Cameron hints at reversing 50p tax rate

You really have no idea how the really wealthy live and organise their lives do you... You silly sausage.

Because the businesses can stay here, the owners can choose to pay tax where they want. Where does Abramovich live?

Tom you live is cuckoo land. Ask yourself these questions, Mr Ideological. Who else is talking the same language as me? What is their position in society. Where else in the world is there a system that I, a understand, or b like.

She knocks on my door every Tuesday ;-)

Oh dear! New Labour have been spinning that this tax rise is something they regret and would like to reverse. This post is a pathetic attempt to create a non-story. Please try harder.

You've made another good point there. I'm not so cynical that I believe all leaders are bad, and if some of their own can cast a whithering eye on the chancers, maybe, there's something worth saving out of this mess.

Point taken Charles and if it had been in The Guardian I wouldn't have bothered but I thought the source made it fairly compelling.

Okay, I gave it a chance and did read it. You're right, it does make a compelling case for the 50% tax rate and fairness, and everything that goes with that. The great general's of history had a similar view, so the whining from glass jawed heroes today doesn't cut much ice with me.

It's better if you make your point and summary. It gives people a hook. I've just seen so many people roll up over the years with some cut and paste rant I don't bother without a reason. Plus, Nobody reads 2000 word comments. At least, not as routine. It's just too much waffle for a conversational medium.

Well they're missing out if they don't read it as it's a far better statement in favour of the 50% tax rate than anything I've read on here in the last few days.

As for a 'serious infringement of The Times intelllectual property', my apologies to The Times and in particular Mr Murdoch.

Agree on the PFI with you Tom. From my limited knowledge it appears to be storing up more debt for later on. Feel free to correct me if I am.

I also heard Prescott spouting about it the other day saying how wonderful PFI was. This then made me doubt it even more...

Have to disagree with you about the Poll Tax Tom. As an example:

Husband & wife with 2 grown up kids living at home in a Band C house pay the same as a couple with no kids in a Band C house.

The larger household is more likely to have more waste, use more local facilities than the smaller one. Or putting it into figures, call a Band C £1,000 a year.

Family with 2 grown up kids pays £250 each.
The couple pay £500 each
Single person (maybe a pensioner) pays £750.

I know no tax system is fair but I still cannot see why Council Tax is fairer than the Poll Tax. To me it's no different to water rates, where a pensioner on her own could end up paying the same as a family and 2 children.

"The 50% tax rate can help drive a "no rewards for failure" and fairness agenda."

Want to explain that one? For example, a business owner running a successful company and employing people, how does that equate to "no rewards for failure"?

Tories playing according to Labour's rules.

Of all MPs expenses, the one that is most gob-smacking is that of our erstwhile leader, one Gordon Brown. In 2007, he was living in a paid-for house in Downing Street. No council tax, no food costs (you won't see him down yer local ASDA, now will you?), no household expenses, flunkies on hand to clean and polish and babysit . . . So why did Mr Brown claim £17,000 for a second home? Ok, so he has a house in Scotland in or near his constituency, but that's the only one he pays anything for.

Yes, they've all got their snouts in the trough, and even the ones who are saying "Let's change it" are only playing politics, and won't pay back the money that they've profited by - or will they, Gordon?

People won't read that. A summary and a link is more effective. Plus, your post is a serious infringement of The Times intellectual property.

Excuse the lengthy cut and paste but this piece from The Times is worth a read -

Get thee to a miserable Swiss tax haven

Millions are losing their jobs and others having their homes repossessed. How dare the rich whine at paying more tax

Janice Turner

In Hong Kong last weekend I'd expected to find excitement and verve, some wild fusion of ancient East and Western ultra-new. Instead there was only money. No culture, no community, no green space or any space at all. Just swarming, ill-tempered, listless crowds shopping, forever shopping. As if someone had turned the Bluewater centre into a city state. Across the bay in Kowloon were only air-sucked temples to Versace ringed by men in doorways whispering “fake watch, fake bag”.

Fake city. Let the rich, so stung and outraged by this week's Budget, flee there. They'll find so much to love. Up in your £500K one-bedroom “unit” on the 43rd floor you can rise at dawn, rush to your work-pod in the sky, pile up the cash and have no human distraction beyond how to spend it. All those “international luxury brands” tax-free! And income tax at 16 per cent - if you're mug enough to pay any at all.

Hong Kong was like those other tax havens I've visited: soulless, dead-eyed. Citizenship of Andorra must be like living forever in Heathrow Terminal 3, with its filthy food, rows of strange duty-free stores where Russians pick over bling, booze, Bensons and - bizarrely - great cut-price hunks of yellow cheese. Or empty-hearted Monte Carlo, with eerie candy-coloured skyscraper canyons blocking out every inch of the lovely bay and the sunlight with it, silent but for the growl of Ferrari sports cars, where every tax-exile pensioner has the hunted, dodgy mien of a cornered war criminal.

Or Switzerland: the rich are always threatening to flounce off there if we stop playing nice. Indeed, internet searches on Swiss property websites soared this week. How enticing the robotic calm of the cantons must be after the muddle and stink of Britain. No matter that no one ever had a wild night out in Zurich, that the Swiss - expats say - are cold, zenophobic and insular even to fellow white Europeans, or that the men have the antediluvian sexual politics of a nation that only fully enfranchised its women in 1990. There is always an efficient, hygienic euthanasia clinic if you feel the urge to check out. A country that cherishes money more than life itself: the rich and their cash could be very happy there.

The disturbing thing about Alistair Darling's Budget was not that it extracted a few extra thou from the few, the fortunate 350,000 or so who already enjoy six times the average British salary. It was the implication that taxation for the rich is a punishment, some vindictive redress for the misdeeds of the bankrupting bankers called for by a torches-and- pitchfork-wielding posse, rather than what it should be, what it is for the rest of us: an enduring social obligation, a mark of citizenship, a duty.

Robert Peston's book Who Runs Britain? contains an extraordinary vignette of Sir Philip Green just after he benefited from a £1.2 billion dividend, not one penny of which entered the British exchequer, since it was paid out to his Monte Carlo-dwelling wife. A £72 million corporation tax bill had arrived and Green's accountants advised him to wriggle out. But, to their bewilderment, he opted to pay. “I took a view not to poke their eyes out, the Revenue, not to be greedy and strip the corporation tax.” It epitomises the boom years mentality of the super-rich: that tax is largely optional, an act of largesse, a big bill generously tossed in the collection plate.

Rather than drearily pore over a tax return like mere wage slaves, the rich posed as philanthropists, parading their urge to “give something back” at charity balls, paying £5,000 a plate to dance with Fergie or Gorbi or Blair. Frank Field, the Labour MP, even proposed a few years back that the rich should cough up an extra 10 per cent but be allowed to decide which charitable cause to fund, affording them even more unwarranted power and influence, but a fiscal bypass of democracy itself.

In any case, very few British would-be philanthropists seem to have grasped the honourable principle of the Gates Foundation - “for those to whom much is given, much is expected” - since the top 2 per cent of British earners give far less, as a proportion of earnings, than the bottom 2 per cent. The council estate mum scrimping a fiver for Children in Need is bigger hearted than the tuxedo-clad hedgie. And unlike him, she probably also pays tax.

For most of those accruing new fortunes of dynastic scale, wealth was to be splurged and stashed and turned into basement swimming pools. Two summers ago, while researching a feature on high society, I attended clubs where tables competed to order the most £500 magnums of champagne and Swarovski-crystalled vodka. And for this ugly ostentation the rich were not judged but lauded in a gazillion paragraphs for their style, their decadent panache, envied and aped by every storecard-carrying fool. A trickle-down of greed.

And a decade of wealth worship perpetuated the notion that money turns people into delicate super-beings who might take fright at mortal rules and financial regulation. The £30k flat tax imposed on non-doms last year - a sum Notting Hill bankers might spend unthinkingly on flying their family to Antigua for Christmas - was received with threats, as yet empty, of escape to Gstaad. And now we learn that if our wealthiest few pay 50 per cent tax on earnings over £150,000 it could kill their work ethic entirely. While most of us toil to pay the mortgage, to keep our jobs or - weird thought - to contribute to society, the rich... well, take away a tiny fragment more and they might just stop trying, or give up altogether.

If people now revile the rich - and The Times poll yesterday suggests that 57 per cent regard the tax hike as fair - it is because so many have spent a decade being loathsome. And now nothing is more odious than their squawks of complaint amid so much real pain: the 2.1 million jobless, the factory workers on four-day weeks, the 75,000 who will this year have homes repossessed, the bright, bewildered young folks wondering how the hell to survive on £60 a week.

How dare the rich complain, suggest it is class war, when they are merely being asked to help to clear up a mess that is more theirs than ours. They owe it to the country that made them rich, the society they love living in precisely because it is concerned with more than money. Otherwise - to the vaults of Zurich, the chilly units of Hong Kong - let them go.

Tom,

I think there is a flaw, but it might be partly down to semantics.

Your example of the wheat in the ground. I would argue that the "wealth creator" is the person who notices it, thinks that it would make a great thing to cultivate and sell at market, borrows some money to buy a tractor and equipment and then hires 10 people to do the manual work. The workers may physically produce the crop, and you're right that without them nothing happens, but without the first guy, there is no wealth.

I think by "wealth creators" most people mean "entrepreneurs" or "businessmen" who kick off economic activity in the first place.

Now I am not saying that everyone on £150K+ is automatically an entrepreneur. Far from it. But probably most (successful) entrepreneurs are (by definition). And I think you could form an argument that maybe your typical entrepreneur is a bit more footloose and fancy free than your average Joe (or Jane).

Noticed you didn't manage to get the flaw in there...

Tom, your flawed argument seems to be proof of the damage caused by the standards of higher education in this country

Luckily most wealth creators in the real world have either eschewed university or avoided the 'soft' subjects.

Because personal tax rates in Ireland aren't that low; it got enormous wealth into the country by keeping business taxes low, which we also failed to do, and indeed businesses have and continue to relocate there. Individuals, meanwhile, are more likely to head for Bermuda, Portugal or Gibraltar, which also have the benefit of not raining for 11 months of the year. Of course, you don't have to believe that it's a real issue, but then you might wonder why the government's been making such a big deal about cracking down on tax havens recently.

Wrong.

40% tax kicks in at £34, 600 (plus NI, of course), so anyone earning over £40,000 is already having half of their earning taken.

Good post.

and one way some of the wealth creators will avoid it, is by leaving. Some of course will exploit legal loopholes, but others will leave.

Yeah, that's the puppy. Most people tune out of that argument but I got some traction in the games community some years back with that one. It can have resonance but, as with most things, how you pitch it makes all the difference.

Labour List tend to lose people when they talk up core membership, jargon, and lists of achievements. Some of the topics coming out this week have been fantastic in comparison. They read better and are more consumable by the mainstream.

I believe the correct term is 'social contract'?

I agree, it's an agreement that we won't chop off your head and burn your property down if there is a credible use of that asset and fair deal for everyone who's taking a rest from the raping and pillaging. The way some people act it's like how kings used to pull the divine rule argument. It's as dumb as some rabble rouser trying to level the place. Being reasonable helps.

Everyone wants to be a hero. Nobody wants to pay the price.

The "wealth creator" label has been captured by people at the top because it drives higher incomes but, as you've said, they develop a tin ear on the losses.

Anyone can do it. The difference is whether they get recognised and paid, or not.

"because it drives out wealth creators."

Ooh, more completely ideological definitions of wealth creation. Nothing about people who actually physically produce stuff then? Not wealth creators, that lot.

Anyway, what evidence is there that people leave from anywhere? Why don't all Scandinavians live here? Why don't any British entrepreneurs live in Ireland? Why hasn't industry in Ireland moved to St. Lucia?

Which is it? Both, you moron!

It doesn't raise any net money, because it drives out wealth creators. Those who remain are less wealthy, but so it the exchequer.

Idiot.

"To the individual PAYE-taxed professional however"

Who, though? Top Barristers and QCs? Bankers?

In 2001 I was made redundant. In 2002 I borrowed some money and started a business. I personally guarentee the company's loan facilities - If the company goes bust I could lose my house. 12 Months ago there was five employees including me. Times are very hard and due to natural wastage there is now four of us. I know exactly what gross margin I have to achieve to break even every month. We should do it this month. We don't manage every month. It is a constant struggle and a constant worry staying in business because of the economy. My largest overhead every month is taxes (I'm not including VAT which does not appear on a P&L account). I am a wealth creator because I have started and run a business that has created employment by adding vlue to goods and services. My staff help create wealth by their labours (and I thank them for that) but no wealth would have been created without me risking my money and my house.

What I have described above is the same for every business - nothing happens until someone risks money starting something - and the failure rate is high. The worst tax in my opinion is actually the employers NI contribution and the current level of taxation actually stopped me replacing my employee who left to join the navy - it is a direct tax on employment.

I am sorry for going on but to see some of the comments people make about the owners of business and how they have it easy compared with the ordinary worker really gets my goat. Its a struggle for most of us in the private sector but for the average small businessman it is a greater struggle than most. And this Labour government has given me no help at all since the day I started the business. In fact a few months ago when Gordon Brown was on TV telling everyone how his government was helping business I received a threatening letter from the VAT man because my cheque was five days late.

All quite correct, and a shame indeed.

If I use it it's always joshing. I have attacked people on the basis of class before when I was young, and still occasionally will if I think the person concerned is distant from the wider public, but I think this kind of attack is mostly irrelevent, is outmoded and is very innefective. Though that doesn't stop it being good for a laugh.

Good point on VAT, but actually, the spend on VAT among the poorest is a very high percentage of their income. In fact, combined with Council Tax (still fairer than poll tax, mind), it meant that the poorest third paid more of their income in tax than the richest (under the 40% top rate). That's scandalous.

"And what's the point of talking about saving and creating jobs when Labour is taxing them more?"

Its also spending on them more, in mitigation.

"Taxing jobs more does not create jobs."

Totally depends on the context.

"Lastly, if Labour were serious on taxing the rich, they'd have closed the loopholes that their accountants can use. Labour didn't so you have to question just how serious Labour is about taxing the rich."

Completely agree.

The point is that cumulatively the amount of money raised will not be particularly high. To the individual PAYE-taxed professional however, the increased tax burden of both the 50% hike, coupled with the penalties on pensions, will have a considerable and deliterious effect.

Tom, you said exactly what I think, but much more politely than I ever could.

Does this mean I have the last word? ;-)

It's fine rhetoric, for sure. It's always used in such as matter of fact, uncritical 'conventional wisdom' kind of way, which is why I think it needs challenging when brought up...

I lol'd

Apart from the fact that I am in complete agreement with you!

The fact that the van driver is a wealth creator does not mean that he is a more efficient one than piccasso carrying the painting.

This is the problem with both PFI and old-style nationalisation. In old nationalisation, there is no incentive to find the most efficient mode of transit. In PFI, you always choose the van driver to keep a good relationship with the van company, even if Picasso can carry it for cheaper.

That said, without any transit, Piccasso's painting does not represent wealth; it does not have intrinsic value simply because one type of work has been performed on it. All commodities need certain different bits of work to be done to them to become whole and valuable, whether that's by inefficient van driving or Picasso running over the road.

This is firstly why I like co-ops, and secondly why I'm not a massive fan of PFI (at least, most of the contracts the govt. has incompetently negotiated).

Wealth creation, merely turning up, and loss can happen at any level and isn't the black and white affair some people would like to keep it as. I'm sure other people understand this but, like religion, you get some dumb public comments from leaders and a bunch of junk parroted at the grassroots over something like, say, evolution. The whole "debate" is a sham.

No, the employer/contractor would just get a different person to dig the hole, with a spoon if necessary.

But I would still like to see Sir Fred doing the work!

(Oh dear, you're now going to tell me that somebody had to make the spoon, but it was the hole digger himself, before he got made redundant from the cutlery factory, so there!)

Picasso was the wealth creator because he was the originator of the chain of events that led to cash changing hands between himself and the purchaser of the goods (or service).

Consider this: he could have walked to the gallery and delivered it himself.

His picture then sold for millions, while the van driver was parked-up having tea and a fag.

The "Van Driver as Optional Facilitator" is one of his best works.

Gotcha!

The 50% tax rate can help drive a "no rewards for failure" and fairness agenda. Plus, the government has said the 50% rate is temporary. Also, both the tax havens and expenses issue is being dealth with.

"his pay is compensation for allowing the factory operators to infringe his property rights by making use of his factory. If you don't like his prices build your own factory with your own money"

that's pretty much my objection. I believe that private property is simply a lease from wider society; it is, after all, physically protected by the taxpayer in order to restrict property supply (and thus maintain a profitable price).

The vast majority of people on this planet have never and will never have the option to build a factory. Most of them would be lucky to be allowed the option of working in one.

People are not born with cash. The interplay of private property (a vast distributive injustice based on lineage more than personal merit) and a lack of redistributive justice to offset the effects makes the current allocation of property to those who do not need to produce wealth with their own bodies and talents, and its subsequent protection on their part a smorgasbord of indefensible immorality.

Why was picasso a wealth creator?

Because canvass is worth nothing. He produced work. As he happened to be a communist himself I'm quite sure he would have said the same thing.

But without the van driver, he would not have created any wealth at all (merely prospective wealth). The value of art is in appreciation.

Just like the value of any other product is in how it can be used to produce desired effects.

Things need to be made and have use value for any wealth to exist (hence, British Leyland did not 'create wealth' for the whole portion of each vehicle it produced, because they were not needed).

In any event, the Fred Goodwin approach to rewarding 'wealth creators' (read 'people who have control of stuff, including their own pay rates, even if they damage business overall) is not worth anything at all.

Yes, indeed, though I do worry about how he would choose to use it...

For your phrase 'productive workers are wealth creators' not to be a tautology, I read it to mean that the manual worker who undertakes the task was being credited as the 'wealth creator'. From your subsequent comments I am not sure who you are crediting with what.

However if you are suggesting that the 'factory owner' is unproductive so deserves nothing -- his pay is compensation for allowing the factory operators to infringe his property rights by making use of his factory. If you don't like his prices build your own factory with your own money - it's what he did, so it is little wonder he wan't to get that money back...

Okay.

Horses are living quadrupeds, whilst carts are wheeled vehicles.

If you need any more you know where to find me ;-)

So Picasso wasn't the wealth creator, but the van driver that delivered his painting to the gallery was.

Beg to differ.

If there was nobody there to make the pick axe, and the man wasn't there to dig the hole, the employer/contractor wouldn't have the manpower to fulfill the contracts he has negotiated.

It would be good to see the likes of Fred Goodwin wielding a pick-axe

It is precisely this conception of who is a wealth creator that created all the fictional capital and over-reliance on financial services which caused the crisis upon which we have now embarked.

So the wealth creator is the person who creates the need for (i.e. recognises the pre-existing deficiency of) the work?

Talk about horses and carts.

Because someone had to make the pick axe. Probably lots of them, too.

Ignoring the obvious linguistic point that the hole is physically created by the digger, the digger isn't key here. If I may...

A business, run by a boss, needs a hole digging.

The owner/manager of the firm that won the job of digging the hole employs digger A, B or C to do the digging.

Without the boss of the client business, and the owner/manager of the firm that won the contract to dig the hole, all the diggers are jobless, creating nothing. Except jobs in Job Centres and daytime TV.

I would maintain that the "wealth creator" is the person or enterprise that "creates" the need, rather than the diggers that "serve the need".

The creative horse will always come before the server cart. No horse, nobody needs the cart.

This really comes as no surprise. It will be interesting in July when MPs expenses figures are published, to see how many Tory MPs are at it like McNulty and co. This is from todays Londo Evening Standard (a pro-Tory paper, be it noted):

"A Tory frontbencher has defended MPs pay and expenses - stressing he 'did not intend to become personally poorer' at this stage of his career.

In a leaked email, Laurence Robertson also played down the controversy over Derek Conway - who was sacked as a Tory MP after paying his son Freddie to "work" for him as a researcher while he was studying at Newcastle University.

The stance taken by Mr Robertson, 51, the shadow Northern Ireland minister, could prove embarrassing for the Tory leader as he seeks the moral high ground over MP expenses". Mr Robertson has claimed £144,591 in second home allowance over seven years"

Really there is very little to choose between them is there?

It's not only manual workers that create wealth. For an object to take in value, it required work to make it such a commodity.

Wheat in the ground is useless, but with work, it is harvested and gains value. With more work, it becomes bread, and its value increases as more work is put into the process. To be made into bread it must be transported. To be transported, it requires teams of people to manage vehicles, and the like.

So you see, I'm not saying that only manual tasks produce value (and thereby 'wealth'). I'm saying tasks generally need to be performed.

I don't see how inheriting a 51% stake in a company would make any difference to whether wealth was created without our current system of legal structures, defended by those who control property without putting work into its development (the capitalist, in Marx speak).

Unemployment would not take place if we all had access to a set of resources to work on. Unemployment is caused by a combination of things.

Firstly, it is caused by the monopolisation of resources by those who refuse to develop them as fast as they could (because if they did, they would have to pay people more, as the unemployed would not compete with those already in jobs thus lowering wages).

Secondly, as stated above, there is a motivation for those who privately control industry to keep unemployment in existence (the lowest possible award of wages). These people, co-incidentally, are also the only people who can afford newspapers, or influence in political parties. Which is convenient for them, no?

The private control of industrial processes is the private control of resources, which means that there is always a limited amount people can work on (despite the earth's natural abundance). Thereby, there is always limited employment, which is also a good thing for employers as a generality, though of course some will always want to employ more than others individually.

Objects have no value before they are subjected to work, and their value at market veers wildly with supply and demand, though this is usually not related to actual need (more the desire to accumulate products before someone else does).

If you want to know more about this, I'd suggest reading this, and for a similar take (with different outcomes) maybe a bit of our favourite capitalists Ricardo, Adam Smith, or the liberal pro-property philosopher John Locke's Second Treatise of Government (which lays the groundwork of some points I just made).

In that case Tom, why do you credit the worker rather than the pick-axe ?

Oh no, not "rally annoyed". Yes there are different tax bands but i didn't realise you wanted me to work it all out on a post that was just meant to make a statement, i'd still be miffed at having to pay 25k in tax on 50k earned.

Yes.

Isn't it better to ask those who have benefited most from our national output

I assume that is supposed to read:

Isn't it better to ask those who have suffered least from labours destruction of our national output

However unless you define what 'necessary' means in the context of 'more severely than is necessary?' the question cannot be answered.

Tom if you believe that manual workers are the creators of wealth and the bosses play no part, how do you explain unemployment?

If only workers are needed then the 'unemployed' just need to get on with wealth creation and stop whining about 'jobs'.

an 1/8 of what your smoking.

Tom, I may be being naive here, but are you suggesting that the "wealth creator" is the person that digs the hole in the road, rather than the person that owns or runs the firm that won the contract to dig the hole and pays the hole-digger's wages?

No the argument made is that it won't raise any money because people will avoid it

Surely we should describe wealth creators as the ones who create (rather than direct the creation of) the wealth?

In my view, productive workers are wealth creators. Whether or not they necessarily need executive, or for hat matter execs on big pay, is incidental.

The Tories propose that the real wealth creators, those in the middle and at the bottom, who actually make stuff and transport it, should be the ones to pay.

If you want to refuse this class war, vote Labour.

"...50% rate won't raise any money but on the other they say it will drive out the wealth creators. Which is it?"

Nothing incoherent about it. It won't raise any money, BECAUSE it will drive out the wealth creators. Surely it's not that difficult to understand.

having "sorted" Labour, now Vince wants to "annihilate" the Tories. (source: today's Independent)



are the LibDems and Labour going to squeeze out the Tories, into 3rd position.

People paying the highest rate of tax include people who are responsible for creating most of the national output. People who create jobs by starting businesses, people who create wealth for everyone. They already pay a substantial proportion of the tax burden.

The fact is that this 50p tax rate is just a sop to the left. The amount of revenue it raises is a drop in the ocean next to the vast sea of public debt that the chancellor requires to fulfill his spending plans. The reason he has done this is to try to win support among those who have been hit hardest by his complete incompetence- the poorly paid. They will (as always) suffer the greatest decline in quality of living as a result of the taxes we all will have to pay in the future due to the reckless borrowing of this government.

The 50p tax rate is merely an attempt to convince people that the government still has their best interests at heart when the truth is that it's doing all it can to bankrupt them and the country.

Just watched yvette spinning another Yarn. Cant we get Vince to defect?

I've yet to hear anyone properly address Vince Cable's criticism that due to the CGT rate being 18% there is huge potential for avoidance.

Also the Conservative criticism is slightly incoherent as on the one hand they say the 50% rate won't raise any money but on the other they say it will drive out the wealth creators. Which is it?

VAT at 25% for luxury goods should bring in a few quid imho

Ha well done on your mention.

Didnt Avon disappear in the early 1990s though?

Agree with you Mike. Anyone earning over £100k can probably afford an accountant to reduce the extra tax burden placed on them.

The 2p extra on fuel hits everyone - working class as well Tom.

1 - it costs more to transport goods so prices may well increase.
2 - those that still have a job but need to drive to it will be paying more

I suspect therefore that his hitting things like fuel will cost the lower paid more than he'll get back from the higher tax rate.

I could go with the 50% tax if it was introduced for the right reasons AND the tax loopholes were closed. In my opinion it was done as a political point.

Obviously this won't affect our MP's who get £100k + as most of it will be in expenses so not liable to be taxed.

Great post BBJ and it's a real shame it hasn't been done before or being done now. Particularly #8 although I would go with Tuesdays AND Fridays - a good start to the weekend!!

Van't think of anything worse.

1. Real cuts. In what? The outcome is likely to be more unemployment. Pointless
2. No, we need to start moving away from globalisation and towards more self sufficiency - and import controls
3. Every person can't have a degree, and that has never been proposed, but what do you intend to do with the school-leavers without work? Going to college is better than staying unemployed which is the likely alternative
4. No. Pointless, again - if there's not enough work for everyone, admit it, and share out what there is more fairly - not penalising those who can;t find any work at all. What do you intend to do about the grossly increased cost of keeping kids in care which your proposal would bring? And hardly any 'immigrants' live in public housing in any case.
5. Only if it is spent well. People have to get rid of this obsession with 'bobbies on the beat' which reassures but does NOTHING to reduce crime
6. There is no agreement on this - soi how can it be an 'antidote' to 'multiculturalism' ? You may have a particular vision of this, but I don't think there is a commonly held one. I doubt whether our ideal societies would be similar
7. There does need to be a higher starting point for taxation, but benefit levels are already low
8. errrrrr
9. And who introduced management culture to the NHS - yes, the Tories. Remember the Griffiths report?
10. We have to be part of an international bloc, but the EU needs to truly be a Fortress Europe, not a free trade body. However, there are no other feasible options for alignment.

Paul, if you're going to correct someone, get it right yourself! The rest is not taxed at 20%. The amount from about £6K until about £40K is taxed at 20%. The amount from £40K to £150K is taxed at 40% and then the rest is taxed at 50%.

This of course does not include NI which to all intents and purposes is also tax.

I think you're probably right. All credit to him for starting up this site, but a blog thrives through independence. If you really care about your brainchild, you've got to let if stand on its own too feet. If you love somebody, set them free.

Staring into an abyss of unprecedented indebtedness for the country, borrowing more money to prop up the state than all his predecessors all rolled into one, and more money than anyone since the founding of the Bank of England

But here we have a piece that asks me to look over there whilst all the above carries on. Don't you think the debt is obscuring the view?

bbJ - Thanks for changing your name.

Unfortunately, by introducing the 50p rate you are indeed "asking" the rich to contribute more, and the answer is likely to be "no thanks" as they find ways of avoiding paying it or move out of the country. The IFS - who I think most people trust more on economic matters than they do the government - pretty much says there's an equal likelihood of it losing the Exchequer money as bringing any in. It's quite obviously primarily a political, rather than economic, policy, and it's not very surprising Cameron's not an enthusiastic supporter.

The problem is that I am not convinced that Labour are introducing this for the right reasons - it should have been done years ago.

Three parties all advocating effectively the same failed free market policies - why should I vote for any of them?

Why is this comment trashed?

Yup - this is truly one thing on which there's broad cross-party agreement: Draper must sever all connection (official and unofficial) with LabourList if the site is ever to achieve anything of value.

Well, the voters aren't fooled.

Tories now have a 18% lead.

Wonder what the odds are on Labour having less than 100 seats in the next Parliament?

Really Tom, so the 'Toff' line is what exactly? Just left-wing joshing and ribbing only meant as a bit of a laugh? No it's class war on the working class which is New Labour all over.

Interesting to note, Cameron in that interview placed more of a priority on removing the 1% NI hike on low and middle incomes than the 50% tax rate.

You also omit any reference to the VAT cut which to people on lower incomes means next to nothing because they spend more of their income on food, fuel & heating are either zero-rated for VAT anyway or were exempt from the VAT cut.

And what's the point of talking about saving and creating jobs when Labour is taxing them more? Taxing jobs more does not create jobs.

Again, taxing those very people that are finding it hardest of all to make ends meet.

Lastly, if Labour were serious on taxing the rich, they'd have closed the loopholes that their accountants can use. Labour didn't so you have to question just how serious Labour is about taxing the rich.

Like I say, a tokenistic dog whistle to the core vote.

This is a common misconception that really annoys me. People earning more than £150k are not having half of their salary taken away. Just half of the salary that is above £150,000. The rest is taxed at 20% just like everyone else.

I dont think Camerons looking at single issues. The biggest single issue over the last 12 years has been this Gubbements inability to create a sustainable economy outside of Gubberment spending or the city. Pouring the trillions into the economy is pure waste. It will not create jobs but will have to be paid back.

So doing nothing something DIFFERENT is the better option as we don't get saddled with the debt mountain. In my view austere times means new measures to get us out of the crisis:

1. Real cuts - why beat around the bush? We have no money that's a fact jack.
2. We need to look at Britain's role in the world and invest in creating an environment that is conducive to business startups and job creation.
3. Stop the every person can have a degree culture.
4. Review the benefits culture - community work for benefits. Single mum you cant have a council house and neither can an immigrant for 7 years.
5. Spend more on policing. It affects every one of us and is not wasteful as it reduces the cost society pays.
6. A 21st century definition of what we are as a society and where we are going. View this as a welcome antidote to Multiculturism - BTW I'm not white so no racist jabs.
7. Lower taxes for the Working classes, the delta between benefits and work needs to be bigger.
8. Publicly beat a naked Prescott with a cricket bat in Parliament square every Tuesday. To represent a way of doing it wrong.
9. Make taking the waste out of the NHS a priority - that does not mean cuts, it means less Managers.
10. Seriously review what the EEC does for us. We need a commission of inquiry otherwise the Blow hards talk rubbish all day. We need to work with facts.

this government went to court over the failure to give a referendum on the lisbon 'treaty' in order to establish that ' a manifesto promise is not a legitimate expectation'

so now we know !

Damage to Britain? Isn't it better to not lie to us and in the process destroying what's left of your integrity?

I also saw him on the TV news last night with Blair actually SAYING it!

Lying B'Stard.

Extra, Extra, read all about it:.... Tories want to cut taxes when we can afford it.


So what’s your point?

I take it your talking about the manifesto, the book of lies to con people into voting for a particular party and the binned once the election is over.

The BBC article is a good read but what it fails to mention is that LabourList was really set up to be DraperList: it's all about promoting him, what he does, what he thinks, what he twits, his books, his counseling 'services' - just check out the links on the home page.

I know I sound like a scratched record but I make no apology for saying that now Labour has disowned him, so should LabourList, and then it can move on and be what its supporters deserve.

"But it's got to form its place in the queue of the taxes we want to get rid of."

In other words, he is not going to get rid of it right away. I think that comment was a sop for the nuttier end of the Tory Party. He came over very well in the interview. He has all the makings of a Blair Mk 2.

Unfortunately the performance of Darling on TV yesterday was dreadful. When the difficult questions about public spending were put to him he was all at sea. He seemed as if he was not at all convinced by his own budget arithmetic !!!
Was it his budget or was it Gordon's?

Now the budget detail is out it looks much worse than it did just two days ago. The international money markets, who will have to fund the debt, do not seem very happy. This could be a very bumpy ride indeed.

I have just been made redundant, and most of the jobs that seem to be around are for a salary wage of between 16-20k, yet i have no problems with anyone earning 150+k and even i would be a bit miffed to find that i had half of it taken away to pay for the same things that other people pay 20% for

The Tories are basically saying that reversing this tax is not a top priority.

So what, exactly, is the story? Another 'attack' on the opposition. Surely LabourList ought to be spending its time explaining and defending the Budget and its dire fallout.

But that would require more than a knee-jerk reaction.

LabourList is mentioned on the BBC News Website.

They are also asking 'Where is Derek Draper?'

Class war. Nonsense. Are you telling me it wouldn't be class war if the poor were made to pay instead?

You omitted to mention the 1% increase in NI to anyone earning over £20,000.

How damaging is that... these are people on incomes that don't benefit from the VAT cut, have been clobbered by the 10p tax hike being re-introduced and now have to pay more tax.

That's going to take more money off more people as a percentage of their income than a tokenistic class-war dog whistle gesture as a 50p tax rate.

Care to respond to that and the £1,400 a year tax smash and grab buried in the back of the Red Book?

That will be the tax hike that Gordon Brown promised wouldn't happen?

Guys, look in the mirror and ask yourself what the real issue is here: a lying Prime Minister, or a Leader of the Opposition that tells an uncomfortable truth.