Had to do a VAT return over the weekend and noticed on it that it says from 01/01/2010 that VAT will return to 17.5%. Didnt know the reduction to 15% had a time line onit . I wonder how long it will remain at 17.5 ? My guess two years max.
Nothing would shock me about this sack of sh!te govt !!!! What does shock me is the number of numbskulls in the office who still cant tell that they have been bent over a right royally shafted with an extra large spikey thing for the last twelve years !
Oh and just to cheer everyone up.....roll on President Blair !!
It was an idiotic move in the first place. Shifting a couple of percent isn't going to change demand. And, what happened was that a lot of retailers just trousered the difference (where are all the funny unrounded prices like 9.86) caused by the reduction , so there was no change to many consumers. Now the prices will go up as the VAT rises.
Poor government, greedy sellers, stupid voters. It's a pickle.
[cite]Posted By: Chizz[/cite]Talking about being right royally sh*fted...
The Conservatives increased VAT from 8% to 15% (under Geoffrey Howe) and to 17.5% (under Norman Lamont). However, it couldget worse.
Without getting too embroiled in a political battle...
I think you'll find that the Conservatives also cut income tax, whereas this lot seem to be increasing NI + adding a bunch of other 'sales' taxes. It all depends on your preference for direct or indirect taxation and your calculation of your personal tax burden.
[cite]Posted By: McLovin[/cite]It was an idiotic move in the first place. Shifting a couple of percent isn't going to change demand. And, what happened was that a lot of retailers just trousered the difference (where are all the funny unrounded prices like 9.86) caused by the reduction , so there was no change to many consumers. Now the prices will go up as the VAT rises.
Poor government, greedy sellers, stupid voters. It's a pickle.
Nail on the head McL. Publicity stunt that has had zero effect on the amount of cash I've spent (more than offset by the rise in food prices caused by transport cost rises)
If the Tories get in then I'd be flabergasted if they didn't up the VAT rate straight away. In fact I reckon whoever's in government will do it by this time next year.
Our debts as a country are rising by £500m a day, yep that much. Someone has to start paying this back at some time and it will be the job of the next government to sort out the mess left by the last one. Seem to remember exactly the same thing happening at the end of the 70s. Problem is I am not sure Cameron is as tough as Maggie and might not take the action needed to prevent bankruptcy of the country. Anyone who has been in debt knows the way it can spiral out of control. As your credit rating goes down, your risk and therefore the interest rates go up. Something has to be done and it is going to be unpopular.
This analogy of household debt with national debt may be an appealing one, but it is also false.
If demand for goods and sevices go down (because for example there is a credit crisis), you get a recession. Increasing government spending tops up that demand, saving jobs. Taking money out of the economy through tax rises or public spending cuts (or benefit cuts, for that matter) makes matters worse if you do it before the recovery is fully established. The main cause of increased borrowing is the reduced tax take caused by the fall-off in economic activity in the first place, but you cannot cut or tax your way out of that situation.
Everyone agrees the debt will have to be paid down and that will involve some difficult decisions, but the timing is about more than the general election. Much of it will come from growth or potentially be offset by inflation. In any case, the national debt is not high as a proportion of GDP by historic standards and still compares favourably with other major industrial nations.
For all the rhetoric, Thatcher was singularly unsuccessful at cutting overall public expenditure, partly because her governments spent so much money on using unemployment as a policy tool.
The Tories sold all our (yours and mine) Industries to the Global market -- not for the money but ideology. They sold the security of running and owning our own Utility industry to the Global market.Wave the Union Jack --they have some front. They never gave a rats arse how many they put on the dole "get on your bike" Tebbit said, only problem is where do we "get on our bikes to these days? This Labour rabble cant sell our industry we dont have any. The cant use our Labour force as our only competative advantage as they let 3 million into the already swamped labour market. The selling of " assets" (to who?) like the Dartford crossing means eve more of what we owned and paid for wil be owned "Globally" , with no control over how much we end up paying to use what we once owned.
We cant sell some of our gold because Brown already did that years back and lost us a huge amount of cash-----good with money is he f**k.
When things where better it was all Labours own work--- now we are well and truely f**ked its "global".
O and Airman the other thread about "cuts" where i said "un-employement benefits are now higher than the whole of the revenue from Income tax" was from the ITV show Benefit Busters. Repeated over thre weeks. Of course you mayebe correct that this is in fact wrong, i just find it rather funny that a Labour activist like yourself chooses to use the ToryGraph to dispute this ? i mean itsnt the only paper that tells the truth The Gaurdian ? (and Morning Star).
The drop of VAT to 15% was the usual Labour tokenism.
Over 100 MPs not standing in the next election(a record) , why ? they get a golden hand shake if they leave and they know (1) most will not be reelected and (2)they also know what an election it is to loose.
Why if your statement is correct above are the IMF "concerned" about the state of the UK economy ? why have they said they see our recovery as being the slowest by far of the "idustrial nations". God help us all if the IMF have to step in-----------------that would be a total disaster, wasnt it under a Labour government that they stepped in last time ? Harold Wilson.
"un-employement benefits are now higher than the whole of the revenue from Income tax" is not actually correct. The social security benefits payments will be higher than gross income tax receipts but they are wider than unemployment benefits.
The various benefits are designed to meet different kinds of need. For example, the State pension is payable to people who have reached state pension age, child benefit to those who have children, statutory sick pay to employees who are absent from work due to illness and jobseeker's allowance to people out of work and looking for a job.
[cite]Posted By: Goonerhater[/cite]The Tories sold all our (yours and mine) Industries to the Global market -- not for the money but ideology. They sold the security of running and owning our own Utility industry to the Global market.Wave the Union Jack --they have some front. They never gave a rats arse how many they put on the dole "get on your bike" Tebbit said, only problem is where do we "get on our bikes to these days? This Labour rabble cant sell our industry we dont have any. The cant use our Labour force as our only competative advantage as they let 3 million into the already swamped labour market. The selling of " assets" (to who?) like the Dartford crossing means eve more of what we owned and paid for wil be owned "Globally" , with no control over how much we end up paying to use what we once owned.
We cant sell some of our gold because Brown already did that years back and lost us a huge amount of cash
good with money is he f**k.
When things where better it was all Labours own work--- now we are well and truely f**ked its "global".
O and Airman the other thread about "cuts" where i said "un-employement benefits are now higher than the whole of the revenue from Income tax" was from the ITV show Benefit Busters. Repeated over thre weeks. Of course you mayebe correct that this is in fact wrong, i just find it rather funny that a Labour activist like yourself chooses to use the ToryGraph to dispute this ? i mean itsnt the only paper that tells the truth The Gaurdian ? (and Morning Star).
The drop of VAT to 15% was the usual Labour tokenism.
Over 100 MPs not standing in the next election(a record) , why ? they get a golden hand shake if they leave and they know (1) most will not be reelected and (2)they also know what an election it is to loose.
Why if your statement is correct above are the IMF "concerned" about the state of the UK economy ? why have they said they see our recovery as being the slowest by far of the "idustrial nations". God help us all if the IMF have to step in
that would be a total disaster, wasnt it under a Labour government that they stepped in last time ? Harold Wilson.
There's no point in us arguing politics as we both know we won't agree. For the record, however, I don't think the Labour party is perfect, i just prefer it to the alternatives.
In terms of your statements about tax and unemployment benefits, the point of quoting Tory sources was precisely to avoid the charge that they were tainted by some Labour party view. The Tory party, whatever you might think of it, has no reason to misrepresent the case to Labour's advantage. In fact, they were exaggerating the case against, but all these figures are freely available on the internet from a variety of sources of various political persuasions and none. Clearly the government is spending more than it is getting in, otherwise it wouldn't be borrowing. But not on unemployment alone.
As I understand it, MPs get the same settlement terms whether they leave parliament voluntary at an election or are defeated - they only get a reduced pension if they resign their seat voluntarily between elections. Of course a lot of them are going because they expect to lose and some because they've been caught with their hands in the till. The latter won't be missed by anyone.
I'm not an economist, but if you have an economy that relies excessively on financial services you are likely to suffer more severely than other economies when the financial services industry blows up. The IMF has an agenda of its own - it also said recently that the UK should develop a larger private health sector - but anyone who isn't concerned about the state of the economy wouldn't have been paying attention.
The only point I am making is that the timing of reducing the deficit is crucial. If done too early you will make matters worse, not better. That's the view of a wide spectrum of people, although inevitably they differ on what timing is appropriate.
Harold Wilson had retired by the time Denis Healey went to the IMF - Jim Callaghan was PM.
Comments
How long before it goes to 20% ? Many say that the reason for the reduction was to make the news of an increase to 20% less shocking.
Oh and just to cheer everyone up.....roll on President Blair !!
The Conservatives increased VAT from 8% to 15% (under Geoffrey Howe) and to 17.5% (under Norman Lamont). However, it could get worse.
Poor government, greedy sellers, stupid voters. It's a pickle.
Without getting too embroiled in a political battle...
I think you'll find that the Conservatives also cut income tax, whereas this lot seem to be increasing NI + adding a bunch of other 'sales' taxes. It all depends on your preference for direct or indirect taxation and your calculation of your personal tax burden.
Nail on the head McL. Publicity stunt that has had zero effect on the amount of cash I've spent (more than offset by the rise in food prices caused by transport cost rises)
Where's BFR when you need him?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/conservative/5999183/Tories-may-consider-VAT-increase-to-tackle-public-finances.html
Oops just followed the link from Chizz
If demand for goods and sevices go down (because for example there is a credit crisis), you get a recession. Increasing government spending tops up that demand, saving jobs. Taking money out of the economy through tax rises or public spending cuts (or benefit cuts, for that matter) makes matters worse if you do it before the recovery is fully established. The main cause of increased borrowing is the reduced tax take caused by the fall-off in economic activity in the first place, but you cannot cut or tax your way out of that situation.
Everyone agrees the debt will have to be paid down and that will involve some difficult decisions, but the timing is about more than the general election. Much of it will come from growth or potentially be offset by inflation. In any case, the national debt is not high as a proportion of GDP by historic standards and still compares favourably with other major industrial nations.
For all the rhetoric, Thatcher was singularly unsuccessful at cutting overall public expenditure, partly because her governments spent so much money on using unemployment as a policy tool.
We cant sell some of our gold because Brown already did that years back and lost us a huge amount of cash-----good with money is he f**k.
When things where better it was all Labours own work--- now we are well and truely f**ked its "global".
O and Airman the other thread about "cuts" where i said "un-employement benefits are now higher than the whole of the revenue from Income tax" was from the ITV show Benefit Busters. Repeated over thre weeks. Of course you mayebe correct that this is in fact wrong, i just find it rather funny that a Labour activist like yourself chooses to use the ToryGraph to dispute this ? i mean itsnt the only paper that tells the truth The Gaurdian ? (and Morning Star).
The drop of VAT to 15% was the usual Labour tokenism.
Over 100 MPs not standing in the next election(a record) , why ? they get a golden hand shake if they leave and they know (1) most will not be reelected and (2)they also know what an election it is to loose.
Why if your statement is correct above are the IMF "concerned" about the state of the UK economy ? why have they said they see our recovery as being the slowest by far of the "idustrial nations". God help us all if the IMF have to step in-----------------that would be a total disaster, wasnt it under a Labour government that they stepped in last time ? Harold Wilson.
The various benefits are designed to meet different kinds of need. For example, the State pension is payable to people who have reached state pension age, child benefit to those who have children, statutory sick pay to employees who are absent from work due to illness and jobseeker's allowance to people out of work and looking for a job.
There's no point in us arguing politics as we both know we won't agree. For the record, however, I don't think the Labour party is perfect, i just prefer it to the alternatives.
In terms of your statements about tax and unemployment benefits, the point of quoting Tory sources was precisely to avoid the charge that they were tainted by some Labour party view. The Tory party, whatever you might think of it, has no reason to misrepresent the case to Labour's advantage. In fact, they were exaggerating the case against, but all these figures are freely available on the internet from a variety of sources of various political persuasions and none. Clearly the government is spending more than it is getting in, otherwise it wouldn't be borrowing. But not on unemployment alone.
As I understand it, MPs get the same settlement terms whether they leave parliament voluntary at an election or are defeated - they only get a reduced pension if they resign their seat voluntarily between elections. Of course a lot of them are going because they expect to lose and some because they've been caught with their hands in the till. The latter won't be missed by anyone.
I'm not an economist, but if you have an economy that relies excessively on financial services you are likely to suffer more severely than other economies when the financial services industry blows up. The IMF has an agenda of its own - it also said recently that the UK should develop a larger private health sector - but anyone who isn't concerned about the state of the economy wouldn't have been paying attention.
The only point I am making is that the timing of reducing the deficit is crucial. If done too early you will make matters worse, not better. That's the view of a wide spectrum of people, although inevitably they differ on what timing is appropriate.
Harold Wilson had retired by the time Denis Healey went to the IMF - Jim Callaghan was PM.
Peace.