Wish I could steal £16k, get away with it and call it a mistake.

[Jon the Hat]

My comment was based on the fact that none of the main parties will bring in small government not that it wouldn't work, the turkeys won't be voting for Christmas anytime soon. IMO we need less than 50% of the amount of MP's we currently have and a more proactive and smaller civil service, it won't happen unless we have a revolution and unfortunately the public is too busy watching reality TV and soaps to care.

Big government is not about how many MP's we have, although there probably should be fewer. then again the cost saving would be minimal as they would need more staff to be available to their incresed number of constituents. Parliament costs sod all in the scheme of things, I am talking about canning whole chunks of the what the government does, at both local and national level. Local councils should only be providing mandatory services. Everything else should stop now. Central Government needs to make some tough decisions, mostly on stopping the neverending meedlding in things which the people are quite capable of dong on their own. No Id cards, no national healthcare databases, no more unaccountable quangos, ministers accountable and fired on performance. Run it like it matters what we get for our money.

[phillip j fry]

most people in this country would only bother voting if cameron and brown stuck dresses on and sang 'somewhere over the rainbow' on britains got talent.it's the apathy of the public that led us to this mess.

[davieG]

most people in this country would only bother voting if cameron and brown stuck dresses on and sang 'somewhere over the rainbow' on britains got talent.it's the apathy of the public that led us to this mess.

I'll admit to being apathetic but that's not my natural state, I've been driven to it by successive governments, both Labour and Tory being full of money grabbing, troughing, incompetent, dishonest, party political, self seeking etc people.

I used to vote at every opportunity unfortunately ever where I've lived there's always been an unassailable majority for one party or the other, not that I'm enamoured by many of them so any vote is pretty much a waste of time.

[Thracian]

My comment was based on the fact that none of the main parties will bring in small government not that it wouldn't work, the turkeys won't be voting for Christmas anytime soon. IMO we need less than 50% of the amount of MP's we currently have and a more proactive and smaller civil service, it won't happen unless we have a revolution and unfortunately the public is too busy watching reality TV and soaps to care.

:D

For some reason your mention of the turkeys made me think of this:

While stitching up the hand of a 75 year old Devon farmer, who cut it on a gate while working cattle, the rural doctor struck up a conversation with the old man. Eventually the topic got around to Gordon Brown and his appointment as Prime Minister.

"Well, you know," drawled the old farmer, "this Brown fellow is what they call a fencepost tortoise." Not being familiar with the term, the doctor asked him what a fencepost tortoise was. The old farmer said, "When you're driving along a country road and you come across a fence post with a tortoise balanced on top, that's called a fencepost tortoise."

The old farmer saw a puzzled look on the doctor's face, so he continued to explain, "You know he didn't get up there by himself, he definitely doesn't belong up there, he doesn't know what to do while he is up there, and you just have to wonder what kind of idiot put him up there in the first place".

[davieG]

For some reason your mention of the turkeys made me think of this:

While stitching up the hand of a 75 year old Devon farmer, who cut it on a gate while working cattle, the rural doctor struck up a conversation with the old man. Eventually the topic got around to Gordon Brown and his appointment as Prime Minister.

"Well, you know," drawled the old farmer, "this Brown fellow is what they call a fencepost tortoise." Not being familiar with the term, the doctor asked him what a fencepost tortoise was. The old farmer said, "When you're driving along a country road and you come across a fence post with a tortoise balanced on top, that's called a fencepost tortoise."

The old farmer saw a puzzled look on the doctor's face, so he continued to explain, "You know he didn't get up there by himself, he definitely doesn't belong up there, he doesn't know what to do while he is up there, and you just have to wonder what kind of idiot put him up there in the first place".

And everyone's waiting for his inevitable fall.

[Thracian]

And everyone's waiting for his inevitable fall.

At least Mr Speaker seems about to choke on his words...

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/21/20090519/tuk-r...wn-6323e80.html

[Flynny]

I'm not overly bothered about the expenses scandal because I think at the end of it all, after the anger has subsided, I think it demonstrates democracy in action and the value of a free press to democracy. MPs know what people want and are scrambling to get it sorted.

[Jon the Hat]

At least Mr Speaker seems about to choke on his words...

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/21/20090519/tuk-r...wn-6323e80.html

Finally he does something which is in or or or order.

[Webbo]

Even if you want to believe these figures, how high is taxing and spending by historic standards? You could be forgiven for thinking that we must be soaring into some new stratosphere, but it's not so. The tax take for 07-08, according to this "tax freedom day" figure, is lower than John Major's final year. And Labour's tax take is lower than every single year under Margaret Thatcher....... Every single year.

Same source

Tax Freedom Day 2009 falls on 14 May.

This means that for 134 days of the year, every penny earned by the average UK resident was taken to support government expenditures.

The bad news is, you'll have to work until June 25 to pay off Brown's borrowing binge.

Tax Freedom Day, the day in the year when the average Briton has earned enough to pay his annual tax bill, will fall on 14 May this year. This means that for 134 days of the year, every penny earned by the average UK resident will have been taken to support government expenditures.

This is the earliest Tax Freedom Day since 1973 – on the face of it, good news for taxpayers. But there is a downside: the traditional Tax Freedom Day measure only reflects the money actually raised by the government in taxes, not the full amount it spends. If the government deficit is factored in, Tax Freedom Day does not come until 25 June (the worst figure since 1984).

This gap between Tax Freedom Day based on actual revenues and Tax Freedom Day based on government spending is now the widest it has been since the early 1970s – and possibly since World War II.

According to Gabriel Stein, the Chief Economist at Lombard Street Research who calculates Tax Freedom Day every year, the figures indicate a bleak future for British taxpayers:

"Running up deficits can be described as a form of deferred taxation. The effect will be that when the economy recovers – as it will eventually do – the UK tax burden is likely to rise much faster than would otherwise have been the case and Tax Freedom Day is likely to creep later and later in the year."

Moreover, the reason that Tax Freedom Day will arrive so early in 2009 is not so much that the tax burden has been dramatically reduced – although the temporary reduction in VAT is certainly significant – as it is that tax revenues have collapsed due to the sharp downturn in the economy. Dr Eamonn Butler, the director of the Adam Smith Institute, commented:

"It's nice to see Tax Freedom Day come early, but our research doesn't leave me optimistic. Under Gordon Brown's stewardship of the economy, the government's annual deficit went from near-balance in 1998 to more than 3% in 2007. And that was when the UK economy was growing strongly. Now the Chancellor is forecasting a 13.3% deficit. Young people have the right to feel very angry, because they'll be carrying the burden of these mistakes for years to come."

4 days more tax to try and rebuild the health service and whilst not selling off all of the countries assets doesn't seem to be a great loss. You can argue all you like about ideology but they are all pretty much in the same boat now, we are unlikely to get small government under any party and small fiddles on tax aren't going to fix anything.

But you will accept that I was correct when I said that we paid less tax under the Tories than Labour and you will also accept that when you implied that I didn't know what I was talking about that it was actually you who was totally incorrect.

[l444ry]

Same source

But you will accept that I was correct when I said that we paid less tax under the Tories than Labour and you will also accept that when you implied that I didn't know what I was talking about that it was actually you who was totally incorrect.

As I said, these figures are meaningless because we don't all pay tax at the same rate. For some millionaires, Tax Freedom Day comes at 12.01 on January 1st. Also, approximately 30% of the tax take goes back into benefits paid to the less well off. No mention of this in Adam Smith Institute's rigged adding up.

[Webbo]

As I said, these figures are meaningless because we don't all pay tax at the same rate. For some millionaires, Tax Freedom Day comes at 12.01 on January 1st. Also, approximately 30% of the tax take goes back into benefits paid to the less well off. No mention of this in Adam Smith Institute's rigged adding up.

The Adam Smith institute is a right leaning, independent, widely respected think tank but if you can post a link to any other credible source which contradicts their findings I'm willing to read them.

[Matt]

:crylaugh:

Just watching the Party Election Broadcast for The Christian Party - The Christian Party Alliance. Quite entertaining, I'm laughing at them by the way, Bloody Biblebashers.

The people who have in power at moment/the ones who are leading candidates are a load of jokers, do these people really think we'd take them seriously?

[Guest]

Just watching the Party Election Broadcast for The Christian Party - The Christian Party Alliance. Quite entertaining, I'm laughing at them by the way, Bloody Biblebashers.

The people who have in power at moment/the ones who are leading candidates are a load of jokers, do these people really think we'd take them seriously?

You shouldn't post stuff like that, some people might find it offensive.

[davieG]

Just watching the Party Election Broadcast for The Christian Party - The Christian Party Alliance. Quite entertaining, I'm laughing at them by the way, Bloody Biblebashers.

The people who have in power at moment/the ones who are leading candidates are a load of jokers, do these people really think we'd take them seriously?

I'm not a religious follower and I can't say I'm keen on these sort of narrow based parties, in fact I'm not keen on party politics full stop but surely any opposition is better than a vacuum besides all these parties start off small with most failing to take off because of the voting system.

Hitler's party was once as small as these

[Sir Fynwy]

Same source

But you will accept that I was correct when I said that we paid less tax under the Tories than Labour and you will also accept that when you implied that I didn't know what I was talking about that it was actually you who was totally incorrect.

If you bother to look at your quote I edited you actually stated you didn't have any stats to back up your premise, the fact that you have been stung into researching right wing economics because of my comment can only add to your education.

I won't be debating macro economics with you as I'm sure you have better things to do than the research

[Webbo]

But you will accept that I was correct when I said that we paid less tax under the Tories than Labour and you will also accept that when you implied that I didn't know what I was talking about that it was actually you who was totally incorrect.

If you bother to look at your quote I edited you actually stated you didn't have any stats to back up your premise, the fact that you have been stung into researching right wing economics because of my comment can only add to your education.

I won't be debating macro economics with you as I'm sure you have better things to do than the research

Is that a yes or a no?

PS I didn't need any stats, I lived through both the 70s and 80s.

[Ultra]

Is that a yes or a no?

PS I didn't need any stats, I lived through both the 70s and 80s.

So did I.

I admit that I paid far less tax during the Thatcher years than I do now - mainly because, in common with millions at that time, I was usually either unemployed or low-paid.

[Sir Fynwy]

Is that a yes or a no?

PS I didn't need any stats, I lived through both the 70s and 80s.

It'd have to be a no since my response was to your comment not some future comments (however skewed or not).

I also lived through the 70's and 80's, had great fun dodging the poll tax etc. We'll never go back to those days as there are no longer enough manufacturing and primary resource jobs left for our economy to have much potential. If you think that the tories will make a significant difference you are fooling yourself, all of the parties are fighting on a narrow base with so little difference that taxpayers won't see any significant difference whoever gets in, personally I'm inclined not to vote as things are unlikely to change but not voting is stupid so I'll be looking at the local issues and voting on those.

[Sir Fynwy]

Is that a yes or a no?

PS I didn't need any stats, I lived through both the 70s and 80s.

Percentage of earnings paid in income tax

Distribution of earnings (1) bottom lower median mean upper top

decile quartile quartile decile

1990-91

Gross earnings - £ weekly 133.60 172.90 238.20 273.90 328.20 439.20

Single - tax as a per cent. of income 14.2 16.6 18.9 19.7 20.6 21.7

Married (2) - tax as a per cent. of income 8.0 11.9 15.5 16.7 18.1 19.8

1991-92

Gross earnings - £ weekly 143.70 185.70 255.80 294.70 354.10 473.10

Single - tax as a per cent. of income 14.0 16.5 18.8 19.6 20.5 21.7

Married (2) - tax as a per cent. of income 8.2 12.0 15.6 16.8 18.2 19.9

1992-93

Gross earnings - £ weekly 150.60 195.20 269.00 310.80 373.60 499.50

Single - tax as a per cent. of income 12.7 15.5 18.1 19.1 20.1 21.3

Married (2) - tax as a per cent. of income 7.2 11.3 15.1 16.4 17.8 19.6

1993-94

Gross earnings - £ weekly 155.60 201.50 277.60 321.30 385.30 517.00

Single - tax as a per cent. of income 12.8 15.6 18.2 19.1 20.1 21.3

Married (2) - tax as a per cent. of income 7.5 11.5 15.2 16.5 17.9 19.7

1994-95

Gross earnings - £ weekly 159.20 207.00 286.10 331.00 396.50 533.50

Single - tax as a per cent. of income 12.8 15.6 18.2 19.1 20.1 21.7

Married (2) - tax as a per cent. of income 8.6 12.4 15.9 17.1 18.4 20.4

1995-96

Gross earnings - £ weekly 163.50 213.80 295.70 343.90 411.90 556.30

Single - tax as a per cent. of income 12.8 15.6 18.2 19.2 20.1 22.0

Married (2) - tax as a per cent. of income 9.7 13.3 16.6 17.7 18.9 21.1

1996-97

Gross earnings - £ weekly 171.10 223.00 308.00 359.60 428.90 580.10

Single - tax as a per cent. of income 12.1 14.9 17.4 18.3 19.2 21.0

Married (2) - tax as a per cent. of income 9.1 12.5 15.7 16.9 18.0 20.1

1997-98

Gross earnings - £ weekly 178.80 232.10 320.80 376.10 446.60 604.30

Single - tax as a per cent. of income 11.7 14.3 16.7 17.6 18.5 20.3

Married (2) - tax as a per cent. of income 8.7 12.0 15.0 16.2 17.3 19.5

1998-99

Gross earnings - £ weekly 186.20 241.20 332.70 392.30 465.00 631.80

Single - tax as a per cent. of income 11.7 14.3 16.7 17.6 18.5 20.5

Married (2) - tax as a per cent. of income 8.8 12.0 15.0 16.2 17.3 19.6

1999-2000

Gross earnings - £ weekly 194.10 251.00 346.00 409.90 483.90 659.20

Single (3) - tax as a per cent. of income 11.2 13.9 16.4 17.4 18.3 20.5

Married (2,3) - tax as a per cent. of income 9.2 12.4 15.3 16.5 17.5 19.9

With two children - tax as a per cent. of income (4) -23.1 -4.3 13.3 16.5 17.5 19.9

2000-01 (5)

Gross earnings - £ weekly 202.60 261.70 361.70 432.00 506.80 697.70

Childless - tax as a per cent. of income 11.1 13.6 15.9 16.9 17.6 20.6

With two children - tax as a per cent. of income (4) -25.3 -6.2 11.9 16.9 17.6 20.6

2001-02 (5)

Gross earnings - £ weekly 211.30 272.50 376.80 454.50 529.60 737.30

Childless - tax as a per cent. of income 10.9 13.4 15.8 16.8 17.6 20.9

With two children - tax as a per cent. of income. (4) -27.6 -8.1 10.6 14.6 15.7 20.3

2002-03 (5)

Gross earnings - £ weekly 218.60 283.60 397.50 479.60 562.20 781.00

Childless - tax as a per cent. of income 11.0% 13.6% 16.0% 17.0% 17.7% 21.6%

With two children - tax as a per cent. of income. (4) -27.3% -7.4% 11.7% 14.9% 15.9% 21.3%

Real figures for you

[Hullfox]

I admit that I paid far less tax during the Thatcher years than I do now - mainly because, in common with millions at that time, I was usually either unemployed or low-paid.

But even you must admit that this government has laden us with stealth tax after stealth tax and as a proportion of income ordinary people are higher taxed then they were.

I'm not commenting whether that is fair or not, just making a point.

[breadandcheese]

But even you must admit that this government has laden us with stealth tax after stealth tax and as a proportion of income ordinary people are higher taxed then they were.

I'm not commenting whether that is fair or not, just making a point.

I agree. I'm not sure how a lot of the figures are calculated (i.e which components of tax are left out, etc), which is I why have little interest in them and would rather go with the trend.

This government has kept income tax down by increasing NI instead (which is just another form of income tax anyway). They've also increased the various non-income taxes (stamp duty, fuel duty, etc, etc, whilst doing little to curb council tax increases). They've also refused to increase the tax thresholds inline with the economy so more people fall into the net. This is true with ISA allowances so people are less able to shelter savings from tax.

I'd also say that the comparison of the tax take between the Conservative government in 1996 and Labour today is a false comparison because of circumstances. The Major government (and primarily Lamont) increased taxes to pay for the increased government spending after the earlier recession. It was effectively the final nail in the coffin for that government, but it was necessary and set the country up for the next government, returning our spending to manageable levels. This government has consistently bloated its spending without ever determining how anything will be paid for. So again, taxes will have to rise dramatically to pay for this. Whether it's under the existing Labour government or under a new Tory government (which I suspect is the current government's plan to avoid blame), taxes will rise to pay for public spending, the reason will be because of our current government.

[Sir Fynwy]

I agree. I'm not sure how a lot of the figures are calculated (i.e which components of tax are left out, etc), which is I why have little interest in them and would rather go with the trend.

This government has kept income tax down by increasing NI instead (which is just another form of income tax anyway). They've also increased the various non-income taxes (stamp duty, fuel duty, etc, etc, whilst doing little to curb council tax increases). They've also refused to increase the tax thresholds inline with the economy so more people fall into the net. This is true with ISA allowances so people are less able to shelter savings from tax.

I'd also say that the comparison of the tax take between the Conservative government in 1996 and Labour today is a false comparison because of circumstances. The Major government (and primarily Lamont) increased taxes to pay for the increased government spending after the earlier recession. It was effectively the final nail in the coffin for that government, but it was necessary and set the country up for the next government, returning our spending to manageable levels. This government has consistently bloated its spending without ever determining how anything will be paid for. So again, taxes will have to rise dramatically to pay for this. Whether it's under the existing Labour government or under a new Tory government (which I suspect is the current government's plan to avoid blame), taxes will rise to pay for public spending, the reason will be because of our current government.

Exactly, taxes will be going up whatever, the country is in a huge hole again.

[l444ry]

I agree. I'm not sure how a lot of the figures are calculated (i.e which components of tax are left out, etc), which is I why have little interest in them and would rather go with the trend.

This government has kept income tax down by increasing NI instead (which is just another form of income tax anyway). They've also increased the various non-income taxes (stamp duty, fuel duty, etc, etc, whilst doing little to curb council tax increases). They've also refused to increase the tax thresholds inline with the economy so more people fall into the net. This is true with ISA allowances so people are less able to shelter savings from tax.

I'd also say that the comparison of the tax take between the Conservative government in 1996 and Labour today is a false comparison because of circumstances. The Major government (and primarily Lamont) increased taxes to pay for the increased government spending after the earlier recession. It was effectively the final nail in the coffin for that government, but it was necessary and set the country up for the next government, returning our spending to manageable levels. This government has consistently bloated its spending without ever determining how anything will be paid for. So again, taxes will have to rise dramatically to pay for this. Whether it's under the existing Labour government or under a new Tory government (which I suspect is the current government's plan to avoid blame), taxes will rise to pay for public spending, the reason will be because of our current government.

As a point of interest, do you mean the Thatcher caused recession?

[breadandcheese]

As a point of interest, do you mean the Thatcher caused recession?

I'm talking about 1990-1991 recession, which followed the ERM (Exchange rate mechanism) debacle. Unfortuntely, we joined the ERM at the wrong rate for sterling, leading to interest rates that were too high for our economy. This meant our monetary policy was all out of kilt with the economoy and effectively crucified us, sending us into recession.

Was this a Thatcher caused recession? I don't think so. Thatcher was pressurised to join ERM as I don't think she really wanted a European monetary union. There can be a question over who decided what rate the pound was set, but again, that would have been negotiation with our European partners and the chancellor.

[l444ry]

I'm talking about 1990-1991 recession, which followed the ERM (Exchange rate mechanism) debacle. Unfortuntely, we joined the ERM at the wrong rate for sterling, leading to interest rates that were too high for our economy. This meant our monetary policy was all out of kilt with the economoy and effectively crucified us, sending us into recession.

Was this a Thatcher caused recession? I don't think so. Thatcher was pressurised to join ERM as I don't think she really wanted a European monetary union. There can be a question over who decided what rate the pound was set, but again, that would have been negotiation with our European partners and the chancellor.

The Tories under Thatcher produced, in 1979-81 and 1990-92, the two deepest recessions in British post-war history. Was wondering which one you were referring to.