Minister pledges inquiry into 10p tax band

Basic mathematical question... Mr Squaddie has his income tax rate increased but his pay remains low

  • Wealthier

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Dunno

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Poorer

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Err... could you ask the question again in plainer English?

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • I'm a Treasury Minister, how should I know!

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Other

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    0
#1
I think I must have misread the BBC news report.... The Chief Secretary to the Treasury is apparently launching an enquiry into the impact of abolishing the 10p tax rate on childless couples. Looks like single people, who pay disproportionate tax already are about to get trampled on again. As a lifelong supporter of Labour I can honestly say that I shall be voting for them in the next General Election... NOT!

Why launch an inquiry? Surely it must be pretty obvious that making the poorest in society, including many single servicemen, pay MORE tax was going make them POORER? That is primary school level economics! :\\
 
#2
Launching an enquiry (inquiry?) means that you don't need to do anything about it.

Ah just checked my dictionary:

Enquiry: The act of questioning
Inquiry: A formal investigation
 
#3
Personally,
I'm married , both of us are working, yet we are going to be worse off
Doesn't matter how they try and spin it , i'm worse off(me and mrs D)

It's probable that to someone on 30k a year ,this isn't going to even make a dent in their income. I'm not , and with all the fuel, food, utilities and council tax increases , i reckon to be around £1200 a year worse off than last year.
I will not go cap in hand to the benefit and ask for Working Tax credits
Naive if you like but why should i look to the government to supplement my income when if they left the taxation alone , i would be ok on what i earn.



Come the revolution , ....
 
#4
Darthspud said:
Personally,
I'm married , both of us are working, yet we are going to be worse off
Doesn't matter how they try and spin it , i'm worse off(me and mrs D)

It's probable that to someone on 30k a year ,this isn't going to even make a dent in their income. I'm not , and with all the fuel, food, utilities and council tax increases , i reckon to be around £1200 a year worse off than last year.
I will not go cap in hand to the benefit and ask for Working Tax credits
Naive if you like but why should i look to the government to supplement my income when if they left the taxation alone , i would be ok on what i earn.

Come the revolution , ....
What a knob!

Do you pay for your doctor? Do you pay for your kids school? Do you pay for your own pension because you're not getting a state one in any form?

Seeing as you're so smart, explain the difference between getting working tax credits, getting a tax rebate and getting things like doctors, schools, state pensions paid for by tax, income or other wise.

Get of your high horse and realise that knobs like you are not making a stand for the working joe who doesn't take handouts, you're just shooting yourself and your wife/kids in the foot with egocentric pride, £1200 worth of pride!

I know you mean well, but FFS, wake up and smell the coffee! You obviously can't really afford to lose £1200 or you wouldn't be on here moaning about it! So get the fcuking forms filled in and claim you fool - give it away if you like to Hedley Court, but claim - IT'S YOUR MONEY!
 
#5
Back at you Airfix

High horse, i think not
The point i'm trying to make, and you blatantly do not want to see

Why should i NEED to get working tax credits etc?

If this hopeless bunch of incompetent Liarbour idiots left the system alone we wouldn't even have this conversation.
And yes i do blame them for the raises in fuel, food etc costs.
Party of the people?
Not if you live outside NottiNg Hill or any other champagne socialist borough
 
#6
Darthspud said:
Back at you Airfix

High horse, i think not
The point i'm trying to make, and you blatantly do not want to see

Why should i NEED to get working tax credits etc?

If this hopeless bunch of incompetent Liarbour idiots left the system alone we wouldn't even have this conversation.
And yes i do blame them for the raises in fuel, food etc costs.
Party of the people?
Not if you live outside NottiNg Hill or any other champagne socialist borough
But mate, it's a 'non-point'! Bods in your circumstances and on your wages get it, bods NOT in your circumstances but on your wages don't!

IT'S HOW THOSE THAT NEED MORE GET TAXED LESS, BUT NOT AT SOURCE!

Now if your 'pride' can live with keeping £1200 off your wife and kids backs and out of their stomarchs, well, fill your boots.....
 
#7
thingy said:
I think I must have misread the BBC news report.... The Chief Secretary to the Treasury is apparently launching an enquiry into the impact of abolishing the 10p tax rate on childless couples. Looks like single people, who pay disproportionate tax already are about to get trampled on again. As a lifelong supporter of Labour I can honestly say that I shall be voting for them in the next General Election... NOT!

Why launch an inquiry? Surely it must be pretty obvious that making the poorest in society, including many single servicemen, pay MORE tax was going make them POORER? That is primary school level economics!
Not any more it ain't - thanks to 'New' Labour's Marxist madness there's hardly a head teacher of a primary school, never mind a pupil, that could work that out these days in Cool Britannia. But they could tell you all about non-judgmental diversity-driven multiculti outreach interactive homosexual ongoing community initiatives, in almost any language you like. Except English, of course.
 
#8
You need to know no more than this:

How much does the Treasury expect to earn from the 10p abolition?

Tax revenues will increase by £7bn through the changes partially offset by the £1bn for raising tax allowances for the over-65s, £2.3bn cost of raising the child tax credit and working tax credit thresholds.

Treasury net gain: £3.7 Billion

Alistair Darling has said he cannot rewrite budget. More like because it was legislation passed last year courtesy of Brown, G.

So, lots of words and much beautiful smoke wafting gently over highly polished mirrors but that is a very big hole to fill. So they will tinker at the margins for political effect but that is about it.
 
#9
Totally agree Darthspud,

Me and the mrs are in the same boat as you,no kids now though.

I know of people who have claimed tax credits,ect.
When the revenue get the figures wrong,these people end up in debt trying to pay it back.

They're worse off than before!

They should up the personal allowance before we pay tax
 
#10
From 'Yes, Minister':

"Minister,' said Humphrey in his most injured tones, "you said you wanted the administration figures reduced, didn't you?'
"Yes,' I agreed.
"So we reduced them.'
Dimly I began to perceive what he was saying. "But . . . you only reduced the figures, not the actual number of administrators!'
Sir Humphrey was pained. "You said reduce the figures, so we reduced the figures.'
"How did it get out?' I demanded. "Another leak. This isn't a department, it's a colander.' I was rather pleased with that little crack. There was another silence. "Anyway,' I concluded, "at least an inquiry gives us a little time.'
"So does a time bomb,' observed my permanent secretary.
"If only you'd said we'd have a departmental inquiry,' he complained, "then we could have made it last 18 months, and finally said that it revealed a certain number of anomalies which have now been rectified but that there was no evidence of any intention to mislead. Something like that.'
"But there was an intention to mislead,' I pointed out.
"I never said there wasn't,' Sir Humphrey replied impatiently. "I merely said there was no evidence of it.' I think I was looking blank. He explained.
"The job of a professionally conducted internal inquiry is to unearth a great mass of no evidence. If you say there was no intention, you can be proved wrong. But if you say the inquiry found no evidence of intention, you can't be proved wrong.'
I had to deal with the matter in hand, namely that I had agreed to an independent inquiry. "Couldn't we,' I suggested thoughtfully, "get an independent inquiry to find no evidence?'
"You mean, rig it?' enquired Sir Humphrey coldly. This man's double standards continue to amaze me.
"Well . . . yes!'
"Minister!' he said. Bloody hypocrite.
"What's wrong with rigging an independent inquiry if you can rig an internal one, I should like to know? Though I already know the answer-- you might get caught rigging an independent inquiry.'
"No, Minister, in an independent inquiry everything depends on who the chairman is. He absolutely has to be sound.'
"If he's sound,' I remarked, "surely there's a danger he'll bring it all out into the open?'
Sir Humphrey was puzzled again. "No, not if he's sound,' he explained. "A sound man will understand what is required. He will perceive the implications. He will have a sensitive and sympathetic insight into the overall problem.' He was suggesting that we rig it, in fact.
"Ah,' I said. "So "sound' actually means "bent?'
"I mean,' he tried again, "a man of broad understanding.' I decided to short-circuit the process by making some suggestions.
"Then what about a retired politician?'
". . . and unimpeachable integrity,' added Humphrey.
"Oh I see.' I paused to think. "What about an academic or a businessman?'
Sir Humphrey shook his head.
"Okay,' I said, knowing that he had someone in mind already. "Out with it. Who?'
"Well, Minister, I thought perhaps . . . a retired civil servant.”
I saw his point. "Good thinking, Humphrey.”
 
#11
Blogg said:
You need to know no more than this:

How much does the Treasury expect to earn from the 10p abolition?

Tax revenues will increase by £7bn through the changes partially offset by the £1bn for raising tax allowances for the over-65s, £2.3bn cost of raising the child tax credit and working tax credit thresholds.

Treasury net gain: £3.7 Billion

Alistair Darling has said he cannot rewrite budget. More like because it was legislation passed last year courtesy of Brown, G.

So, lots of words and much beautiful smoke wafting gently over highly polished mirrors but that is a very big hole to fill. So they will tinker at the margins for political effect but that is about it.
I find it interesting that the Treasury can find around £100 Billion at the drop of a hat to bail out the incompetent bank directors of Northern Rock and fritter away another £50 Billion to bail out the banks, as they have today, but finding £7 Billion to help the poor for a political miscalculation is somehow unobtainable. It seems that the billions are only quickly available to help the already wealthy.
 
#12
thingy said:
Why launch an inquiry? Surely it must be pretty obvious that making the poorest in society, including many single servicemen, pay MORE tax was going make them POORER? That is primary school level economics! :\\
Because they play right into his prefered style of management. Investigations, commissions, inquiries, reports, they all boil down to being able to put the final decision off and dither for as long as possible whilst giving you the excuse of refusing to say what you're going to do about something until all the evidence is in and the inquiry has issued their final report. And then of course there are the reactive enquiries where the the government has buggered something up royally so what they do is issue a non-apology apology, try and blame someone else and then promise to institute an enquiry to find out what went wrong in a year or so time when eveyone's hopefully forgotten all about it.

Now some issues are of course highly complex and need to be considered in the full. But it does seem to be Brown's faviurite activity to set up enquiries to report back to him on issues like this where it's blindingly obvious that it's a bad idea.
 
#13
Brick said:
thingy said:
Why launch an inquiry? Surely it must be pretty obvious that making the poorest in society, including many single servicemen, pay MORE tax was going make them POORER? That is primary school level economics! :\\
Because they play right into his prefered style of management. Investigations, commissions, inquiries, reports, they all boil down to being able to put the final decision off and dither for as long as possible whilst giving you the excuse of refusing to say what you're going to do about something until all the evidence is in and the inquiry has issued their final report. And then of course there are the reactive enquiries where the the government has buggered something up royally so what they do is issue a non-apology apology, try and blame someone else and then promise to institute an enquiry to find out what went wrong in a year or so time when eveyone's hopefully forgotten all about it.

Now some issues are of course highly complex and need to be considered in the full. But it does seem to be Brown's faviurite activity to set up enquiries to report back to him on issues like this where it's blindingly obvious that it's a bad idea.
Agree - Good thing is, this time it isn't going to wash. Did you hear Brown tonight? He fell back in to Chanceller mode and just ranted on a huge number of %s and figures. Nothing to do with people or an attempt at leadership, just his beloved numbers. The sad thing is that he is winning this one and the turncoats are coming back to the flag, not because he has persuaded them that he will sort it out but because the Whips are going round, reminding everyone the Tories are going to win the upcoming local elections because of their mouthing off. However, his actions mean there is huge resentment building against him within the party.

I just hope that Clarke continues his actions and attacks- seemingly about the only senior Labour figure who has the balls to stand up to Cyclops. Money on a challege to Brown after the locals? Put Clarke's name in the pot and call it 50:50 IMHO.
 
#14
Lets be honest (thats a rarity with the government) taxation is designed to take a persons hard earned cash to give to needing causes eg NHS, which i doubt any reasonable human being can disagree to, when not abused and social security for those that deserve it! But it has all been corrupted by C*U*N*T*S so the majority of the money the government takes (cough STEALS cough) off you is used for political ends or to feather the nest of parliament yes men! I have a deep mistrust of politicians because they have no life experiance be it of military? Or industrial life? So how can they make decisions related to these? This supports my belief that politicians hate the military because they actualy dont swallow all their political (cough BOLLOX cough). Hence why the army etc is kept underpaid and in foreign country to avoid it being a political problem. I know i cannot change this but im going to spend my entire life, including that in the army (yes i have done my tests im not that useless) being a pain in the rectum to politicians. Hence why the working classes dont get a reprieve with the 10p tax rate. the labour party is now the party of the unemployed/useless **** which by definition not a single person on this site is so suck in and hopefully guy fawlkes will blow the C*U*N*TS up
 
#15
Brick said:
thingy said:
Why launch an inquiry? Surely it must be pretty obvious that making the poorest in society, including many single servicemen, pay MORE tax was going make them POORER? That is primary school level economics! :\\
Because they play right into his prefered style of management. Investigations, commissions, inquiries, reports, they all boil down to being able to put the final decision off and dither for as long as possible whilst giving you the excuse of refusing to say what you're going to do about something until all the evidence is in and the inquiry has issued their final report. And then of course there are the reactive enquiries where the the government has buggered something up royally so what they do is issue a non-apology apology, try and blame someone else and then promise to institute an enquiry to find out what went wrong in a year or so time when eveyone's hopefully forgotten all about it.

Now some issues are of course highly complex and need to be considered in the full. But it does seem to be Brown's faviurite activity to set up enquiries to report back to him on issues like this where it's blindingly obvious that it's a bad idea.
Absolutely 'spot on'. It is a tried and tested aproach known as 'issue avoidance' This approach worked extremely well for him when he formulated the 'five economic tests' for Britain's entry into the 'Euro'. We have heard nothing whatsoever about his 'five economic tests' since he formulated them, still less about joining the Euro.
 
#16
Cannot change back to the 10p tax level as the revenue raised is needed to NHS etc etc , why is it there never seems to be any shortage of cash for giving away to foreign countries , keeping criminald alive in jail , treating self inflicted injuries like alcoholism and drug addiction , plenty of money to give to those who have children they can't afford .
A radical overhaul is needed starting with a change of government
 

the_boy_syrup

LE
Book Reviewer
#17
In the last few weeks that I can think off
£50 Billion to Northern Rock (could be 25 could be 50 we'll never know)
£50 Billion to shore up the banks so they don't have to sack people earning £100k + per year
£100 million on American x idol for mossie nets to Africa
Where does it all come from?

Given that most Labour MP's are going to be unemployed in a couple of years they really should look after the poor because hopefully one day soon they will be back to earth with a big bad bump
 
#18
OldTimer said:
Cannot change back to the 10p tax level as the revenue raised is needed to NHS etc etc, why is it there never seems to be any shortage of cash for giving away to foreign countries, keeping criminals alive in jail, treating self inflicted injuries like alcoholism and drug addiction, plenty of money to give to those who have children they can't afford.
That's not the only reason we can't change back. To quote the Grauniad of all newspapers,

Treasury officials admitted figures were difficult to calculate. McFall said it would amount to "anarchy" to vote against the abolition of the rate next week - after the tax year had started and tax codes set.
So there you have it. Since they've already implemented it you can't vote how you think will be best for your constituents, you'll just have to shut up and vote like we tell you instead. And of course its also got nothing to do with how badly it would reflect on Brown and the party right before local elections.
 
#19
Well it looks like the wheels are about to come off the bus. It is from the Torygraph though.

Only three weeks ago, Mr Brown had appeared before the PLP and infuriated backbenchers by insisting there would be no compromise over the abolition of the 10p tax band, which was announced in last year's Budget and took effect this month.

However, following two weeks in which the rebellion has grown to the point where it threatens the Prime Minister's position and the party's electoral prospects, Mr Brown adopted a more conciliatory tone last night.......

.......Labour whips see the vote as a "confidence issue," meaning a Government defeat could trigger a general election.
Full article here.
 
#20
Don't forget this budget was passed last year. All the whingers voted for it then because they thought Uncle Joe Broon was a good thing and that under him The Client State would prosper and tractor production would break the all time record.

Now he's seen for what he is [insert diatribe here] they are all stabbing him in the back.

To tax somebody and then get them to claim the money back is the act of a total moron. Which is what Broon is.
 

Similar threads

New Posts

Latest Threads