| 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: |
| Tory 'Tax' Deceit | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Jan 6 2015, 09:40 AM (391 Views) | |
| Nonsense | Jan 6 2015, 09:40 AM Post #1 |
|
Regular Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
The Tories, as I have previously alluded to, deceived many people with their 2013 Local Council Tax funding arrangements. They changed the system from national to local funding, REDUCING national financial support to councils that gives assistance to the poor, who cannot afford the increasing amounts of local tax. Local councils have undoubtedly been unaccountable in past years with their spending, I mean, apart from funding trips abroad, the purchasing of high performance cars for local police,costing £ tens of thousands of Pounds to taxpayers is but one example, local councillor salaries(another good old 'New Labour' construct),the list is pretty well endless. But, the Tories have lopped off 10% of what was previously given as national support when they brought in the changes. It's these changes(reductions in support) that local councils are now passing on to locally poor people, by charging them for the first time. They say that 'pensioners' are protected, that is a LIE, as I a pensioner have been paying these charges, whereas previously under the last government I didn't, in other words, the pension increases that the Tories shout from the rooftops about, are merely given in one hand(state pension) & taken out from the other hand(Council Tax). http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/councils-issue-tax-bills-warning/ar-BBhzuuQ?ocid=iehp Responsibility for council-tax benefit was switched to 326 individual authorities in April 2013, with the central funding provided to support it cut by 10% as ministers sought to cut the annual £4.3 million bill to the taxpayer. Edited by Nonsense, Jan 6 2015, 12:30 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| krugerman | Jan 6 2015, 09:49 AM Post #2 |
|
Regular Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Sounds about right to me - the Tories cutting the deficit by taking money from the least well off in society (yet again), just like the Bedroom Tax, whilst at the same time they give out tax breaks to the wealthiest in society - that s the Tories for ya. |
![]() |
|
| RJD | Jan 6 2015, 12:53 PM Post #3 |
|
Prudence and Thrift
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
True Local Gov has managed to live with reduced budgets and the World did not come to an end. Now it the time for Whitehall to get the sharp end of the knife. Me I would like to see less central and more local Gov., but with much bigger catchments. See no reason why Liverpool and Manchester plus others don't cooperate. The claim that the World would come to an end and we would have millions more unemployed has turned out to be exactly as claimed; "ignorant lefty drivel". The private sector has, in the face of great difficulties, created three times more jobs than shed by the public sector, so think what it could do with some encouragement. If you really do believe that jobs, good real jobs paying a good wage, are Britain's economic salvation then you should be shouting for a smaller and more efficient public sector, not the opposite. |
![]() |
|
| papasmurf | Jan 6 2015, 01:00 PM Post #4 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
It has done for vulnerable people at the sharp end of the cuts to services, meals on wheels being stopped, care packages being reduced or stopped, which is a major factor in the queues at accident and emergency and bed blocking. The cuts are turning out to be costing more than they have saved. |
![]() |
|
| Affa | Jan 6 2015, 02:14 PM Post #5 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
At the time when "the sun was shinning" it was almost routine for Councils to increase local taxes by considerably more than inflation (as much as 20% some years). One of the audited reasons given (by some) was the addition/increases-in a "reserve fund". A rainy day reserve to help them through hard times, and money (in the £millions) that was invested (some will recall that quite a few UK Councils were hard hit by Iceland cancelling Banks debts) where it could earn income. |
![]() |
|
| RJD | Jan 6 2015, 02:35 PM Post #6 |
|
Prudence and Thrift
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Best get to your local Council Meetings and bang your drum and demand higher priorities for your group. Ask them what hobbies they are spending taxes on and why is it the cost of the Executive has increased so much over the last decade. We have not seen one head count reduction in our Local Gov. offices during the last four years and yes His Nibs had a fat pay rise. In the same period those out and about such as Refuse Disposal Technologist had cuts and our Council Taxes were higher than inflation. It's Local Gov. Mr Smurf the Councillors also need your vote. |
![]() |
|
| papasmurf | Jan 6 2015, 02:40 PM Post #7 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I don't have a "group" RJD, not that cover the broad spread of people who have been badly effected. |
![]() |
|
| RJD | Jan 6 2015, 02:41 PM Post #8 |
|
Prudence and Thrift
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
The truth is that some, probably most, spent with alacrity and much on that which was not that necessary. Redundancy payments were a joke, but no longer. I know a chap, personally, who thought he was wired into the gravy, but has been shocked to find that his job, which he engineered out of existence by himself, will not pay him the 2 years salary as a compensation that he anticipated. Subcontractors are now having to compete and tender for work. If you do not like the way your council prioritises it's expenditure go bang on your local MP's door. Tell him to cut more in Whitehall and less locally. |
![]() |
|
| RJD | Jan 6 2015, 02:42 PM Post #9 |
|
Prudence and Thrift
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
It was ever so Mr Smurf and the chill winds blow from all quarters. |
![]() |
|
| Affa | Jan 6 2015, 03:02 PM Post #10 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Councils have been sub-contracting services and operations for some considerable time .... I should have added that the huge increases in CT pre-crisis, way above their Spending Requirements pre-Labour, ought to be enough to continue services (no cuts) and to forgo further increases. Those higher CT bills (when spending was extravagant) are more than adequate (or should be in real terms) to maintain essential services without demanding more resources ...... and without too enthusiastic staff cuts. |
![]() |
|
| Steve K | Jan 7 2015, 01:02 AM Post #11 |
|
Once and future cynic
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Local councils mean well but I wouldn't trust any of them them to boil an egg. They are so poorly led and any politician with serious ability moves upward to national politics. The coalition squeeze on councils was inevitable, their delegation of key welfare delivery to them (see the various discretionary funds) a complete and highly predictable cods up with the victims being those least able to cope. |
![]() |
|
| Lewis | Jan 7 2015, 07:46 AM Post #12 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Absolutely agree, time for the incompetents to be given their marching orders, once and for all. |
![]() |
|
| C-too | Jan 7 2015, 08:18 AM Post #13 |
|
Honourable Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
THis is what Thatcher did back in the 1980s. |
![]() |
|
| C-too | Jan 7 2015, 08:23 AM Post #14 |
|
Honourable Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Wasn't it the case that the rich got so much richer before the meltdown? |
![]() |
|
| RJD | Jan 7 2015, 09:01 AM Post #15 |
|
Prudence and Thrift
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Stinks of envy. Not one iota of information and reasoning as to why it is on a World-wide basis that capital and skills have gained and those without have not. The constant whinge from the lefties also lacks rigour, as usual, because they fail to include State benefits in their calculations on income. Yep a man with a partner/wife and two kids on the NMW can have the earning power of £25,000+ due to benefits. They also lazily imply that Politicians here in the UK have a Magic Wand which they can wave in order to solve the problem and in an instance after a spell or two followed by a flim flam flu will suddenly make the bottom quartile much richer. They don't, there is no magic, this is a global phenomenon. After asking the question on how to divert £20b PA in a sustainable manner from the top 5% say to the bottom 10% the left have failed to provide a solution. The conclusion is that the lefties are not solution providers, they are just one long whinge. Let us face the fact that the left is destructive not creative. |
![]() |
|
| papasmurf | Jan 7 2015, 09:13 AM Post #16 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Change the (expletive deleted) record RJD. I really can't be bothered after having dealt with the "emergent properties" of government cuts to legal aid recently. Which has been yet another instance of a cut in one area causing a much higher cost somewhere else. The current governments purely doctrinal cuts are starting to cost the tax payer a fortune. |
![]() |
|
| RJD | Jan 7 2015, 09:22 AM Post #17 |
|
Prudence and Thrift
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Pure doctrinal indicates that you find it morally acceptable to borrow today at the expense of future generations to pay for current consumption. If objecting to such a stance is doctrinal then yes loudly "guilty as charged". I do not subscribe to the lefties stance of eating from my grandchildren's pocket. |
![]() |
|
| ACH1967 | Jan 7 2015, 09:37 AM Post #18 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Lets focus on what PS is saying. If cuts in one area are leading to higher costs in another area then the cut is a failure and could consequntly be argued to be doctrinal. Can you give some examples of this PS to support your case? |
![]() |
|
| papasmurf | Jan 7 2015, 09:39 AM Post #19 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I don't find it morally acceptable to use doctrine to make the poorest and most vulnerable people in the country suffer the consequences of other peoples actions. |
![]() |
|
| RJD | Jan 7 2015, 11:12 AM Post #20 |
|
Prudence and Thrift
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
As most on the left you seek to avoid a direct question. However I understand that in reality like most on the left you don't give a sh1t about the plight of future generations. Funny is it not that the Welfare Budget has increased. The claims that this Gov. are putting people, the poor, back to the conditions of the 1930s or 1830s is pure hyperbole as in reality at best the spend will be greater than that of 2008. If the State provided no succour then people would suffer through impoverishment, as the State provides financial and health care support it cannot be accused of making people suffer. Your only claim is that you want to borrow even more from the future to dish out to those you consider deserved, today. It is all relative Mr Smurf and relatively speaking the UYK is an extremely generous country, however, you might wish it were more generous, but your claim that it is not is unfounded. It is pure politically motivated hype and no there will not be 600,000 dead in our streets from malnutrition or hyperthermia in the next four months. Your credibility on this matter is thin. |
![]() |
|
| ACH1967 | Jan 7 2015, 12:23 PM Post #21 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
It is my general opinion that PS wants the rich to pay more tax or those that he thinks are avoiding tax to pay the tax they should. Whether this is realistic is another matter but I do not beleive he is suggesting more be borrowed to further his goals. |
![]() |
|
| papasmurf | Jan 7 2015, 12:53 PM Post #22 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
They are not hyperbole RJD, you need to go outside of your insulated bubble and take a look at what is going on. If I had the chance I would drag all the people who think the benefits cuts are not having dire effects on the most vulnerable at gun point if necessary and take them on tour so they would be forced to see what the current shower of (illegitimate people) in government have done in their name. The Conservatives are not for office, no matter how dire the opposition choice is. |
![]() |
|
| ACH1967 | Jan 7 2015, 01:38 PM Post #23 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
well give some illustrative examples then |
![]() |
|
| papasmurf | Jan 7 2015, 02:43 PM Post #24 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Not that you will bother to read it:- http://npi.org.uk/files/2213/7571/0018/BlackApril.pdf |
![]() |
|
| ACH1967 | Jan 7 2015, 04:02 PM Post #25 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I have read it. It’s not a great report. The best bits are the recommendations. The Graph makes no sense at all. How can 125,000 be affected by the bedroom tax and then 320,000 be affected by bedroom tax and Council Tax benefit? The maximum affected by the both can never be higher than the most affected by one. I am sure people have been negatively affected but this report is very poor. What is FRS? I am sure that families and people are worse off. This report really doesn’t give me a feel for how much worse off. Once again a worked example rather than a list of figures would be much more meaningful and instructive. |
![]() |
|
| Affa | Jan 7 2015, 04:06 PM Post #26 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
What was it you did not understand of the mention that 'cuts cost money', cost more than they are supposed to save? The result of which is increased borrowing and lower production .... a lose lose situation Osborne has yet to realise. |
![]() |
|
| Steve K | Jan 8 2015, 12:42 AM Post #27 |
|
Once and future cynic
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Well I read it. It was hard not to spot that it did not contain a single illustrative example so suggests that you did not read it. |
![]() |
|
| ACH1967 | Jan 8 2015, 08:54 AM Post #28 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
In my post 25 I commented on the graph. Did you understand the Graph Steve because frankly it's bugging me that I didn't. |
![]() |
|
| Steve K | Jan 8 2015, 10:06 AM Post #29 |
|
Once and future cynic
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Well as soon as I read the phrase "Bedroom Tax" it was obvious it was written by someone whose agenda was to deceive first and inform maybe. Man and woman in the street calling it a tax I can understand but anyone affecting to be a serious commentator or politician using that idiocy just loses it with me. Anyway I guess you're referring to "How can 125,000 be affected by the bedroom tax and then 320,000 be affected by bedroom tax and Council Tax benefit?" Tax idiocy aside the graph is OK on that point as the 125,000 were those only affected by the spare room subsidy and the 320,000 had the additional issue of Council Tax. So I get it to be 1,645,000 affected, of which: - 1,200,000 just by Council Tax benefit - 125,000 just by spare room subsidy - 320,000 by both and then there's the housing benefit cap people |
![]() |
|
| ACH1967 | Jan 8 2015, 10:17 AM Post #30 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I get it i must have over looked the "only". Even then it took me several reads of your post for it to get me. I am on the other side of the spare room subsidy (concept doesn't match reality - no where for peopel to move to to avoid paying the subsidy) . I use bedroom tax out of laziness now though even though it grates. The lack of illustrations is one of the many things we agree on. It is difficult to not be suspicious that it is being deliberately avoided for some reason. Even so some people are worse off either the illustration would demonstrate how badly off they are or it would illustrate that actually they are worse off but they can limit that by cutting back on certain expenditure. Who knows? It is clear nobody really wants to tell us. I am surprised that the right doesn't do this but maybe the situation is nuanced and there isn't a clear soundbite that can be drawn from it. Thanks for explainign the graph. |
![]() |
|
| Steve K | Jan 8 2015, 12:28 PM Post #31 |
|
Once and future cynic
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
You're welcome Spare room subsidy is OK in principle but implemented with callous disregard for reality, attention to detail or any serious consideration of the net saving a fair implementation would have delivered. One of those dogma first reasons a Conservative government from 2015 would be a nightmare. |
![]() |
|
| RJD | Jan 9 2015, 03:16 PM Post #32 |
|
Prudence and Thrift
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Are you saying that we must continue to borrow from the future because if we do not then we cannot afford the things we have bought for ourselves today? Seems to me to be a good argument to borrow and spend until we drop. There is no moral justification to borrow and spend on current consumption, however, it is understood that it will take time, far too much time, to cut our cloth. Your politics are loathsome too me, pure selfishness. |
![]() |
|
| Affa | Jan 9 2015, 05:02 PM Post #33 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
What I'm saying is that Osborne is doing precisely what you say here should not be done. His Cuts to services weaken them causing stress faults that later require a further investment to cure the problems his cuts exasperated. Take the Cuts to Flood Defences - result a huge expense and months of lost production (not counting the personal problems of those affected homes). The NHS is another where supposed efficiency reforms have caused added problems and added expense. Being minimalist has this effect of being inefficient. What he should have focused on was stimulating growth in the economy from Day one, not day one of election year. Oh, and his tax burden is some 5% of GDP below what it was when Thatcher was PM, lower than John Major's government. |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · Politics · Next Topic » |




![]](http://z5.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)




2:33 PM Jul 11