This evenings "Tonight" programme on ITV talked about stealth taxes, and 
oh look how much direct taxes would go up if you got rid of the top five 
most hated stealth taxes, the show quoted a figure of £30bn or 4pence 
rise in direct taxes.

Strangely they "forgot" to mention that there is a tonne of money to be 
saved and no tax raise ever needed. For example, the ID cards is £20bn, 
London Olympics £18bn. Just those two MASSIVE wastes of money would offer 
a substantial tax cut.

What is it with these New Labour luvvies in the media that are pushing 
half truths to the masses, hiding the truth from people so they carry on 
voting for the worst government in the UK's entire existence.

>
> What is it with these New Labour luvvies in the media that are pushing
> half truths to the masses, hiding the truth from people so they carry on
> voting for the worst government in the UK's entire existence.

Simple, they lack the imagination to see that there’s nothing to be
gained arguing about who gets what and how much from the fruit tree
when you could be planting more trees.

Worse they believe the fruit will always grow even if you don’t water
the tree.

They understand how to spend wealth but not where it comes from or how
it’s made.

Hence the often quoted remark from Churchill, as relevant as ever,
“Taxing your way to prosperity is like standing in a bucket and trying
to lift yourself up by the handle.”

New Labour has tested to the point of destruction the theory that if
you want decent public services you must pay more for them and if you
want tax cuts then services must go.

New Labour Guardianistas behave like the company director’s pampered
wife let loose with the credit card, running up debts mostly spent on
crap they don’t need.

Their high tax concept was flawed to begin with because they never
understood the need for a concept that had an upper limit, a point of
this far but no further.

Unfortunately for them, the electorate did have such a concept.

In article <48e12e1e$0$2931$fa0fcedb@news.zen.co.uk>, Ar  wrote:
>This evenings "Tonight" programme on ITV talked about stealth taxes, and 
>oh look how much direct taxes would go up if you got rid of the top five 
>most hated stealth taxes, the show quoted a figure of £30bn or 4pence 
>rise in direct taxes.

but it shows those taxes equate to 4p in direct taxation thats important 
because alot of the "stable economy", "prudence" rhetoric thats been spun
recently was said to have been based on an economy where we didnt raise 
taxes

and there youve got one of ITV's main political shows, showing theres been 
at least a 4p tax hike

Aw

On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 20:19:50 GMT, awavey@yahoo.com (awavey@yahoo.com)
wrote:

>and there youve got one of ITV's main political shows, showing theres been 
>at least a 4p tax hike

But Labour took 4p off income tax so it all cancels out.

On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 23:57:05 +0100, mcp wrote:

> On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 20:19:50 GMT, awavey@yahoo.com (awavey@yahoo.com)
> wrote:
> 
>>and there youve got one of ITV's main political shows, showing theres
>>been at least a 4p tax hike
> 
> But Labour took 4p off income tax so it all cancels out.

I know that Labour made a 100% tax rise (10% to 20%), and increased 
National Insurance (a illegal pyramid scheme income tax). Where did New 
Labour cut this 4p from?

On Sep 30, 9:05 am, Ar  wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 23:57:05 퍝, mcp wrote:
> > On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 20:19:50 GMT, awa...@yahoo.com (awa...@yahoo.com)
> > wrote:
>
> >>and there youve got one of ITV's main political shows, showing theres
> >>been at least a 4p tax hike
>
> > But Labour took 4p off income tax so it all cancels out.
>
> I know that Labour made a 100% tax rise (10% to 20%), and increased
> National Insurance (a illegal pyramid scheme income tax). Where did New
> Labour cut this 4p from?

Not to mention the ridiculous 'take with one hand and give with the
other' tax credits system. Thousands of civil servants paid to
administer a pointless scheme that could easily be handled by means of
a tax code change. If you fired all them, cut out all the paperwork
and all other administration associated with tax credits you could cut
income tax by at least 2p

In article , mcp@nildram.co.uk wrote:
>On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 20:19:50 GMT, awavey@yahoo.com (awavey@yahoo.com)
>wrote:
>
>>and there youve got one of ITV's main political shows, showing theres been 
>>at least a 4p tax hike
>
>But Labour took 4p off income tax so it all cancels out.

well its worth stating that was the top 5 most hated stealth taxes that 
equated to a 4p tax rise, the institute of fiscal studies back 
in 2005 identified there had been at least 157 stealth taxes since 1997.


Aw

In <48e1ddc0$0$2505$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk>, Ar  wrote:

>On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 23:57:05 +0100, mcp wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 20:19:50 GMT, awavey@yahoo.com (awavey@yahoo.com)
>> wrote:
>> 
>>>and there youve got one of ITV's main political shows, showing theres
>>>been at least a 4p tax hike
>> 
>> But Labour took 4p off income tax so it all cancels out.
>
>I know that Labour made a 100% tax rise (10% to 20%),

As you know, that 100% can only describe the slice that was taxed at 10%
before - the first taxable £2230, called the lower band. For it to be a
100% rise, the next slice would have to be at 44% instead of the old 22%
rate, and the higher band would have to be 80% now. :-)

>and increased 
>National Insurance (a illegal pyramid scheme income tax). Where did New 
>Labour cut this 4p from?

I expect it is referring to reduction in the Basic band of income tax from
24% to 20%.

1996/1997: lower band was 20%, basic band was 24%
1997/1998: lower band was 20%, basic band was 23%
1999/2000: lower band was 10%, basic band was 23%
2000/2001: lower band was 10%, basic band was 22%
2008/2009: lower band scrapped, basic band is 20%

HTH

On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 20:19:50 GMT, awavey@yahoo.com wrote in
uk.media.tv.misc :

>In article <48e12e1e$0$2931$fa0fcedb@news.zen.co.uk>, Ar  wrote:
>>This evenings "Tonight" programme on ITV talked about stealth taxes, and 
>>oh look how much direct taxes would go up if you got rid of the top five 
>>most hated stealth taxes, the show quoted a figure of £30bn or 4pence 
>>rise in direct taxes.
>
>but it shows those taxes equate to 4p in direct taxation thats important 
>because alot of the "stable economy", "prudence" rhetoric thats been spun
>recently was said to have been based on an economy where we didnt raise 
>taxes
>
>and there youve got one of ITV's main political shows, showing theres been 
>at least a 4p tax hike


So why has a Socialist government in 11 and a half years not gone
after the super rich? As a sector it is about one per cent of the
electorate yet targetted income and capital and inheritance tax
legislation could take between 4 and 10p from this group and leave a
lot of the rest of the system  and thus the economy alone.

The Liberals have grabbed this idea and now the others can't be seen
to be touching it.

Yet when it comes to votes, you could ignore this one percent.
Wherever you draw the line for defining super rich, you also slow down
wage inflation as it starts to approach that line. Rising labour costs
then can be slowed down. Increases in rates of inflation can then be
held down. All good for the economy.

When it comes to the next election its all about the economy isn't it
(stupid - to complete the paraphrase)?

On 30 Sep 2008 08:05:20 GMT, Ar  wrote:

>On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 23:57:05 +0100, mcp wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 20:19:50 GMT, awavey@yahoo.com (awavey@yahoo.com)
>> wrote:
>> 
>>>and there youve got one of ITV's main political shows, showing theres
>>>been at least a 4p tax hike
>> 
>> But Labour took 4p off income tax so it all cancels out.
>
>I know that Labour made a 100% tax rise (10% to 20%), and increased 
>National Insurance (a illegal pyramid scheme income tax). Where did New 
>Labour cut this 4p from?

From the 24p income tax that the Tories were charging.

Mike Henry wrote:
> In <48e1ddc0$0$2505$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk>, Ar  wrote:
> 
>> On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 23:57:05 +0100, mcp wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 20:19:50 GMT, awavey@yahoo.com (awavey@yahoo.com)
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> and there youve got one of ITV's main political shows, showing theres
>>>> been at least a 4p tax hike
>>> But Labour took 4p off income tax so it all cancels out.
>> I know that Labour made a 100% tax rise (10% to 20%),
> 
> As you know, that 100% can only describe the slice that was taxed at 10%
> before - the first taxable £2230, called the lower band. For it to be a
> 100% rise, the next slice would have to be at 44% instead of the old 22%
> rate, and the higher band would have to be 80% now. :-)
> 
>> and increased 
>> National Insurance (a illegal pyramid scheme income tax). Where did New 
>> Labour cut this 4p from?
> 
> I expect it is referring to reduction in the Basic band of income tax from
> 24% to 20%.

> 1996/1997: lower band was 20%, basic band was 24%
> 1997/1998: lower band was 20%, basic band was 23%
> 1999/2000: lower band was 10%, basic band was 23%
> 2000/2001: lower band was 10%, basic band was 22%
> 2008/2009: lower band scrapped, basic band is 20%

Are you sure about the first item in your list?

Reliable sources indicate that the basic rate was set at 23% (by the 
Conservative government) in *1995* (two years before the 1997 General 
Election) as a step on the declared path to a 20% basic rate. That is 
certainly what I and many others remember clearly. Also remember that when 
the Conservatives took office in 1979, the basic rate they inherited from 
Wilson/Callaghan was 33%. The cut from 33% to 23% was massive.

<http://www.moneyextra.com/dictionary/basic-rate-tax-003705.php>
<http://www.archive.official-documents.co.uk/document/hmt/budget96/chap6.htm>

This is important because it renders the argument about the alleged "4p cut 
in income tax" completely unsound - particularly when one also considers the 
extra 1% tax that was added to the National "Insurance" tax rate (10% up to 
11% over the previously taxable bandwidth and 1% added to all earned incomes 
above that previously subject to NI tax).

The effect is that the "cut" is in fact only 2% - ie, the claim that tax has 
been cut by 4% inflates the real cut by 100%.

What would you rather have?

A cut from 33% to 23% over 16 years?

Or a cut from 23% to 20% over 11 years>

mcp@nildram.co.uk wrote:
> On 30 Sep 2008 08:05:20 GMT, Ar  wrote:
> 
>> On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 23:57:05 +0100, mcp wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 20:19:50 GMT, awavey@yahoo.com (awavey@yahoo.com)
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> and there youve got one of ITV's main political shows, showing theres
>>>> been at least a 4p tax hike
>>> But Labour took 4p off income tax so it all cancels out.
>> I know that Labour made a 100% tax rise (10% to 20%), and increased 
>> National Insurance (a illegal pyramid scheme income tax). Where did New 
>> Labour cut this 4p from?
> 
> From the 24p income tax that the Tories were charging.

It was actually *23%* when the Conservatives left office in 1997 (reduced 
from the 33% charged by the Labour government of 1974 - 1979).

The claimed reduction to 20% under Braun has to be offset by a 1% increase in 
the other income tax (NI).

So the cut is 2% over 11 years so far. Certainly not 4%.

In , JNugent
 wrote:

>Mike Henry wrote:
>> I expect it is referring to reduction in the Basic band of income tax from
>> 24% to 20%.
>
>> 1996/1997: lower band was 20%, basic band was 24%
>> 1997/1998: lower band was 20%, basic band was 23%
>> 1999/2000: lower band was 10%, basic band was 23%
>> 2000/2001: lower band was 10%, basic band was 22%
>> 2008/2009: lower band scrapped, basic band is 20%
>
>Are you sure about the first item in your list?
>
>Reliable sources indicate that the basic rate was set at 23% (by the 
>Conservative government) in *1995* (two years before the 1997 General 
>Election) as a step on the declared path to a 20% basic rate. That is 
>certainly what I and many others remember clearly.

Argh. My source was:
http://www.moneyextra.com/advice/tax/tables/archive/income_tax.php

It says 24% for 1996/7. Sorry if it is wrong...

>Also remember that when 
>the Conservatives took office in 1979, the basic rate they inherited from 
>Wilson/Callaghan was 33%. The cut from 33% to 23% was massive.

Blimey. I was only 7 at the time so I'm afraid I don't remember it :-)

><http://www.moneyextra.com/dictionary/basic-rate-tax-003705.php>

Moneyextra again!

><http://www.archive.official-documents.co.uk/document/hmt/budget96/chap6.htm>
>
>This is important because it renders the argument about the alleged "4p cut 
>in income tax" completely unsound

Absolutely, I agree. Is there another source that has tax tables going
that far back - it took me a while to find the moneyextra tables and after
that I stopped looking.

In , JNugent
 wrote:

>mcp@nildram.co.uk wrote:

>> From the 24p income tax that the Tories were charging.
>
>It was actually *23%* when the Conservatives left office in 1997 

That's true yes. *When they left office* in 1997, it was by then the
1997/8 tax year, and so the rate was 23%. But if it turns out to be
correct that the rate prior to that was indeed 24%, then it's ALSO true
that "the Tories were charging" 24% - just not after April 1997!

On 30 Sep, 09:29, Ed  wrote:
> On Sep 30, 9:05 am, Ar  wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 23:57:05 퍝, mcp wrote:
> > > On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 20:19:50 GMT, awa...@yahoo.com (awa...@yahoo.com)
> > > wrote:
>
> > >>and there youve got one of ITV's main political shows, showing theres
> > >>been at least a 4p tax hike
>
> > > But Labour took 4p off income tax so it all cancels out.
>
> > I know that Labour made a 100% tax rise (10% to 20%), and increased
> > National Insurance (a illegal pyramid scheme income tax). Where did New
> > Labour cut this 4p from?
>
> Not to mention the ridiculous 'take with one hand and give with the
> other' tax credits system. Thousands of civil servants paid to
> administer a pointless scheme that could easily be handled by means of
> a tax code change. If you fired all them, cut out all the paperwork
> and all other administration associated with tax credits you could cut
> income tax by at least 2p

Yes, but then you wouldn't have an excuse for harvesting tonnes of
"relevant" data about personal circumstances and finances .....

On 30 Sep, 22:58, Phil O'Sofa  wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 20:19:50 GMT, awa...@yahoo.com wrote in
> uk.media.tv.misc :
>
> >In article <48e12e1e$0$2931$fa0fc...@news.zen.co.uk>, Ar  wrote:
> >>This evenings "Tonight" programme on ITV talked about stealth taxes, and
> >>oh look how much direct taxes would go up if you got rid of the top five
> >>most hated stealth taxes, the show quoted a figure of £30bn or 4pence
> >>rise in direct taxes.
>
> >but it shows those taxes equate to 4p in direct taxation thats important
> >because alot of the "stable economy", "prudence" rhetoric thats been spun
> >recently was said to have been based on an economy where we didnt raise
> >taxes
>
> >and there youve got one of ITV's main political shows, showing theres been
> >at least a 4p tax hike
>
> So why has a Socialist government in 11 and a half years not gone
> after the super rich? As a sector it is about one per cent of the
> electorate yet targetted income and capital and inheritance tax
> legislation could take between 4 and 10p from this group and leave a
> lot of the rest of the system  and thus the economy alone.

Because (astounding as it may seem) they aren't *that* stupid.

The super-rich got to be super-rich by not being like the people who
_aren't_ super rich. Which generally means they have their sentiment
lobes reduced. They have no emotional attachment to "Team GB" - the
only reason they will base and live in the UK is if it makes good
business sense to do so. If any government were to start to try and
"soak the rich" then they will just up sticks and leave the UK. So of
the sake of a few extra millions in tax, you lose billions. Without
those billions, how can you build the hospitals and schools people
associate with prosperity ?

Unfortunately, the super-rich can afford to hire accountants who can
minimise their tax liability to a negligible amount, but that's always
been the case ....

On Thu, 02 Oct 2008 10:57:47 +0100, Jethro  wrote:

> On 30 Sep, 22:58, Phil O'Sofa  wrote:
>> On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 20:19:50 GMT, awa...@yahoo.com wrote in
>> uk.media.tv.misc :
>>
>> >In article <48e12e1e$0$2931$fa0fc...@news.zen.co.uk>, Ar  
>>  wrote:
>> >>This evenings "Tonight" programme on ITV talked about stealth taxes,  
>> and
>> >>oh look how much direct taxes would go up if you got rid of the top  
>> five
>> >>most hated stealth taxes, the show quoted a figure of £30bn or 4pence
>> >>rise in direct taxes.
>>
>> >but it shows those taxes equate to 4p in direct taxation thats  
>> important
>> >because alot of the "stable economy", "prudence" rhetoric thats been  
>> spun
>> >recently was said to have been based on an economy where we didnt raise
>> >taxes
>>
>> >and there youve got one of ITV's main political shows, showing theres  
>> been
>> >at least a 4p tax hike
>>
>> So why has a Socialist government in 11 and a half years not gone
>> after the super rich? As a sector it is about one per cent of the
>> electorate yet targetted income and capital and inheritance tax
>> legislation could take between 4 and 10p from this group and leave a
>> lot of the rest of the system  and thus the economy alone.
>
> Because (astounding as it may seem) they aren't *that* stupid.
>
> The super-rich got to be super-rich by not being like the people who
> _aren't_ super rich. Which generally means they have their sentiment
> lobes reduced. They have no emotional attachment to "Team GB" - the
> only reason they will base and live in the UK is if it makes good
> business sense to do so. If any government were to start to try and
> "soak the rich" then they will just up sticks and leave the UK. So of
> the sake of a few extra millions in tax, you lose billions. Without
> those billions, how can you build the hospitals and schools people
> associate with prosperity ?

With the taxes of ordinary working people as they have always done.
They are the ones who contribute the most in taxes, but despite this
we have to pander to the wishes of a wealthy minority. This idea that
it is solely the rich who create wealth is laughable idea that is
always trotted out.

> Unfortunately, the super-rich can afford to hire accountants who can
> minimise their tax liability to a negligible amount, but that's always
> been the case ....

So why would increasing their income tax rate make them leave, if
it actually wouldn't cost them much, if any more money?

Fred X

On 2 Oct, 15:03, "Fred X"  wrote:
> On Thu, 02 Oct 2008 10:57:47 퍝, Jethro  wrote:
> > On 30 Sep, 22:58, Phil O'Sofa  wrote:
> >> On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 20:19:50 GMT, awa...@yahoo.com wrote in
> >> uk.media.tv.misc :
>
> >> >In article <48e12e1e$0$2931$fa0fc...@news.zen.co.uk>, Ar  
> >>  wrote:
> >> >>This evenings "Tonight" programme on ITV talked about stealth taxes,  
> >> and
> >> >>oh look how much direct taxes would go up if you got rid of the top  
> >> five
> >> >>most hated stealth taxes, the show quoted a figure of £30bn or 4pence
> >> >>rise in direct taxes.
>
> >> >but it shows those taxes equate to 4p in direct taxation thats  
> >> important
> >> >because alot of the "stable economy", "prudence" rhetoric thats been  
> >> spun
> >> >recently was said to have been based on an economy where we didnt raise
> >> >taxes
>
> >> >and there youve got one of ITV's main political shows, showing theres  
> >> been
> >> >at least a 4p tax hike
>
> >> So why has a Socialist government in 11 and a half years not gone
> >> after the super rich? As a sector it is about one per cent of the
> >> electorate yet targetted income and capital and inheritance tax
> >> legislation could take between 4 and 10p from this group and leave a
> >> lot of the rest of the system  and thus the economy alone.
>
> > Because (astounding as it may seem) they aren't *that* stupid.
>
> > The super-rich got to be super-rich by not being like the people who
> > _aren't_ super rich. Which generally means they have their sentiment
> > lobes reduced. They have no emotional attachment to "Team GB" - the
> > only reason they will base and live in the UK is if it makes good
> > business sense to do so. If any government were to start to try and
> > "soak the rich" then they will just up sticks and leave the UK. So of
> > the sake of a few extra millions in tax, you lose billions. Without
> > those billions, how can you build the hospitals and schools people
> > associate with prosperity ?
>
> With the taxes of ordinary working people as they have always done.
> They are the ones who contribute the most in taxes, but despite this
> we have to pander to the wishes of a wealthy minority. This idea that
> it is solely the rich who create wealth is laughable idea that is
> always trotted out.

Not rich *individuals*, but the companies they run.
>
> > Unfortunately, the super-rich can afford to hire accountants who can
> > minimise their tax liability to a negligible amount, but that's always
> > been the case ....
>
> So why would increasing their income tax rate make them leave, if
> it actually wouldn't cost them much, if any more money?

You'll probably find they don't pay income tax anyway

On Thu, 2 Oct 2008 02:57:47 -0700 (PDT), Jethro wrote in
uk.media.tv.misc :

>On 30 Sep, 22:58, Phil O'Sofa  wrote:
>> On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 20:19:50 GMT, awa...@yahoo.com wrote in
>> uk.media.tv.misc :
>>
>> >In article <48e12e1e$0$2931$fa0fc...@news.zen.co.uk>, Ar  wrote:
>> >>This evenings "Tonight" programme on ITV talked about stealth taxes, and
>> >>oh look how much direct taxes would go up if you got rid of the top five
>> >>most hated stealth taxes, the show quoted a figure of £30bn or 4pence
>> >>rise in direct taxes.
>>
>> >but it shows those taxes equate to 4p in direct taxation thats important
>> >because alot of the "stable economy", "prudence" rhetoric thats been spun
>> >recently was said to have been based on an economy where we didnt raise
>> >taxes
>>
>> >and there youve got one of ITV's main political shows, showing theres been
>> >at least a 4p tax hike
>>
>> So why has a Socialist government in 11 and a half years not gone
>> after the super rich? As a sector it is about one per cent of the
>> electorate yet targetted income and capital and inheritance tax
>> legislation could take between 4 and 10p from this group and leave a
>> lot of the rest of the system  and thus the economy alone.
>
>Because (astounding as it may seem) they aren't *that* stupid.
>
>The super-rich got to be super-rich by not being like the people who
>_aren't_ super rich. Which generally means they have their sentiment
>lobes reduced. They have no emotional attachment to "Team GB" - the
>only reason they will base and live in the UK is if it makes good
>business sense to do so. If any government were to start to try and
>"soak the rich" then they will just up sticks and leave the UK. So of
>the sake of a few extra millions in tax, you lose billions. Without
>those billions, how can you build the hospitals and schools people
>associate with prosperity ?


The Liberals have pitched in with a super rich rate kicking in about
GBP100k. This is about 4 times national average earnings, about 2.5 to
3 times national average earnings for a family.

Most of the handful of people on this rate are directors and senior
executives of large plcs. There are about 3,000 to 5,000 of these
firms all quoted in the Stock Exchange either full listing or AIM.

These executives are the ones who are tied to the location of the
admin office of these companies. If the individuals are based in the
UK because the plc is based in the UK then that is because the
Corporation tax is advantageous to be based here. So the individuals
can be screwed but the company can be given the kickback by way of a
less onerous tax regime or even lower tax rates.

As you said it as about the business being successful rather than
doing anyone (including employees and directors) a favour. The Irish
have a corporation tax of just 12% but there hasn't been a huge
stampede across the Irish Sea to relocate. There are plenty of other
factors involved in deciding where to head quarter a business and
access to a sizeable labour pool is part of that. 

>Unfortunately, the super-rich can afford to hire accountants who can
>minimise their tax liability to a negligible amount, but that's always
>been the case ....

Gordon Brown has spent most of his 10 years as Chancellor chasing
after these loopholes and succeeded in doubling the amount of taxation
legislature. It is now so complicated to wade through that finding a
loophole to exploit is more of a challenge than it ever was. 

Oh and along the way as part of the enabling legislature this
government so enjoys introducing, he has made it a criminal offence to
exploit a loophole without first agreeing it with HMRC.

Any tax avoidance schemes that are devised have to be approved by
HMRC. Any use of tax avoidance schemes has to be disclosed to HMRC. In
effect what they have done is said if you bother to look for a hole
and find it you have to tell us about it. That is purely so that they
can close it in the next years Finance Act.