was some corporation tax payable - about 10%. In my experience, the vast majority (99%) of contractors went the Limited Company route.

Then Labour decided it wanted to have its cake and eat it. IR35 was designed so that contractors would still have to pay corporation tax, but no dividends would be payable and no expenses allowed. They did this by moving the goalposts around - by redefining what constitutes being an employee. Basically they decreed that if you went to the same place each day, you were an employee of that client organisation. (But hold on a moment - a builder goes to the same site each day till a building is completed - does that make him an employee of the company building the houses?)

So, having pocketed ~10% corporation tax, the govt. then says that all monies coming through the company must be paid as "salary". But that means that the company must pay employer's NI at 13%, and the contractor must pay employee's NI at 11%!! AND... because of being classed as an "employee", the contractor cannot claim expenses like travelling/parking...

It's a farce, for all the reasons Nashwan gave. How can someone be an employee when there are no paid absences, no employee benefits (training/perks), no employment protection and, most importantly, no pension?

Let's look at the figures. For every £100 a contractor earns (at the 40% tax rate), £13 comes off for employer's NI, and about £10 comes off for corporation tax. That leaves £77, on which must be paid 40% tax and 11% employee's NI, leaving the princely sum of £37.73. Don't forget that many will be running monthly petrol bills of £350 (at least £250 of that is tax), and in parts of Greater London eg. Croydon, parking charges will be another £5/day. You can see from this that the overall tax/NI/expenses package comes to nearly 70% - and that doesn't even include accountancy fees. So if you still think that
Quote
but I don't have a lot of sympathy over the IR35 issue, which as far as I am concerned was the justified closure of a loophole that previously allowed contract staff to get away with paying far less tax and NI than their directly employed counterparts.
and that paying 70% of your hard earned in tax is a fair deal, I don't think we have anything left to discuss.

Offline Seagoon

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2396
      • http://www.providencepca.com
The UK's punishment: 12 years hard Labour
« Reply #73 on: April 08, 2005, 11:38:05 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Nashwan
I don't think the Tories have gone leftwards. Then again, I don't class "libertarian" as left wing. Since when has allowing people more freedom from government regulation been a left wing policy?


Hello Nashwan,

Sorry I haven't had time to respond to much of anything of late.

Lady Thatcher and other social conservatives noted the drift away from any sort of commitment to "traditionalism" in Conservative policy setting. This policy has accelerated by the determined campaigns of the "new conservatives" both in the party and the media to stamp out anything that might turn-off younger middle and upper class voters who would be in favor of fiscal conservatism but who had no abiding ethical moorings (aside from the consideration "what are my mates doing" and possibly "will this land me in jail?") whatsoever.

A simple review of Conservative party statements from the 50s to the current day will show a pronounced movement away from conserving what are often called "Traditional Moral Values" and what would be better described simply as "biblically derived ethics" to a position where they are content simply to endorse the current moral climate, and mildly oppose any legal actions to produce radical changes in that climate. So because abortion on demand is now the status quo, and the majority of Britons are "ok with it" the party endorses it. This is a radical departure from the principled leadership of the past that was willing to say that regardless of how many people endorsed certain things, they could still be wrong. Examples of this would be Wilberforce's rejection of slavery despite its popularity, and Churchill's rejection of "peace at all costs." Both were eventually vindicated, and by their steadfast leadership eventually changed the viewpoints of their society. Now it seems that instead of statesmen, all we have are demogogues who seek to figure out where society is going, and then jump out in front of the pack.

Libertarianism is neither liberal nor conservative in the traditional sense, its only ethic is at heart "let all men do what is right in their own eyes" or "If it makes you happy, how can it be bad?"

Well obviously the Michael Jackson trial is a case in point showing how what makes one man very happy can also be very bad and needs to be prohibited and punished.

Anywho, I'd go on but I'm out of time. Here's a thought-provoking article written in 2000 which noted the developing trend in Conservative circles towards social libertarianism (or libertinism) and the differences between that trend and historic conservative principles.

Pursuing permanent values: a moral framework for freedom

- SEAGOON
SEAGOON aka Pastor Andy Webb
"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion... Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." - John Adams