We Pay More For Less
Discussion
A good opinion piece in yesterday's Telegraph shows that even the Guardian know what New(?) Labour is really about...
Polly Toynbee will be pleased. The Guardian columnist has long argued that the only thing wrong with New Labour is that it denies being what it really is: a redistributive socialist government. Tony Blair and Gordon Brown will not be pleased, for despite all their clever concealements, some facts exist in black and white. Ms Toynbee is right. Figures released (yesterday) show that a typical family with one earner on £40,000 a year paid a little over a third of its income on tax in 1997. Today it pays as much as half.
It will be remember that Mr Blair, before the 1997 election, said he had "no plans to raise tax at all". If he did not, Mr Brown did. Yet Mr Brown has strained every sinew to ensure that headline tax rates have not risen, just as he siphons revenue in a hundred sneaky ways. The deep dishonesty of this strategy has been compounded by a deliberate blind eye to rising house prices and wages. Thresholds have not risen, with the result that stamp duty revenue has risen eightfold while receipts from capital gains tax, inheritance tax and National Insurance have all doubled.
For many years, there has been a strong assumption that high taxes equal better public services. That can no longer be believed by any but Ms Toynbee and her dwindling ilk. Far too many families have seen increasing proportions of their incomes creamed off by the taxman, without any commensurate improvements in the services the taxes are supposed to pay for. Since 1997, an additional army of civil servants - eight times the size of the British Army - has been recruited to work in the public sector, but most of them "manage" services rather than deliver them. This is a shameful use of the money that has been produced, not by the policies of government, but the efforts of private individuals. Time for tax cuts.
Polly Toynbee will be pleased. The Guardian columnist has long argued that the only thing wrong with New Labour is that it denies being what it really is: a redistributive socialist government. Tony Blair and Gordon Brown will not be pleased, for despite all their clever concealements, some facts exist in black and white. Ms Toynbee is right. Figures released (yesterday) show that a typical family with one earner on £40,000 a year paid a little over a third of its income on tax in 1997. Today it pays as much as half.
It will be remember that Mr Blair, before the 1997 election, said he had "no plans to raise tax at all". If he did not, Mr Brown did. Yet Mr Brown has strained every sinew to ensure that headline tax rates have not risen, just as he siphons revenue in a hundred sneaky ways. The deep dishonesty of this strategy has been compounded by a deliberate blind eye to rising house prices and wages. Thresholds have not risen, with the result that stamp duty revenue has risen eightfold while receipts from capital gains tax, inheritance tax and National Insurance have all doubled.
For many years, there has been a strong assumption that high taxes equal better public services. That can no longer be believed by any but Ms Toynbee and her dwindling ilk. Far too many families have seen increasing proportions of their incomes creamed off by the taxman, without any commensurate improvements in the services the taxes are supposed to pay for. Since 1997, an additional army of civil servants - eight times the size of the British Army - has been recruited to work in the public sector, but most of them "manage" services rather than deliver them. This is a shameful use of the money that has been produced, not by the policies of government, but the efforts of private individuals. Time for tax cuts.
james_j said:
one earner on £40,000 a year paid a little over a third of its income on tax in 1997. Today it pays as much as half.
Indeed, I think there are many bitter people due to this! It drove one of my dads friends abroad and the rest are like a broken record about it... I can only hope that in the years to come as I work up the ladder the issue changes in the favour of the working man/woman
. >> Edited by polus on Sunday 6th November 14:11
simpo two said:
Damn right, but can the Conservatives beat the Labour media machine to get it through to the public?
Conservatives: 'We'll lower taxes'
Labour: 'Which schools and hospitals will you close, it doesn't add up, blah blah''
Conservatives: (silence}
Hehe, is it possible to get hold how much goes into the pot through the various taxes and how much is spent on what? Or is that a silly question and its buried under 10 tons of bureaucracy!
polus said:
Damn right, but can the Conservatives beat the Labour media machine to get it through to the public?
Conservatives: 'We'll lower taxes'
Labour: 'Which schools and hospitals will you close, it doesn't add up, blah blah''
Conservatives: (silence}
Hehe, is it possible to get hold how much goes into the pot through the various taxes and how much is spent on what? Or is that a silly question and its buried under 10 tons of bureaucracy!
try
http://budget2005.treasury.gov.uk/pag
Our government is actually very open about what they take and what they spend it on.
You need to be very careful when comparing figures for tax. Remember that many countries have very different systems for national and local taxation so comments about tax takes being bigger in the UK need to be taken with a big pinch of salt.
The true measure is total tax take at local and national level but most debates revolve around a specific tax or set of taxes.
Much as I like criticising Labour
That article used a very bizarre calculation, where it was assumed the tax payer was moving house and hence paying stamp duty.
Stamp duty has indeed risen since Labour came to power (an eight fold rise in receipts I believe) but people don't move house every year. If you averaged the stamp duty by the average length of residence in the house then tax does not take half the income.
The Telegraph is right, those on middle incomes are paying a far higher proportion of their income to the state than in 1997, they do however overstate their case in this instance.
That article used a very bizarre calculation, where it was assumed the tax payer was moving house and hence paying stamp duty.
Stamp duty has indeed risen since Labour came to power (an eight fold rise in receipts I believe) but people don't move house every year. If you averaged the stamp duty by the average length of residence in the house then tax does not take half the income.
The Telegraph is right, those on middle incomes are paying a far higher proportion of their income to the state than in 1997, they do however overstate their case in this instance.
james_j said:I wonder what the ratio of those that actually deliver the services to the managers is
Since 1997, an additional army of civil servants - eight times the size of the British Army - has been recruited to work in the public sector, but most of them "manage" services rather than deliver them.
Jaglover said:
If you averaged the stamp duty by the average length of residence in the house then tax does not take half the income.
Well, as a very rough guide...
Income tax: approx 23%, give or take a bit
National Insurance: 10%
VAT on almost everything: 17.5%
That's 50% gone already...
Then, add Council Tax and Petrol tax (several K a year) and you're surely heading up to 60% of your income gone, with several dozen stealth taxes such as IPT left in the wings. I think the Government's aim is to work us until we drop (max tax yield and minimum pension payout), and make sure we die with 0.01p in the bank. Job done Mr Chancellor!
simpo two said:
If you averaged the stamp duty by the average length of residence in the house then tax does not take half the income.
Well, as a very rough guide...
Income tax: approx 23%, give or take a bit
National Insurance: 10%
VAT on almost everything: 17.5%
That's 50% gone already...
Then, add Council Tax and Petrol tax (several K a year) and you're surely heading up to 60% of your income gone, with several dozen stealth taxes such as IPT left in the wings. I think the Government's aim is to work us until we drop (max tax yield and minimum pension payout), and make sure we die with 0.01p in the bank. Job done Mr Chancellor!
No he'd want us to have more than that left otherwise that's his bit of inheritance tax gone!
50-60% tax, you are having a laugh!!!!!
Try 80+%.
For every pound you earn, your company kindly donates 13 pence in employers NI contributions.
Most of the stuff you buy has (at least) VAT on it. Everything you buy makes a profit for somebody somewhere which they then pay tax on.
The stuff you buy pays for the people who sell it, make it, deliver it etc etc etc wages, which they then pay tax on.
The list just goes on with taxation upon taxation upon .....
Anybody know what the total GDP is in this country versus the TOTAL tax bill (central goverment, local, national insurance, VAT, import duty etc etc)? That would be a very interesting, and very depressing, figure.
Try 80+%.
For every pound you earn, your company kindly donates 13 pence in employers NI contributions.
Most of the stuff you buy has (at least) VAT on it. Everything you buy makes a profit for somebody somewhere which they then pay tax on.
The stuff you buy pays for the people who sell it, make it, deliver it etc etc etc wages, which they then pay tax on.
The list just goes on with taxation upon taxation upon .....
Anybody know what the total GDP is in this country versus the TOTAL tax bill (central goverment, local, national insurance, VAT, import duty etc etc)? That would be a very interesting, and very depressing, figure.
simpo two said:
If you averaged the stamp duty by the average length of residence in the house then tax does not take half the income.
Well, as a very rough guide...
Income tax: approx 23%, give or take a bit
National Insurance: 10%
VAT on almost everything: 17.5%
That's 50% gone already...
Then, add Council Tax and Petrol tax (several K a year) and you're surely heading up to 60% of your income gone, with several dozen stealth taxes such as IPT left in the wings. I think the Government's aim is to work us until we drop (max tax yield and minimum pension payout), and make sure we die with 0.01p in the bank. Job done Mr Chancellor!
You pay vat at 17.5% on whatever is left to spend after all other deductions, and it is not on all items in any case.
james_j said:
A good opinion piece in yesterday's Telegraph shows that even the Guardian know what New(?) Labour is really about...
Polly Toynbee will be pleased. The Guardian columnist has long argued that the only thing wrong with New Labour is that it denies being what it really is: a redistributive socialist government. Tony Blair and Gordon Brown will not be pleased, for despite all their clever concealements, some facts exist in black and white. Ms Toynbee is right. Figures released (yesterday) show that a typical family with one earner on £40,000 a year paid a little over a third of its income on tax in 1997. Today it pays as much as half.
It will be remember that Mr Blair, before the 1997 election, said he had "no plans to raise tax at all". If he did not, Mr Brown did. Yet Mr Brown has strained every sinew to ensure that headline tax rates have not risen, just as he siphons revenue in a hundred sneaky ways. The deep dishonesty of this strategy has been compounded by a deliberate blind eye to rising house prices and wages. Thresholds have not risen, with the result that stamp duty revenue has risen eightfold while receipts from capital gains tax, inheritance tax and National Insurance have all doubled.
For many years, there has been a strong assumption that high taxes equal better public services. That can no longer be believed by any but Ms Toynbee and her dwindling ilk. Far too many families have seen increasing proportions of their incomes creamed off by the taxman, without any commensurate improvements in the services the taxes are supposed to pay for. Since 1997, an additional army of civil servants - eight times the size of the British Army - has been recruited to work in the public sector, but most of them "manage" services rather than deliver them. This is a shameful use of the money that has been produced, not by the policies of government, but the efforts of private individuals. Time for tax cuts.
Yep - tax cuts are deffo the answer.
That's obviously sarcastic BTW
We need more wealth creation rather than whingeing about taxes. The rest of the world is catching up with us and our relative wealth is falling.
There a
of a lot of moaning going on right here on this forum about labour is 'x' and conservative is 'y' and 'x' is evil and 'y' is great. It's bullshit. This country is in an ongoing economic crisis and whomever is in charge is just bailing the ship as fast as they can. Fair enough that there is a difference in policy towards personal freedoms but on taxes the two parties are as good as identical ie following the Thatcherite principal of low taxation on earnings but high taxes on spending. So if you'd like to get back to your debate about who would be the best deckchair attendant on the Titanic then moan away.
I love the irony of moaning about moaning
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff