Inequality in Britain

[James Barber]

Hi Ladymuck,

You stated Labour tradionally have fought for fairness.

It was a great Liberal Lloyd George who introduced state pensions 100 years ago before the Labour party existed. He was a passionate believer in progressive taxation.

William Beveridge the architect of the NHS and welfare state - another great Liberal.

The new Lib Dem/Con coalition that will reintroduce the link between pay and state pension increases and will raise the tax threshold to ?10,000 taking the poorest out of taxation.

Regards james

[david_carnell]

James Barber Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The new Lib Dem/Con coalition that will

> reintroduce the link between pay and state pension

> increases and will raise the tax threshold to

> ?10,000 taking the poorest out of taxation.

>

> Regards james

No, James. That's a massive misrepresentation of the facts. Even Vince Cable admits it's redistributive outcomes are not as radical as Labour's tax credits. Please read this for an intelligent disection and destruction of a watered down commitment.

[Loz]

That's possibly correct, David, but tax credits were an incredibly labyrinthine way of doing things. At least the ?10K tax band is simple and you don't have to keep reapplying for it. The admin costs for tax credits must have been huge.

I never did quite understand why they called them 'tax credits', either. Seems a complete misnomer.

[Ladymuck]

Hello to you too Mr. Barber,

Have you got my quote please? I seem unable to locate it. Whilst it sounds like something I would say, I wouldn't mind viewing the context. Was I comparing Labour with the Tories for example?

Notwithstanding your comments I stand by my words: Labour have traditionally fought for fairness. Moreover, they continue to do so (e.g. the "hot off the press" Equality Act 2010).

Regarding your final sentence, I have actually acknowledged part of this on other threads...ah yes...here...on one of your threads in fact...did you not read my post?;-)

Re: Copy of Lib Dem coalition agreement with Tories

Posted by: Ladymuck May 12, 09:30PM

...That said, I am pleased to note that the blue/yellow coalition will be raising the capital gains tax rate to streamline it with income tax as well as increasing the income tax threshold to ?10,000. Hopefully, both these measures should go some way to reducing the huge income equality gap between the richest/poorest. Though much more needs to be done.

Ooooh...I mentioned it again; this time on one of Loz's threads but - look, what have we here - my post was in direct response to a comment made by you, no less. Hmmmm, had you forgotten Mr. Barber?

Re: Election Predictions

Posted by: Ladymuck May 14, 02:01AM

James Barber Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I can't say I like the idea of nationally being in

> colaition with the tories.

Echoed.

But we may as well get used to it. Anyhow, I am in favour of the raising of the capital gains tax rate to streamline it with income tax as well as increasing the income tax threshold to ?10,000. I am hoping both these measures will assist in reducing the huge income equality gap between the richest/poorest. Not nearly enough - but it's a start.

[Ladymuck]

Have just realised...I have referred to "WUPOM" / "WUPOMs" in a couple of posts.

If you haven't worked it out already:

WUPOM = White, Upper/middle-class, Public school, Oxbridge-educated Man

WUPOMs = White, Upper/middle-class, Public school, Oxbridge-educated Men

I don't think you'll find this via Google - I made it up. Makes life easier in the long term!

[Ladymuck]

James Barber Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Hi Ladymuck,

> You stated Labour tradionally have fought for

> fairness.

>

> It was a great Liberal Lloyd George who introduced

> state pensions 100 years ago before the Labour

> party existed...

@ Mr. Barber

PS: by stating that "Labour have traditionally fought for fairness" I don't believe I was implying that the Liberals had not. The two facts are not mutually exclusive.

[Ladymuck]

Mr. Barber,

As you now appear to be participating on this thread, I wonder if I could put you to good use?;-)

David_Carnell very helpfully provided a link on the latest VAT increase on this thread a short while back. Here it is again.

I have to say that whilst I am in favour of increased taxation aimed at reducing the gap between the richest/poorest (and, again well done to the blue/yellow coalition for raising the capital gains tax rate to streamline it with income tax as well as increasing the income tax threshold to ?10,000), I am extremely concerned about the repercussions for the poorest in our society vis a vis this proposed VAT increase.

Please, would you be so kind as to provide answers to the following:

- will this proposed measure be implemented alone? i.e. does the coalition intend, for example increasing the rates of various benefits so as to mitigate the impact of any additional tax burden for those on low incomes?

- may I presume that the increase to 20% will be in respect of most goods and services which currently bear the rate of 17.5%?

- what about those items which currently attract a reduced rate of VAT at 5%, e.g. children's car seats and domestic fuel or power? Will the rate for those items rise too? If so, to what?

- what of those goods (some of which are necessities) on which we currently pay zero VAT such as food, books, newspapers and magazines, young children's clothing/footwear, and special exempt items such as equipment for disabled people? Will there be any change there?

Thank you in advance.

[Huguenot]

Now that's a great question!

I assumed it was just the headline rate. There'd be an almighty kerfuffle if they tried to change the others.

Did you know the following are all VAT exempt:

Food (except booze, sweets, fizzy pop and takeaways)

Education

Medicine and health activity/products

Lottery tickets and other betting

Financial services (like credit cards or loans)

Books & Magazines

Kids clothes

Cultural visits/events

Charity stuff

Disabled people's stuff

Sports activities

New homes

Aircraft

Freight

Public transport

Postage

Insurance

These attract lower rates (5%):

Female sanitary products

Power

Changes to existing homes

Heating / insulation stuff

I quite agree that zero rated stuff are necessities, and there cannot plausibly be any change in their status without riots.

The only thing I note about the 5% rated items is that they should also be zero rated!!!

If the rate goes up by 2.5%, it means that consumers would need to cut back their purchases by 2.1% to accommodate the savings necessary.

I can't see any argument for increasing welfare payments in the short term to support the purchase of non-necessity items. If guys on the welfare are spending substantial sums on luxury goods then it's not unreasonable to point out that they need to cut their expenditure on booze, sweets and Levis by 2.1% because the economy's fecked and it's not their money anyway.

[????]

Arguing about a 2.5 percentage point 'hike' in VAT - a tax on non-neccessities - in the current dire financial circumstances is a madness that 'progressives' should be really taking a long hard look at what exactly they are aiming for for the UK, not expecting any silence though..

[Ladymuck]

I'm not against progressive taxation ????, on the contrary - especially (as you say) given the current economic crisis and that horrible D-word (deficit). It is where the measures constitute regressive taxation where my concerns lie (or is that lay). I am happy to pay my share of extra tax for the greater good.

[????]

A small increase in tax on consumption of non-essentials which will raise a significant amount of income without taking too many risks on dampneing economic recovery is being banded about as some evil reverse Robin Hood tax by the normal suspects in 'progressive' politics. PlEASE NOTE taxing bankers bonuses at 200% won't get us out of this mess.

[Ladymuck]

Huguenot Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Now that's a great question!

You sound surprised!

> I can't see any argument for increasing welfare

> payments in the short term to support the purchase

> of non-necessity items. If guys on the welfare are

> spending substantial sums on luxury goods then

> it's not unreasonable to point out that they need

> to cut their expenditure on booze, sweets and

> Levis by 2.1% because the economy's fecked and

> it's not their money anyway.

Fine...but what if, as oppposed to purchasing Levis, they need to buy a pair of Primark jeans? Extra VAT even on Primark clothing will cause people on low incomes additional hardship.

[????]

...and from next year all tax payers will be as tax and NI increases are due without the extra stuff that will probably have to come. A pretty small, but temporary, increase in tax on consumption on non-essentail items is a no brianer to me but, oh no, some of the usual supsects would rather try and score political points than sort out the country's finances.

[????]

Can you imagine what the additional hardship for the poor, weak, ill, old, etc will be like if the country goes bust LadyM? The rich won't suffer....

[Ladymuck]

*puts on boxing gloves*

OK Quids, I'll bite. Who exactly is trying to score political points...?

As per Robert De Niro...are you talking to me?

[????]

No, the usual supects reffered to the usual set of left wing media commentators, columnists and politicians.

[????]

Who seem to think you can fund a decent welfares state, health service and education out of nothing

[Ladymuck]

Relieved you've cleared that one up.

*keeps on gloves for a little longer...just in case...*

[Ladymuck]

???? Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

>PlEASE NOTE

> taxing bankers bonuses at 200% won't get us out of

> this mess.

I presume the coalition are not going to extend Labour's tax on bank bonuses; a missed opportunity if that is the case. Does anyone know?

[Loz]

As per Robert De Niro...are you talking to me?

I see you more like this, LM...

[Ladymuck]

I'm flattered Loz, but you are SO wrong! Ask anyone who knows me!

Erm...perhaps you should read my...erm...contribution on David_Carnell's Cultural Relativism thread...

*laughs tits off*

Now back to "equality"...I note there's an item on existing inequalities in our education system on the news today...

[Huguenot]

Well, a pair of Primark jeans may come in at ?12.

With the change of VAT the retail price could potentially by ?12.25.

I think if this additional 25p is going to break the bank then you probably don't need the jeans that much. I last bought a piece of clothing 14 months ago and all my pants are at least 6 years old ;-)

If I'm dependent on benefits I'd probably steer clear of keeping up with this season's fashions.

I mean, come on, the nation's going bust and the only ones who don't have to tighten their belts are the ones other people are paying for?

[Ladymuck]

OK, OK, I take your point Mr. H.

But seriously though, 25p (multiplied by however many times) is probably going to have a negative impact on someone who is destitute.

I'm alright though, I think nothing of spending ?1.25 on a bag of liquorice toffees. Hey...do sweets come under "food" or "luxuries" for the purposes of VAT?

[Huguenot]

Sweets are luxuries, conferring no health benefits and increasing the drain on the NHS ;-)

Can that 25p be multiplied many times? I thought these guys were on benefits? If these guys are spending much more than ?10 a week on luxuries they're hardly on the breadline?

I mean they've got to spend ?40 a week on luxuries just for that 25p to turn into a ?1.

[Ladymuck]

OK, so you're good at maths.

As for the consumption of liquorice toffees, in my defence, 95% of my journeys are by bike/foot. This makes me healthier/fitter than most, which in turn gives me the right to scoff as many as I wish - right? And besides, they provide vital energy like nothing else. Peeved to hear that they are classed as "luxuries" though.;-)