It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


A new generation to be 'con'ed?

page: 1

log in


posted on Aug, 18 2007 @ 11:17 AM
Ex-standard bearer of the Thatcherite right and figure of derision in the British tory party John Redwood
(if you missed his miming the Welsh national anthem when he was parachuted in as an Englishman for a Welsh secretary - they had by this stage been wiped out in Scotland and Wales - then you have missed a treat which for many nicely summed up the dead totally out-of-touch arrogance of the tory party towards the end of it's almost 19year tenure in power last time around; see here )
is currently selling the half-truths and myths of the same old same old - and notably has George Osbourne (shadow chancellor) on the platform by his side making sympathetic noises whilst pretending the proposals don't have full formal support by the tory front bench
(talk about trying to have you cake and eat it too.......but then given the mounting problems the tory party are currently having it's perfectly predictable they've retreated to appealing to their 'core vote').

Simplistic comparisons and spun stats are the order of the day, apparently this time we really can have very low taxation rates and much higher public spending, honest.
(whatever were they doing wrong last time, huh?

For example the lower rate of corporation tax and the higher rates of Irish growth are currently the favourite comparison -

Ireland is often cited as an economy with lower taxes, but its economic structure is very different.

The lower corporation tax of 12.5% in Ireland has helped boost investment into the country.

- Which sounds very impressive - so long as you are ignorant of the full facts regarding the Republic of Ireland, the existing UK taxation system and have a basic and utterly childish view of financial tax and incomes policies.
Talk about treating your potential electorate with contempt! -

But Ireland started from a lower growth base than the UK.
Until 20 years ago, Ireland suffered depopulation, which has reversed dramatically.
As there were only 3 million (Irish citizens), the influx has allowed the economy to grow more quickly than the British economy.

Experts also say UK companies are able to set off many of their costs, bringing their effective tax rate to 14% - only marginally above the Irish level.

- The selective spin applied to the increase in public spending is hilarious, note the dates they use in this comparison -

Mr Redwood explained: "We believe a lower tax economy would be a more successful economy. If you have the courage to cut the rates, the rich pay more."
He was sufficiently on-message to stress that the Irish Republic had increased public spending faster than Britain since the late 80s - by 220% against 120% - because low tax rates generated more tax revenues.

- Which actually is a back-handed admission of the tory years of crass public sector underspending and that they dare not run the comparison with the late 1990's-on Labour period.

The situation regarding their proposals on inheritance taxation are equally muddled and simply disingenuous -

Inheritance tax is not currently payable on 94% of estates, according to official figures.

The £300,000 threshold is due to increase to £350,000 by 2010, which the government says will ensure this remains the case.

- This all adds up to the same old tory deception, reducing taxes on those best able to pay them and the short-fall will (inevitably) end up being taken up by the middle and bottom end of society as happened under them last time.

Thankfully (as polls are clearly showing) the public simply don't want a 'tory Blair' as next PM.

Brown to go to the country next spring?
With Labour's excellent record, the next budget (to make the necessary adjustments so as to stop the marginal losers who were due to lose out with measures taken in the last budget but which have not yet taken effect), Gordon Brown's own highly competent and solid performance as PM and ammunition like this being provided by the tory party themselves I wouldn't bet on it.

[edit on 18-8-2007 by sminkeypinkey]

posted on Aug, 18 2007 @ 02:21 PM
I would comment on this, but I am not good with the maths numbers of it, one thing though wouldnt ot bring less pressure on those not so well off than the super rich with the cut in inheritance tax? From what I have seen on the news, oks sometimes baised I knows, But the guy who was on there speaking, said it would take the pressure of those having to pay more while not being in the super rich catergory.

Any thoughts on this Sminkey?

posted on Aug, 19 2007 @ 10:33 AM
The IHT threshold is £300,000 now and it is rising to £350,000 by 2010 (which is comfortably above the level of the 'average house price' across the UK) so I don't think it holds any water to pretend that 'ordinary' people are getting caught by IHT.

As the quote says it's only around 6% of estates that are liable for any IHT.

IMO this is one of those particularly nasty little gambits by the right-wing, it's all about trying to get 'regular' people to feel huge concern about something that will never be an issue to them.
This is all to try to effect change via public pressure (or at least claim there is some public pressure) which will ultimately only benefit the already most privileged & well off at the top of our society.

Of course if the most well off shirk this one someone else has to take up the slack.....and guess how that would be?
Same old same old, it would be (if they cut any general tax at all) pennies of tax saved in one area verses pounds paid in another and all heaped on the mid and bottom level of society.

[edit on 19-8-2007 by sminkeypinkey]

posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 08:06 AM
I'm not really placed to comment on this as anything to do with figures tends to go right over my head. And I'm certainly no more impressed by New Tory than I am by New Labour but Smikey, quoting the Guardian with regards to Tory policy.....hardly likely to be the most unbiased of conclusions they've reached.

posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 09:12 AM

Originally posted by ubermunche
but Smikey, quoting the Guardian with regards to Tory policy.....hardly likely to be the most unbiased of conclusions they've reached.

- But you'll note that I'm not referring to their conclusions or opinions ubermunche, I'm simply stating the verifiable figures and stats.

It's not a matter of opinion that the IHT levels are what they are (nor what they are set to rise to by 2010).

Neither is it a matter of opinion that Irish corporation taxes are not directly (alone) comparable.
British corporation/business taxes can be offset thus reducing the effective rates businesses have to pay, that's simply a matter of fact.

(besides which anyone who sees this kind of things in such childishly simplistic terms really ought to be ringing several alarm bells very loudly......there's a damned sight more to setting up & operating a business in any given country than this kind of laughably crude & desperately simplistic assessment of a few of the pertaining marginal taxation rates)

Lastly I don't think that a direct quote from John Redwood is a conclusion of the newspaper either (he was after-all quoted in several, I could have given had I chosen to).
It's not a matter of spin or selective bias that made him use the figures from the late 1980s onward thus laying himself open to being caught out like that, is it?

[edit on 20-8-2007 by sminkeypinkey]

posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 10:13 AM
Lol, sorry Smikey I was only joshing you mate....just saw The Guardian and couldn't resist.

Don't worry they haven't made any converts round here.

new topics

top topics

log in