Thought Id start this one going because its rather dead on this board at the moment and I suppose all my usual muckers are either at the Stella tennis event watching Dim Tim (lose again) or at Henly Regatta eating cucumber sandwiches (they wish,...NOT).

Anyway please feel free to just talk to yourself blast away and let it go on any company or subject you wish. Just wish Id thought of this one before.

cheers GF.

Labour getting desperate!!

Reeves Forced to Grovel Over Spiteful Vince Cable Attack

Reverse ferret! Rachel Reeves and Chris Bryant have spent the morning grovelling to Vince Cable after their petty attack over the minimum wage backfired in spectacular fashion. Playing politics, the shadow DWP team must have thought they were onto a right wheeze by pointing out that Cable had missed the vote on the National Minimum Wage Bill in 1998. Vince hit back:

“I did not particularly wish to raise this, but I am being asked personally to explain why I did not vote. It had a lot to do with the fact that my late wife was terminally ill at the time and I was in the Royal Marsden hospital. That is why my voting record at the time was poor on that and other issues.”

It has taken almost 24 hours, but finally Labour have backed down:

@RachelReevesMP

I have sent a note to Vince Cable to apologise for saying he abstained on introduction of minimum wage. He was with his wife at hospital.

Chris Bryant @ChrisBryantMP

I too apologise for heckling @vincecable yesterday for not voting on national minimum wage bill. I had no idea of his personal circumstances

Hays,

I think Reeves and Bryant, by their apologies, are just showing common decency.

I realise that is something you may find difficult to recognise.

No what you mean Cynic is that on paper they are meant to contribute 30%. Its no where near this figure and then add on the tax avoidance and tax evasion figure and you can see why we have to have spending cuts.

cynic - 16 Jan 2014 13:53 - 35476 of 35477

an interesting snippet for you guys to work up a lather about .....

gleaned from radio this morning .....
apparently the the top 1% of earners in uk contribute 30% of income tax revenue

and if this had been the reverse, say an unwarranted attack on EB, i bet you'ld have been shrieking and hollering from the rooftops like a banshee

LOL Fred. Mr ignoramus surpassing himself today.

no that is not what was said, nor what i wrote ..... i can't remember the exact source, but it was someone highly reputable

how much more is unpaid though legitimate tax avoidance was not the issue in question .... nor for that matter, did HMRC's ineffectual and half-hearted attempts at bringing to heel those who are evading tax come into the discussion

Then, he/she must have been a member of the CON party.

8-)

totally and utterly wrong again - but no surprise there either

and of course, if the figures are accurate, and i have no reason to suppose they were not, it would have been totally irrelevant if it had been a politician (which it was not) who gave out the info

Here you are Cyners the correct figure collected........No where near 30%.

Your source was quoting what it should be.

Check IR35 enforement out and youl see what I mean about non collection.



2.5 Income tax liabilities, by Income Range, 2010-11 to 2013-14



2012-13 (6)
Numbers: thousands; Amounts: £ million
Range of
total income
(lower limit) taxpayers
Starting rate (1)
taxpayers
"Savers" rate (2)
taxpayers
Basic rate (3)
taxpayers
Higher rate (4)
taxpayers
Additional rate (5) All
taxpayers
Total
income of
taxpayers
Average Average
rate of amount of
Tax liability tax tax
£ Number Amount Number Amount Number Amount Number Amount Number Amount Number Amount Amount % £
8,105
10,000
15,000
20,000
30,000
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
500,000
1,000,000
2,000,000+
90
127
8
6
4
..
..
..
..
.
.
.
5
15
4
8
10
..
..
..
..
.
.
.
64
193
113
127
118
2
..
..
..
..
.
.
4
65
99
216
341
5
..
..
..
..
.
.
1,670
6,120
5,410
7,050
4,820
17
1
..
..
..
..
..
303
4,470
9,100
21,600
25,400
83
4
..
..
..
..
..
.
.
.
.
1,170
2,260
360
31
2
..
..
.
.
.
.
.
8,760
33,200
12,900
1,440
56
..
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
97
133
25
9
4
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
5,890
15,300
7,520
5,330
7,610
1,830
6,440
5,530
7,180
6,110
2,280
361
128
135
26
9
4
16,500
80,800
96,200
176,000
233,000
150,000
43,200
21,900
39,400
17,700
12,100
16,700
313
4,550
9,200
21,800
34,500
33,300
12,900
7,320
15,300
7,530
5,330
7,610
1.9
5.6
9.6
12.4
14.8
22.2
29.9
33.5
38.9
42.6
44.2
45.7
171
707
1,660
3,040
5,640
14,600
35,700
57,100
113,000
293,000
588,000
1,940,000
All Ranges 235 43 617 731 25,100 61,000 3,830 56,300 269 41,600 30,000 903,000 160,000 17.7 5,320
In 2012-13 all taxpayers are liable on taxable income other than savings and dividend income at the basic rate of 20 per cent on the first £34,370, 40 per cent over the basic rate limit of £34,370 and 50 per cent over the higher rate limit of £150,000. Dividend
income is charged at 10 per cent up to the basic rate limit of £34,370, 32.5 per cent above £34,370 and 42.5 per cent above £150,000. Savings income is charged at 10 per cent up to the starting rate limit on the first £2,710, at 20 per cent up to £34,370, 40
cent above £34,370 and 50 per cent above £150,000.

sorry sticky, but your post is completely unintelligible, so you'll need to re-write it if you want it to be understood

anyway, i am absolutely not guessing at what i heard, and it was very specific and clear ..... it was actually a sensible discussion about bankers, their incomes and bonuses, and also mentioned overseas tax regimes (eg HK) and bonuses earned by the likes of Glencore traders and Goldman Sachs

i am well aware that fossy (aka red fred) will be completely incapable to take a balanced view, but i have some hopes that you could

and before you go drumming down that well-worn and nonsensical route, you really cannot justify ranting about those who legitimately minimise their tax bill ..... you may disapprove, on whatever grounds you choose, but that really is the end of the matter
if the law is changed and "those" loopholes closed, then what is avoidance today may indeed be evasion tomorrow ...... but as it stands to day .....

=============

i could make a better song and dance about countries that impose withholding tax (WHT) which can be as little as 5/15% but as high as 34%
you may think that that is just a crafty way for gov'ts to fill their coffers early and that that WHT can be readily recouped in due course by the company whose income is so hit
in fact, it's assuredly not always that easy

==============

i could screech even louder about HMRC (VAT office) who are downright obstructive and aggressive when it comes to the non-refunding of properly due monies
it seems that it is now frequently necessary to threaten hard action (formal complaint) vs HMRC to get any response at all
of course, in so doing, one may then find oneself undergoing a spiteful and unwarranted forensic investigation by HMRC, the expenses for which cannot be reclaimed

fair world isn't it

Hi Cyners, yes its come out vertical not horizontal, trouble is dont no how to sort this tried a few times, anyway Im not doubting you just pointing out your source as obviously looked at what SHOULD have been collected not what was ACTUALLY collected.

David Camoron falls for the same trick nearly every PMQs but in his case he is deliberately misleading the electorate.

Here you are Cyners IR35 and how the top 1% dont pay 45% tax rate but pay 20%.

I could do it myself very easy but my pro bodies would have my bol-ox on a plate........

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/article-2095909/How-pay-21-tax-100-000-income-child-benefit--IR35-rules-explained.html

promise he wasn't/hasn't, but if the tax has been AVOIDED, then it is not collectible so does not come into the argument and cannot be used for yours either
how much tax is EVADED may be substantial, but nowhere near the same league - ie relatively small beer

anyway, i too was very surprised indeed by the stat stated, but as i said previously, i have no reason at all to think it inaccurate ..... the guy, though i forget who he was, was very senior indeed in his particular field, so would not leave himself blatantly open for "destruction"

So's Camoron but he gets away with it, I suspect because the other sides would do exactly the same thing if in power.

Disgraceful figures....... notice how its tailed off under the Tories despite all their false promises.

ENFORCEMENT OF IR35
2000–01: 16 cases (£0 recouped)
2001–02: 261 (£0)
2002–03: 1,016 (£946,275)
2003–04: 1,166 (£1,973,851)
2004–05: 771 (£1,447,796)
2005–06: 656 (£2,316,351)
2006–07:158 (£1,906,619)
2007–08: 104 (£1,730,640)
2008–09: 25 (£1,430,358)
2009–10: 12 (£155,502)
2010–11: 23 (£219,180)

is that all that has been "EVADED"?
surely not; that's absolute peanuts - e.g. there MUST be more than 23 cases of known EVASION in 2010/11
out of curiosity, during which of the above years was labour in power?
it's not entirely relevant, but no doubt a silly stick for some to use :-)


anyway, i see you've stopped trying to knock down my comment, but gone off on a total tangent instead

Manuel.

is this left wing enough for you.

---------

Manuel.

You remind me of the Days of the Workhouses, when a little boy asked his father,
“What are they for?”.

His father told him the reasons “Why”, and added “that is how it is son”.

I have never seen a Workhouse functioning in its original role

Things change.

Reactionaries lacking imagination of your ilk, wish to keep the status quo for their own insular benefits.

Like the public in general, I am getting fed up with the some bankers, financial service gamblers, MPs and the bookies, CEO’s, footballers, etc, black mailing the country by saying if they can’t have their “treats" they will flee abroad.

Give them OBEs. Which for many means and based on "other buggers efforts".

Let the “buggers” go. But freeze their “assets” in this country and prevent wealth accumulated here being taken abroad.

There has never been an inability to provide sufficiently qualified individuals to fill the positions of those who leave.



The holes they leave will be filled quite quickly.

Have a look in the grave yards.

Not all were sadly missed.
===========

No I havent add it up for yourself, its way below 30%.

AVOIDED by the way above not EVADED.

Gloating Tories don't care that people are dying of poverty on the real-life Benefits Street

Created on Thursday, 16 January 2014 10:19
Category: Latest news

Following public condemnation of the lifestyle and attitudes of the residents of “Benefits Street”, the highly controversial and much-criticised portrayal of a handful of benefits claimants living in the Winson Green area of Birmingham, the Mirror has published this article outlining the tragic reality for one benefit claimant:

Conservative Philip Davies demonised welfare claimants in the Commons while a man died waiting for benefit payments a mile from the MP's constituency
On Monday, in the House of Commons, the Conservative MP Philip Davies gloated over the portrayal of welfare claimants in Channel 4’s Benefits Street.

Esther McVey’s flatmate asked her boss Iain Duncan Smith: “Have you, like me, been struck by the number of people on there who manage to combine complaining about welfare reforms whilst being able to afford to buy copious amounts of cigarettes, have lots of tattoos done and watch Sky TV on the obligatory widescreen television?”

All the while, on real-life Benefits Street, a mile or so from Davies’s West Yorkshire constituency, a man lay dead.

He died alone in a freezing cold flat, wearing several layers of clothes and two dressing gowns – waiting for benefits that had been stopped for months by the DWP.

Next week, the man will be buried in the Nab Wood Crematorium in Shipley, the constituency Philip Davies ­represents.

Read the full article and resulting comments here

Comments


+2 #1 Bill 2014-01-16 12:17
Its should not be called Benefits Street, it should be called ''Criminal Street'' because the makers seem to concentrate on the law breakers in the road rather than the honest and decent people who are claiming benefits through no fault of their own.

Of course its what the Tories want everyone to concentrate on because they have painted exactly this picture of all benefit claimants to date, with the help of their newspaper Baron friends and supporters.

The program has been made so that it fits nicely into what the Tories want the ''hard working families'' of the UK to despise. Sadly, a program about real peoples lives on benefits would have little or no interest at all for the viewing public and would not produce the type of characters that the Tory Party want to expose.

So, step forward the Labour Party and get some of your Media friends to make a program that show a real life on benefits...... if you want to help us, as many people think you do, you can start by giving the ''hard working families'' of the UK a true view of what life is really like for real people like us who have to survive on benefits, along with illness in a great deal of cases.

Divisions in Coalition as MPs demand independent inquiry on poverty

Created on Thursday, 16 January 2014 13:09
Category: Latest news

Calls for a ‘commission of inquiry’ into the impact of the government’s changes to social security entitlements on poverty have won overwhelming support from Parliament.

The motion by Labour’s Michael Meacher was passed with a massive majority of 123 votes; only two people – David Nuttall and Jacob Rees-Mogg – voted against it.

The debate enjoyed cross-party support, having been secured by Mr Meacher with Sir Peter Bottomley (Conservative) and John Hemming (Liberal Democrat).

Introducing the motion, Mr Meacher said: “It is clear that something terrible is happening across the face of Britain. We are seeing the return of absolute poverty, which has not existed in this country since the Victorian age more than a century ago. Absolute poverty is when people do not have the money to pay for even their most basic needs.”

Read Mike Sivier’s Blog post in full

Hansard

http://mikesivier.wordpress.com/2014/01/14/divisions-in-coalition-as-mps-demand-independent-inquiry-on-poverty/

Comments


#1 Bill 2014-01-16 14:56
Thank goodness for this. Lets hope that some action is taken to stop this country sliding back another 100 years.

Foodbanks, with thousands of people relying on them, can you truly believe that is how our once great country treats its own?

Refresh comments list