Jump to content
blandy

The banker loving, baby-eating Tory party thread (regenerated)

Recommended Posts

The Guardian says similar.

Hammond will be speaking pretty soon, so we'll find out what his latest plan is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jon said:

"U Turn if you want to. The lady IS for turning".

:crylaugh:

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, blandy said:

 

poor old Ed , even with an open goal he somehow manages to make it not sound funny ( See Jon's post for how it should have been done)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, tonyh29 said:

Sky news have said other wise in their article about it ...

 

though of course it is sky news ....

Public finances don't work that way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Davkaus said:

The Guardian says similar.

And I'm sure it will be reported everywhere as that but it isn't the case even if the Chancellor had come out and claimed it was.

Quote

Hammond will be speaking pretty soon, so we'll find out what next week's change of policy is likely to be.

Fixed. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The raise in NI for the self employed wasn't even a hugely bad idea, just ridiculous flip flopping from an incompetent government, the very opposite of decisive. Either commit to one or the other, don't **** change your mind due to media pressure. 

Edited by Dr_Pangloss
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be fair on this one, there was a lot of early talk about the NI contribution going to contribute to Social Care.
Now, it might be that group think within the media meant that Sky and BBC ran with this idea at the same time when explaining the budget. Or it could be that there was some low level intern type going around spinning it as hypothecation. There were a number of talking heads on a couple of channels warning of the danger of hypothecation, so I guess that must have come from ‘somewhere’.

I would suggest it’s a double cock up. A bad idea, badly justified. By bad idea, I don’t mean equalising N.I. is a bad idea, I mean saying you’re screwing the self employed out of ‘fairness’ when you’re letting their employers off scot free. That was a patently unfair idea.

Had they said all N.I. is being levelled, including for all types of employers, you couldn’t really argue with that. Who knows, might even have convinced some large employers to do away with the fraudulent practise of ‘self employment’.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, chrisp65 said:

Or it could be that there was some low level intern type going around spinning it as hypothecation. There were a number of talking heads on a couple of channels warning of the danger of hypothecation, so I guess that must have come from ‘somewhere’.

Yes I heard this as well. I don't know whether it was actually going to be hypothecated, but the idea was wafting around the either. 

And your talking heads were right, hypothecated taxation *is* completely shit. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, chrisp65 said:

To be fair on this one, there was a lot of early talk about the NI contribution going to contribute to Social Care.
Now, it might be that group think within the media meant that Sky and BBC ran with this idea at the same time when explaining the budget. Or it could be that there was some low level intern type going around spinning it as hypothecation. There were a number of talking heads on a couple of channels warning of the danger of hypothecation, so I guess that must have come from ‘somewhere’.

I'm a bit confused now cause I'm sure I read in other threads about how Labour saved the NHS ,indeed us all , by increasing NI to directly fund it  ...are you saying that they were fibbing and this money didn't go to the NHS ?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, tonyh29 said:

I'm a bit confused now cause I'm sure I read in other threads about how Labour saved the NHS ,indeed us all , by increasing NI to directly fund it  ...are you saying that they were fibbing and this money didn't go to the NHS ?

 

If you'd like to direct us to the posts where this was said then we can look critically at those posts and, perhaps, reduce your confusion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

I'm a bit confused now cause I'm sure I read in other threads about how Labour saved the NHS ,indeed us all , by increasing NI to directly fund it  ...are you saying that they were fibbing and this money didn't go to the NHS ?

 

I don't think that was me.

This place thrives on quotes and references, name some names.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, chrisp65 said:

To be fair on this one, there was a lot of early talk about the NI contribution going to contribute to Social Care.

When you say 'a lot of early talk' what do you mean? Kuenssberg and whoever else would have been on the post budget BBC2 programme (I didn't see either the budget or the discussion bits after)? Or a while ago whilst talking about the increased costs of social care?

 

Edited by snowychap

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

I'm a bit confused now cause I'm sure I read in other threads about how Labour saved the NHS ,indeed us all , by increasing NI to directly fund it  ...are you saying that they were fibbing and this money didn't go to the NHS ?

 

NI doesn't fund healthcare.  Tax doesn't fund government spending.  It's just told that way to make it more palatable, or understandable, or maybe acceptable.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

I'm a bit confused now cause I'm sure I read in other threads about how Labour saved the NHS ,indeed us all , by increasing NI to directly fund it  ...are you saying that they were fibbing and this money didn't go to the NHS ?

As snowy says, please show where anyone on VT said that.

But that aside, NI for a long while has effectively been "just another version" of income tax, to all intents and purposes. The hypothecation (or whatever the word is) that was made when NI was originally introduced has long since pretty much been accepted to have gone. Politicians of all Gov'ts have since still occasionally sort of used a link to Pensions and Hospitals from the NI revenue when it's suited them. But there's no direct link. It's just revenue.

This planned and abandoned change was supposed to be about how self employed people now will get pensions they wouldn't have done previously, so the better off self employed should (in the tories claim) pay a bit more. There's some element of justice in that argument. There's also some justice in the idea that some people become self employed in order to take home more money, via avoidance of the level of taxes paid by permanent employees doing the same job. It used to happen a lot at our place. People with skills that were sought after would go self employed, charge higher (by a mile) hourly rates and pay themselves dividends etc. to get around loopholes. All perfectly legal, but definitely a means of taking home more money through (in part) lowering their tax liabilities.

Gradually those loopholes have been reduced by Govt's (and at our place by the Union working away to stop the abuse - they got the CO. to agree to max contract lengths for subbies, to stop people working there for donkeys years as subbies and earning loads more than their members doing the same roles).

The problem is in current times, far more people are self employed on zero hours contracts, not through choice, but through employers seeking loopholes and not wanting to pay more in taxes. Again, legal, but costing the Gov't (and thus Hospitals, Schools etc.) revenue.

The problem the tories found was that they broke a promise, they didn't take an overview of the whole situation on self employed people and employers and they picked on something that the Telegraph to the the Mail and Sun etc. (as well as non supportive papers) would jump on.

But that's because they always mess everything up, and because the opposition is a shambles.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, peterms said:

Tax doesn't fund government spending

Well, it does. Not the sole source, but one of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, snowychap said:

When you say 'a lot of early talk' what do you mean? Kuenssberg and whoever else would have been on the post budget BBC2 programme (I didn't see either the budget or the discussion bits after)? Or a while ago whilst talking about the increased costs of social care?

 

Post budget. There was my usual Radio 4 in the car, picking up snippets as they were coming out. There was a sky news channel in the reception of the company I was visiting mid afternoon (no idea on presenter names or what the actual channel / prog was as I don't normally do sky).

Then picking through it in the P.M. slot back on radio 4.

Then some 'Five Live' analysis when I had a lift off a chavvy type the next day.

It was sort of around me. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

Post budget...

Right. It sounds more like people putting two and two together and making two billion, then - or, as you suggested earlier, a bit of media groupthink. Did any of them mention the nation's credit card? :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

I'm a bit confused now cause I'm sure I read in other threads about how Labour saved the NHS ,indeed us all , by increasing NI to directly fund it  ...are you saying that they were fibbing and this money didn't go to the NHS ?

 

Fake news bro. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, blandy said:

Well, it does. Not the sole source, but one of them.

Tax is there for redistribution, and the management of economic demand by withdrawing some spending power from the economy.

Government spending occurs by crediting bank accounts, not by collecting cash in order to spend it like in mediaeval times.

If the government chose, it could levy no tax next year, and still spend as normal.  It wouldn't be advisable, but the reason for that is not because the government would then have "no money".

Which is why when the govermment decides to do something it hadn't planned, like launch a war or bail out the banks, it doesn't need to raise tax in order to do so.

The idea that spending comes from tax is a fiction, designed to make people think that government spending is a bad thing which must be curtailed.  Propaganda genius, but utterly false.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, peterms said:

Tax is there for redistribution,

Or "spending", as it's also called. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â