| Archive for Downsizer For an ethical approach to consumption |
| cab |
Who's paying for the tax cut?So... There was a change to tax law to scrap something to do with 10p.To pay back those who were going to be worse off, myself and my partner will be getting a hundred and twenty quid each, even though we weren't losing out (at least that I know of). http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7397705.stm How does that make sense, and who's going to be paying for this? |
||||||
| RichardW |
Cleaver stuff eh.
Take away a tax band for some people & then give back to everyone. Where is dick turpin's alter ego that robs the poor to pay the rich? Justme |
||||||
| Brownbear |
We all are - stand by for a new levy on something, no doubt garlanded in greenery. More damage is being done to ecological issues by the govt. regarding it as the perfect excuse for taxation, than by the oil lobby. | ||||||
| Northern_Lad |
It makes sence in so much as they've raise the minimum threshold so you pay tax later, but reduced the higher earning threashold so people on £40k+ don't see the benefit.
Who's paying for it? We're taking it on finance. It's all the rage, donchaknow. |
||||||
| bagpuss |
So who qualifies for the extra money? | ||||||
| cab |
If you're earning less than just over £40k, you get £120 back. |
||||||
| Northern_Lad |
More precily, you don't pay it in the first place. |
||||||
| cab |
Errm, yes. £60 in Septemnber, then a tenner a month through to December. |
||||||
| vegplot |
I couldn't agree more. The masses see 'green' policies as just another tax burden for which they have to pay for. |
||||||
| JB |
Re: Who's paying for the tax cut?
Of course it doesn't make sense ... unless you look at it this way. If Gordon borrows £2.7 billion now, he can use it to buy the by-election in Crewe and then raise everyones tax next year to further scr*w those on low incomes because they probably wouldn't have voted anyway while doing it this way gives all the middle incomers who are being squeezed between low wage rises, high inflation in food and fuel and disappearing mortgage deals and who more importantly to him are the people who will vote will get a £120 back hander to try and save his neck. 
(Is there a lynching emoticon anywhere?) |
||||||
| lottie |
I was one of the retired women under 65 who would have lost out with the scrapping of the 10p. tax rate---but this is just a badly sewn patch solution as a quick sop to backbenchers and the public---it's only for one year---so they'll just freeze allowances or not put them up with inflation until it's clawed back anyway. 
|
||||||
| lottie |
Re: Who's paying for the tax cut?
What an interesting assumption to make 
|
||||||
| JB |
One of the ironies of this is that if they hadn't been so cack handed and incompetent in the way they have done this and had just raised tax threshholds and removed the 10p tax rate at the same time in the budget (and not as a panic measure when they realise just how wrong thye have got it half way through the year) then it would have been a reasonable approach. Low earners are far better served by removing them from the tax system than by taxing them and then making then dependent on benefits. | ||||||
| Treacodactyl |
Or if you're Gordon Brown make them fill in lots of forms knowing many will not claim the rebates. Strictly speaking only people paying the basic rate of tax will benefit directly but this does mean there's now even less room for manoeuvre by the government to find money for anything else, such as public sector pay rises. So what happens when labour overstep their borrowing limits, do they just carry on regardless? |
||||||
| RichardW |
Er no everyone will benefit as the personal allowance has gone up by £600 per year. Just cos you are a high tax payer you still have the first bit free of tax & then some at the lower rate then only pay the higher rate on everything over that. Justme |
||||||
| Nick |
But he's also dropped the point at which you pay higher rate tax, so if you earn up there, you'll see no benefit. And next year, you'll pay more. (as will everyone) | ||||||
| Treacodactyl |
People who don't pay tax will not benefit and, as Nick says and the BBC link mentions, the upper rate limit has been reduced so they will not be better off. |
||||||
| RichardW |
So then only the people that have lost out with the 10p rate going will gain. So whats the issue? Justme |
||||||
| Nick |
Well, people paying the upper amount of tax will lose out, because they also benefitted from the 10p rate. And, all tax payers will lose next year, and everyone will ose out because we've borrowed the money, and we'll all have to pay it back, and it's just badly managed and presented and looks like a reflex bribe, when, as someone else said, its actually a better system. | ||||||
| JB |
No, everyone who pays tax, up to the higher rate threshhold will gain. The people who will still lose out are the very low paid, they have been taxed an extra £200 by removing the 10% tax band but are only getting £120 back from the increased tax threshhold. If they earn enough that the reduction in the next band from 22% to 20% makes up the additional £80 then they start to break even again. So broadly speaking it is still a tax rise for anyone earning under about £10k pa (that's a quick top of the head calculation so could be wrong) edit .... and as Nick said it's only for one year so from next year it's a tax rise for everyone earning under about £16k pa (again top of head calculation etc.) |
||||||
| Treacodactyl |
For me it's the fact the government are going to have to borrow £2.7bn extra and really Gordon should have worked out his last budget better rather than going for headlines. |
||||||
| orangepippin |
It is a shame the £2.7bn could not have been found by *reducing* government expenditure rather than borrowing more. An obvious place to start would be the "transport innovation fund", which is in the same ballpark (£3bn I believe?) and seems to be a bribe used by central goverment to get local authorities to introduce congestion charging. UK motorists already pay the highest petrol taxes on the planet, so it is perhaps not surprising that places like Manchester and Edinburgh have already voted against congestion charging, and the West Midlands decided not to pursue it. Since the fund is not needed, it could be diverted to pay for the cost of the 10p tax turnaround. | ||||||
| Jonnyboy |
I think I'll use the money to buy cheaps flights. | ||||||
| JB |
No they don't! http://www.theaa.com/onlinenews/allaboutcars/fuel/2008/april2008.pdf shows Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Netherlands, Italy, Norway, Portugal and Sweden all pay more. |
||||||
| Nick |
Um, that shows prices paid at the pump, NOT how much is paid in tax. Or am I misreading it? Everything I can find on Google claims the UK pays the most in tax. I'd like to find a simple graph of tax per litre per country, but, of course, there isn't one...
Aha, but there is an article and report. And a list of figures. |
||||||
| cab |
Yet, strangely, they're more wedded to their cars than nearly any other nation in Europe. Odd, isn't it? |
||||||
| JB |
True, though I made two basic assumptions;
1 - that the price before duty and VAT would be more or less the same in all countries as the refining cost and oil price in dollars would be the same for all countries. Variations in those would be evened out by shipping refined but duty not paid product around Europe. So the pre tax price should be the same to within a few cents. 2 - The price that really matters to the average motorist is the pump price. When it comes to paying for it will they really care if it's a penny more or less in duty or profit? |
||||||
| JB |
Both of which mention excise duty / fuel duty but exclude VAT or it's national equivalent. If we pay more in tax on fuel (all forms of tax) then why is our petrol not the most expensive in Europe? |
||||||
| Nick |
Not odd, if you take it on a day by day thingie. Forners have better public transport than us, in the main. |
||||||
| Nick |
Don't know. Perhaps because we have oil fields, our base material is cheaper? |
||||||
| JB |
Nope. Oil is priced globally in dollars. The fact we have oil might help our economy but doesn't lower the price of oil. |
||||||
| orangepippin |
One explanation might be that inspite of the high level of petrol taxes paid by UK motorists, very little of it seems to go back into public transport. If there are no alternatives then obviously people have to continue to use their cars. I heard on R4 today that the main reason the West Mids passenger transit authority decided to drop out of the government's congestion charging proposal was because when they consulted local businesses and communities they kept getting told they had to build the public transport infrastructure *first*, before there would be any public acceptance of congestion charging. The government won't do this - it wants to put in the congestion charging, then it might think about improving public transport. They are using public money to bribe / encourage local authorities to go ahead with congestion charging - despite widespread public opposition. I think it would be more democratic if they knocked the transport innovation fund on the head and used the billions saved to bale out the Treasury for the 10p tax, and spent the money left over on a few more bus services. |
||||||
| gnome |
i see a logic to it. gordy needed to raise a bit more income to pay fo all his cock-ups, so he goes for the easiest option. then someone pointed out that this is going to make hi incredibly unpopular, so seeing as he hasn't got a cat in hell's chance of winning the next election anyway, he may as well make an empty but seemingly generous gesture so at least he won't have to sneask out the back door of number ten when his time is up. | ||||||
| Shane |
I think it's blatantly obvious that UK transport policy is nothing to do with improving public transport, reducing the number of cars on the road, or the environment. It's purely and simply about raising the maximum amount of tax possible. To do that, they need to tax at a level that doesn't force too many cars off the road, thus allowing the optimum tax revenue.
And yes, we do pay the highest fuel taxes in Europe. Second highest in the world, in fact, if I remember rightly. There's no rule anywhere that says that the price of goods must be the same in every European country, hence the fact that some places pay more for their fuel even though the tax is lower. |
||||||
| cab |
Naah, I don't buy that. I see the same people in the same cars every day, happy to sit in traffic that makes them take as long to get to work by car as it would to work. Theres a peculiarity of culture here, which makes public transport improvements only part of what should be done. |
||||||
| cab |
Radio4 reported this morning that the post office may be part-privatised, to raise the £2.7bn they need for investment. Sell off the family silver to pay for tax cuts... Gordon 'Thatcher' Brown strikes yet another great blow for the British labour movement
|
||||||
| orangepippin |
It would be interesting to learn how much other countries pay in petrol taxes vs their public transport infrastructure. On R4 yesterday the guy from the West Mids PTA was pretty clear that lack of public transport alternatives are a key issue.
And I doubt that anyone actually enjoys sitting in traffic. |
||||||
| Nick |
I actually chose to take public transport the other day. I had to drive 20 miles to the station, and I could park for free, all day. Got the 9.07 train, which was on time, to London Paddington. Arrived on time, but I wasn't able to sit for the whole journey, and the other people around me stank. I don't mind a bit of scent, even a dose of Lynx is tolerable, but there was a positive haze around certain passengers. The carriage was over heated. It took about an hour longer than I could have driven it, not including the initial 20 minute drive. It was unpleasant, slow and inconvenient. Costwise, it was about the same (£40, or so), but it added 2-3 hours to my day for the return journey. In theory, I *could* have done something useful with the time, but lack of space prevented me from getting a laptop out.
So, next time, I'll take the car again. Faster, more convenient, less unpleasant, and, on a nice leather seat, with my choice of temperature and radio station, I'm delighted to sit in traffic. Public transport is crap, unless you're trying to get around a handful of cities. |
||||||
| Treacodactyl |
And, by the sounds of it, you had an unusually good journey. 
|
||||||
| Nick |
Yeah, it was surprisingly tolerable, but slow, cramped, and smelly. All three trains were on time, and fitted my timetable perfectly. Still wouldn't use it regularly, tho. | ||||||
| lottie |
One of the main problems with public transport isn't just that you pay for the journey but can't find a seat--it's that unless you are just one travelling in a car versus a train it can't compete on price most of the time either----and on some journeys at certain times of the day the car's the cheaper option even for one. | ||||||
| orangepippin |
... and when you take into account that cars and petrol are heavily taxed whilst buses and trains are subsidised by taxpayers ... why is public transport SO expensive! | ||||||
| gnome |
busses are no better. pure extortion. round here it is cheaper to share a taxi with one other person than it is to get a bus to the city. they say there is one every 12 minutes - so how come i very rarely end up waiting less than 20 minutes? as a non-motorist, i dread having to go anywhere that is further than walking distance. getting a train to anywhere usually means changing at three or four stations, and you have that dreadful stress in knowing that if your train is just a few minutes late, you will miss your connection and have to wait 80 minutes for the next one. by the time you get to your destination, your suit is ruined and you desperately need a shower - but no! you have to run from the station to the conference hall (or whatever) missing the intro and maybe just in time to park your sweaty carcass in whatever badly positioned seat is left. sometimes i hate having a social conscience. | ||||||
| snozzer |
Not necessarily true the Iranian Bourse sells in Euros, Roubles and Yen |
||||||
| JB |
It might be locally traded in those currencies but there is a single global price for oil usually expressed in dollars. Hence the fact that market makers and economists will watch the spot and future prices of F.O.B. Brent Crude priced in dollars per barrel. It doesn't matter if they're buying it in euros in Frankfurt or Sterling in London, there is still a single underlying dollar price for that oil. |
||||||
| Behemoth |
Aint there some sort of US embargo against iran? |