It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Stealth taxes under 'New' Labour

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 12 2007 @ 02:49 PM
link   
Ok, I've used this link in a previous thread, but I think it deserves investigation and debate in itself. I am not going to investigate every tax claim, you can do that yourself if you want. But it does make interesting reading.

Stealth Tax Compendium

My belief is that taxes in this country are too high. I also believe the inflated taxes we are paying are not proportional to the public services we recieve. Stamp duty remains frozen in an inflated housing market. 'Higher Rate' tax remains fixed at £33,000 despite percentage wage rises meaning actual monetary rises are higher. The list in the link gives plenty of examples.

These taxes are being wasted on nanny-state policies. Or is it the 'New' Labour' need for increasing public sector jobs which is swallowing up the cash. And for every smack-head who commits a crime to get another hit, we must pay to investigate the crime, try him/her, lock them away and fill them with methadone. All in the name of humanity when the morality is not reciprocal.

Lower the taxes or spend the ones we do pay effectively must be what the electorate demands from this and the next government.




posted on Jan, 12 2007 @ 04:01 PM
link   
The British electorate has agreed (since 1997 onwards) that the public services needed restoration following the (almost 20) tory years of neglect and under-investment; the wonder is that it is being achieved with no serious additional tax burden on the majority and that Business tax remains so low
(the lowest in the G7 group by far according to the World Bank)

It seems some folks really do have problems recognising what happens in a stable growing economy.

To think it used to be a part of the tory ethic.

In an expanding and growing economy with stable tax rates the total 'tax take' is supposed to grow and indeed of course it will grow without the tax rates themselves rising
(in fact it's perfectly possible for the tax take to rise - if growth and value grow sufficiently - if actual tax rates fall).

(eg - 1997, 10% tax from an income of £100 = £10; 2007, 10% tax from an income of £200 = £20.
Wow, the 'tax take' doubled in 10yrs........and yet the tax rate/burden didn't rise at all.
This is what has been happening, the British taxation rates under this Gov are not at record highs yet because of strong and sustained growth the total tax take is at a record high.
This is both perfectly normal and absolutely desirable........and the fact that certain people have trouble with this most basic economic effect ought to be warning enough about the 'level' of intellect being brought to bear on the subject!
)

This present Labour Gov has gone in for a little mild redistribution and there have been some marginal changes each way (for instance they have increased the tax-free allowances, reduced the basic rate and expanded the 10p band - as well as choosing not to raise the level at which the top rate comes in in line with inflation on one occasion)
but to claim this Labour Gov is, by any serious historical British comparison, 'a high taxing UK Gov' is frankly laughable and a denial of the facts.

You'd have thought it was a really basic enough part of economics but apparantly not for some of the more partisan critics.


To clarify matters further -
(and from a not entirely uncritical recent OECD report)

Thursday October 12, 2006

British people, along with Americans and Icelanders suffered the biggest rise in taxes last year, according to a study by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development released yesterday.....

.....Britain's tax revenues as a share of national income last year rose to 37.2%, just above the average for all OECD countries.
The rise, from 36% in 2004, was the third biggest of any OECD member......

.....Yesterday a Treasury spokesman defended this. "As recognised by the OECD today, higher tax ratios are a result of stronger economic growth in the UK economy, not tax increases.
Thanks to reforms introduced by this government, the UK economy continues to experience an unprecedented period of growth and stability, and the OECD recently described the UK as 'a paragon of stability'."

He said Britain's tax burden remained well below its peak of 39.1%, hit during the 1980s, and was below the average of countries in the European Union's 15 original members, before the 2004 enlargement, which is 39.7%.

The OECD report showed that the tax take in France is a hefty 44.3% of GDP, up 0.9 percentage points from 2004.
Germany's was 34.7% last year, unchanged from 2004. Highest was Sweden, where the government takes 51.1% of GDP in taxes, up from 50.4% in 2004.
Next is Denmark on 49.7%, then Belgium on 45.4%, just ahead of Norway on 45%.
Mexico was the lowest, on just 19.8%.

money.guardian.co.uk...

(btw these figure are all broad stats based on the whole national economy and they do not take account of such things as working family tax credits or childcare tax credits and the like.)

The full Oct 2006 OECD report can be found here

No offence but I prefer to read and listen to the more serious and independent international commentators like the OECD, the IMF and the World Bank on these kind of matters and I don't rely on tiny and obviously politically motivated partisan little websites.



[edit on 12-1-2007 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Jan, 13 2007 @ 05:02 AM
link   
OK.

Are you happy with the level of tax you pay? (if you work).

Are you aware of the projection that the working population is likely to be paying 50% tax by 2050 if current public spending remains the same?

Report



Pressures on NHS may push public spending up to 50 per cent of GDP by 2050. A report by the professional services firm PricewaterhouseCoopers has found that an ageing population, rising demands for healthcare services and increasing costs all mean that public sector spending will continue to rise dramatically in the coming decades. The report welcomes the Government’s target of an 80 per cent employment rate, but suggests that this alone will not be enough without “a much tougher stance on public spending growth”. The report argues that future governments must decide between “continuing with the recent direction of policy in areas like health, education and measures to tackle child and pensioner poverty … and adopting a much tougher stance on public spending growth”


Will you be happy to pay this rate of tax? (if you were to be working by then)

Are you aware that 50% of GDP tax rates are an indicator of a truly socialist state?



posted on Jan, 13 2007 @ 05:16 AM
link   


Wow, the 'tax take' doubled in 10yrs........and yet the tax rate/burden didn't rise at all.

cobblers...

It's official: tax has vastly increased under new Labour

CBI urges Brown to cut tax burden

UK tax burden rising at fastest rate in Europe



This is both perfectly normal and absolutely desirable


For you, maybe. For me, no. It's not.



posted on Jan, 13 2007 @ 05:24 AM
link   
You can stick to all the day-dreams, projections and slanted claims from as many politically motivated tiny websites, the troy press and the tory party if you like.

I'll stick to reputable reports from the serious commentators like the World Bank, OECD & IMF.

Not one of whom btw come remotely close to endorsing the kinds of scare stories you have reproduced here, again.

As for your questions?
Am I happy to pay tax........who is, ever?
It's a permanent grumble from almost everyone.
But that doesn't mean our present tax rates are disproportionate or excessive.......and by historical standards they certainly are not.

Am I aware that a (total and overall) 50% tax rate (on all national economic activity) is one of the (if not the main) definition of a socialist state?
Well that's slightly different to what you are claiming here but nevertheless if you can cast your mind back to and recall a previous discussion I told you that, didn't I.
(But it is about the state taking and spending over half the economic 'cake' and not just because at a certain level of income there is a 50% marginal rate.)



posted on Jan, 13 2007 @ 06:10 AM
link   


I'll stick to reputable reports from the serious commentators like the World Bank, OECD & IMF.


Did you even bother to read any of the links?



Worryingly, yesterday's report from the highly respected Paris-based economic monitor, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, showed Britain's overall tax burden has overtaken that of Germany


from ...

UK tax burden rising at fastest rate in Europe

So YOU said the OECD was reputable. Care to dismiss THEIR claims?



posted on Jan, 13 2007 @ 06:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by boyg2004
Did you even bother to read any of the links?


- Do you even bother to read any of the posts in reply to yours?

Did you read my links?
(cos if you did it's weird that you choose to go and find and quote the Standard's version of the self-same OECD report I linked to).


So YOU said the OECD was reputable. Care to dismiss THEIR claims?


- The truth is that the OECD are not saying what you have originally claimed.

I originally said they were critical when I referred to their "not uncritical report".

But that is quite different to your original claims and insinuation that UK taxes are high and/or at an all-time high, when they are not
(and you might care to think about the difference between a high rate of increase or growth in rates and actual high rates, it's not quite the same thing).

The 4 sources you have used so far are -
1) a fringe politically partisan group (which did specifically mention the increase in tax take in cash terms, actually)
2) The London Standard (a tory supporting member of the Mail group and which did focus and talk about the rise in the total tax take in cash terms)
3) The CBI (which we covered here a little while ago. They're a business pressure group making claims which are at adds with the World Banks estimation of UK business tax levels)
4) and lastly we get a cherry-pick from the politically slanted Standard of the same OECD I have mentioned.

You can stick with your 'newspaper' and pressure group comment and spin for the whole and absolute truth on everything if you like but it's a very partial picture you'll be getting.

But I think you gave yourself away (again) with that

"cobblers...
comment.
Go and troll on with someone else.


[edit on 13-1-2007 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Jan, 13 2007 @ 06:48 AM
link   


You can stick with your 'newspaper' and pressure group comment and spin for the whole and absolute truth on everything if you like but it's a very partial picture you'll be getting.


spin


one word. Labour.



posted on Jan, 13 2007 @ 06:56 AM
link   
But back to seriousness (is that a word?)...



But that is quite different to your original claims and insinuation that UK taxes are high and/or at an all-time high, when they are not


Taxes hit all-time high




GORDON BROWN is about to raise Britain’s tax burden to its highest-ever level... An analysis by the accountants Ernst & Young, based on the Treasury’s own figures, shows the chancellor will match the record high for the tax burden this year and rise above it next year.... The Ernst & Young analysis shows that the tax burden excluding North Sea oil revenues, the best measure of the load faced by families and businesses, will be 37.6% of gross domestic product this year, close to the 37.7% peak reached in the early 1980s.


It seems to me, sminkey, that whenever you are faced with a challenge to your ideals you dismiss all information provided as being simply not good enough to convince you. All sources quickly lose credibility when we must respect your sources. All I ask for is a little respect, rather than being called a 'troll' for voicing my political opinion.



posted on Jan, 13 2007 @ 07:04 AM
link   
So far I have linked to the BBC, This is London, and the Times. They're not exactly fringe movements.




top topics



 
0

log in

join