1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Hi Guest, welcome to the TES Community!

    Connect with like-minded education professionals and have your say on the issues that matter to you.

    Don't forget to look at the how to guide.

    Dismiss Notice

Conservatives, the low tax party!!

Discussion in 'Personal' started by lexus300, Oct 23, 2015.

  1. lexus300

    lexus300 Star commenter

    I have recently read an article where the researcher indicated that there has been a major redistribution of wealth over the last 6 years.

    The start:
    • Government borrowed far more than they could ever realistically pay back in real terms.
    The action to remedy:
    • Pretend to pay it back by inflation IE., pick the savers pockets.
      • This is analogous to 'the boiling frog' where the frog is the saver.
        • Put it in boiling water and it will jump out
        • put it in cold water and slowly heat the water to boiling point, the frog will not see the danger and die
      • Our Conservative government is using the latter to inflate the debt away, according to the research indications.
    How was it implemented? During the first 3 years of the last Tory Government they pushed through 299 new taxes and/or tax rises, some typical examples: CGT, Carbon tax, 12 new air passenger duties, new fuel taxes, higher VAT.......
    In mitigation, they did reduce some taxes like Corporation tax and the very clever increase in tax allowance for the low paid which is overfunded by the increase in people being moved into higher tax bands, all of which creates a smoke screen to fool the unaware.
    Now, if you look at the last 5 years or so, the tories have also reduced the 'Life time Allowance' on pension plans from 1.8 million 5 years ago in stages of 1.5 million then 1.25 million and by next year 1 million.
    Interest rates on savings are rigged so that savers are penalised in favour of the irresponsible borrowers (Government being the main one).
    Savings over the period from 2009 to present have lost in real terms 15% of their value. Whilst at the same time government debt is now worth a corresponding figure less than it was in 2009.
    Returning to higher rate taxation, since 2009 when the threshold was close to 50k, in 2013 that had been brought down by the tories to £42,457.

    The question I would like answering is, how can they get away with it? They have presided over one of the greatest wealth transfers in our history and it has slipped by unnoticed, even the opposition parties say nothing.
     
  2. jacob

    jacob Lead commenter

    Because they could, and it is much worse since the gullible public were conned into voting them back in without their glove-puppet LimpDem friends.
     
  3. grumpydogwoman

    grumpydogwoman Star commenter

  4. lexus300

    lexus300 Star commenter

    Never were more true words written and you need only to look at some of the topics on 'personal' and the number of respondents compared to this to realise how unaware at best and downright dim some people are about their own welfare. It makes me realise just how hopeless a situation we are in. These things need to be brought out into the daylight.
     
  5. lexus300

    lexus300 Star commenter

    Labour have been a poor to non-existent opposition since 2010. They do not earn their pay and perks.
     
  6. cariadwch

    cariadwch Established commenter

    They are as bad as the Tories in opposition who from 1997-2008 never issued a single warning of an impending global financial crisis. I think they may have discussed £30 billion in public sector cuts, but that was peanuts compared to the trillon or so of taxpayers money needed to bail out the banks.
     
  7. BillyBobJoe

    BillyBobJoe Lead commenter

    I don't accept the responsible/irresponsible divide when it comes to borrowing vs saving. You can only save if you have excess income and no need for capital expenditure. I also don't accept the claim that the government is trying to inflate away the debt - that's actually a fairly sensible idea, done carefully, but the rate of inflation has actually been pretty low over the last few years in historical terms that I don't think the claim stands up that this is what the government is doing. The real question is: why should you be rewarded for stuffing money under the bed? If everyone does that the economy grinds to a halt.

    Additionally, government neither need nor are expected to pay back the national debt entirely. It's more productive economically to simply take steps to grow the economy faster than the debt so that the debt to GDP ratio falls over the long term. The problem we have is that government have attempted to achieve a surplus and cut the debt directly, which is actually economically dangerous as it sucks demand out of the economy, risking stagnation and a deflationary spiral.
     
  8. BobbyPhilips

    BobbyPhilips Established commenter

    that was not the cost or anywhere near it Google is your friend.
     
  9. lexus300

    lexus300 Star commenter

    Sorry to block quote, the selected quote is not working today.
    Both Labour and the Conservatives have borrowed up to the hilt which is why we are in so much debt. This has resulted in many new taxes and low interest rates for savers (hidden inflation). Have you not noticed that lending rates to ordinary people are many times the base rates? As for credit cards charging anywhere from 15 to 25% or more! Yet Government debt is at the base rate, or very near via QE. Inflation in its simplest form does seem low but when you factor in very low to almost nil interest on savings and a significant increase in the amount of tax we pay, the picture looks very different.
    Savings are important to us all, consider the effect on welfare if all the savers had spent their money, where would they go in times of need? Also the term savers includes those who have paid into pension schemes or other retirement funds, what if they had never bothered? Finally owning a property is a form of savings, had they all not finished off their mortgages they would be pressuring Housing associations for accommodation. Then you have the catastrophic events of 2007/8/9 where pension funds were decimated in some cases and of course the very low interest rates screwed down annuities on the private pension schemes. You do not have to look very far to see just how badly successive governments and many large corporations have well and truly screwed us all.
     
  10. BobbyPhilips

    BobbyPhilips Established commenter

    Who is the us? 5.5 million are employed by government and are paid from that tax take/borrowed money.
     
  11. Scintillant

    Scintillant Star commenter

    Fortunately, the National Audit Office has looked into this - with a report out in July this year. It shows the level of financial support given by the government to the Banks since 2009. The report tries to make an assessment of how much they still owe us now, after repayments, fees and interest. The headline figure is £456.33bn, down from £612.58bn in March 2010. The peak was a mighty £1.162 trillion.

    http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2011/nov/12/bank-bailouts-uk-credit-crunch


    Bailout or financial support is what I'm sure you will quibble over...

    There were two types of support provided:

    • Provision of guarantees and other non-cash support. The main items under this heading are the Credit Guarantee Scheme, Special Liquidity Scheme and Asset Protection Scheme, as well as various other guarantees and indemnities provided to UK banks.
    • Provision of cash in the form of loans to the Financial Services Compensation Scheme and insolvent banks to support deposits, and the purchase of share capital in Royal Bank of Scotland and Lloyds Banking Group.
    Peak support (£bn)
    Guarantee commitments 1,029
    Cash outlay 133
    Total peak support 1,162


     
  12. BobbyPhilips

    BobbyPhilips Established commenter

    Your post confirms what i said. Differentiating cost from guarantees.
     
  13. lexus300

    lexus300 Star commenter

    If we got rid of all of those we would still never be able to pay off the debt in real terms. Think with your head rather than your 'true blue bible' and imagine this country without the 5.5 million (your figure not mine), we would be in total chaos and people like you and me would be in harms way.
    There needs to be a plan that takes into account the debt but does not just penalise the poor and relatively poor.
     
  14. lexus300

    lexus300 Star commenter

    At other times you have argued using pension liabilities (in the future) rather than actual costs and you have never taken into account the higher death rate inevitable since raising the retirement age.
    What i am saying about you is that you argue from the position that suits your current whim rather than with consistency.
     
  15. Scintillant

    Scintillant Star commenter

    I have posted that as a factual representation of the various sums involved. None of it was my opinion. It was all Nation Audit Office material.

    People can read it for themselves.
     
  16. BobbyPhilips

    BobbyPhilips Established commenter

     
  17. cariadwch

    cariadwch Established commenter

    A trillion pounds including 100 billion in cash to bail out the banks. Whatever the figure Its a huge amount more than the £30bn cut in spending proposed by the Tories in opposition before the crash.
    the Tories go on about Labour crashing the economy - so as they are so financially astute, why werent the Tories warning us about a looming massive global financial back in 2008?
     
  18. BobbyPhilips

    BobbyPhilips Established commenter

    You were the nne whingeing about tax, not me. You want services and reduced tax.
    Did you consider yourself one of those when you said the government has screwed you?
     
  19. BobbyPhilips

    BobbyPhilips Established commenter

    No, not a trillion pounds. Do you not follow why?
     
  20. lexus300

    lexus300 Star commenter

    BP., You are avoiding the issue, you are not consistent.
     

Share This Page