Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Uk Debate Mk 2, the UK's liveliest political and social debate site.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Deficit cut by 50% BS.
Topic Started: Dec 30 2014, 04:20 PM (1,006 Views)
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
Claim:
Quote:
 
“When we say ‘deficit’, we assume the reader will instantly think of a of ratio: specifically, deficit/gdp ratio. Economists regard this ratio as being more useful than a cash deficit, so when we say ‘deficit’ we reckon most people will think ‘deficit/gdp ratio’. And this ratio has halved. So it’s (kinda) true to say ‘the deficit has halved’.


Now known as the "Ed Balls false proxy tactic.

Posted Image


Looks like there is yet a long way to go.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Replies:
johnofgwent
Member Avatar
It .. It is GREEN !!
[ *  *  *  * ]
Tigger
Jan 3 2015, 07:23 PM
johnofgwent
Jan 3 2015, 02:46 PM
Posted Image

I wonder how this is going now ? How are house prices today compared to 2010 and how many have been pushed into the IHT bracket by being fool enough to have bought one a while ago ??
IHT in it's present form was brought in after WW2, the nation could simply not afford the upkeep of vast estates that prior to the war existed mainly because much of the activity that went on in these little fiefdoms was exempt from tax, one exception was made though, agricultural land was free from inheritance tax so as to encourage essential food production.

This worked as intended for at least three decades, the problems started in the late seventies as money was "stored" in farmland, and naturally rising housing costs caught more people in the net. The sensible thing to have done was to crack down on this obvious abuse and raise the IHT threshold to reflect it's original purpose.

Of course it has deliberately not been changed because of the now unintended advantages in confers on the super rich and the disadvantages it imposes on social upstarts who have gained "wealth" simply because they have a home in a fashionable or desirable area.

This is one of those self bullshitting British situations where apparently intelligent people sit around and scratch their heads in search of an answer.
And you completely miss the point.

Anyway, I presume you recall the labour policy ? About 30k adrift of the tory figure

There was f$%k all difference between cameron and brown in 2010 and tgeres the same difference between him and milliband now. Both will screw your arse and bleed you dry to serve their credit rating setting masters
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
Tigger
Jan 3 2015, 08:19 PM
johnofgwent
Jan 3 2015, 12:22 PM
Tigger
Jan 3 2015, 11:42 AM
The reality is rather different at this level and above, if you can talk your employer into just paying you your earnings in full and allowing you to sort out the tax yourself with the aid of a tax planner you will not pay anywhere near these sums.

There was even a case in the Eye a couple of years ago that reported that several high ranking officials at HMRC had just such a set up and had "wages" paid into trusts and offshore accounts which they then brought back into the UK as dividends from "investments"!
How EXACTLY does that work again ?

There are all manner of schemes and scams that generally involve a run-in (which for anyone who ever sold anything to the arabs is a joke) with "North West 5 Trusts And Settlements" or whatever they morphed into after the DSS merged with the IR and H M Customs to be one big amorphous slab, but I'd like to hear more about how I can just "talk" my employer into "paying me in full and letting me sort it out" without said employer getting a slapping for "failing to make proper deductions". I can put you in touch with a few such if you like ...
You'll like this one, as did tax dodging pop group Take That! (tuneless twats)

Use your income to set up a business because you get tax relief on business investment, a good idea because it promotes employment and jobs, however if you set up a business say as a talent agency with staff (mates and family members) you can then pump large amounts of money into the enterprise paying wages to those mates and of course make large profits which you then pay yourself, and all done with business rates of tax and not tax rates of tax!

Fortunately a judge ruled it a scam and they had to pay their owed taxes......
Ah but who tightened the rules so that the judge in question was able to give that ruling?

Let's just say that it was after May 2010.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
krugerman
Jan 2 2015, 09:52 PM
Both Cameron and Osborne are noted for making missleading statements, and if you dont believe me, as the boss of the ONS or the Office for Budget Responsibility, claims of increased spending in real terms on the NHS blasted apart comes to mind.

Without going into lots of detail, or using statistics to veil truths, Cameron today told a lie (again), he claimed the deficit had halved, it hasent, and its really as simple as that.
Lets face it K they are only seeking to emulate Brown and Balls. That said it is unacceptable behaviour.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Fully Featured & Customizable Free Forums
Learn More · Sign-up Now
« Previous Topic · Politics · Next Topic »
Add Reply