January 26th, 2012

Clegg’s Progressive £10,000 Threshold Hike
Benefits Low Income Earners Most

A lot of chaff is being thrown up about the £10,000 tax threshold hike being pushed by Clegg this morning. Matthew Sinclair over at the Taxpayers’ Alliance has sent this chart proving the point Guido has been making all day. Those on low earnings benefit proportionately the most.

Those on lower earnings, e.g. the second decile (£10,853 according to ONS data) will see their post-tax earnings rise by 4.7%, those in the highest decile will see their post tax earnings rise by just 1.1%. Now some policy wonks on the left complain that middle income earners will see their post tax income rise by some 2% and that this is “a waste of money”. The squeezed middle-classes need some help as well, this is a good thing, not a flaw. The hike shouldn’t be paid for by once again shifting the higher rate threshold either. The coalition parties should stop piling on the pressure on the very demographic that voted them into office to cut taxes…


214 Comments

  1. 1
    Askin? says:

    Ok, what would happen if all taxes where cut to 5%?

    How would this effect what the state takes? anyone good at math?

    Like

  2. 2

    Stop spending money.

    I have.

    So should the government.

    Like

    • 8
      Richard Kelham says:

      But if the govt stops spending money, you’ll have to spend a lot more to make up for it. Who would pay for infrastructure, justice, defence, pensions, healthcare? Taxes are the subscription you pay to live in a civilised state. Stop bleating.

      Like

      • 15

        You want to define what you carelessly call a civilised state.

        I have no need of compliance officers, pilgrims, bin checking officers, equal opportunities form fillers.

        I one paid 98% tax on my incremental earnings. Where did it all go?

        Oh! BTW. What infrastructure? What justice? What defence? What pensions? What healthcare? They are all a joke.

        Are you blind as well as stupid?

        Like

      • 23
        Archer Karcher says:

        What the hell are you talking about? Government needs to dramatically downsize it’s size, spending and scope while slashing the huge tax burden that is stifling the economy.
        Lower tax levels make people wealthier, healthier and happier.
        Here’s a starter, stop paying the corrupt EU toll tax and give every taxpayer a £2,000 tax rebate, £1000 before the summer holiday season and £1000 just before christmas.
        There is plenty more options to cut with little or no pain, except for grasping, overbearing government departments, vanity projects and Quangoland.

        Like

      • 40
        Oliver Wendell Holmes says:

        I actually said Taxes are what we pay for civilized society.

        I never said that government expenditure should be so unconstrained that it ran beyond receipts.

        Like

        • 47
          Universal Hiss says:

          Depends on your take on civilized society.

          Like

        • 69
          The Hon. Learned Hand, J., U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit says:

          There is nothing sinister in so arranging one’s affairs as to pay the least amount of tax. (Nice to know a Labour politician like Chuka Umunna agrees with me on that!)

          Like

        • 99
          Four-eyed English Genius says:

          Define “civilised society”! You are surely not implying that the present day UK is civilised!

          Like

          • Holmes insisted on the separation of ought and is.

            He said I think our morally tinted words have caused a great deal of confused thinking.

            Also: … society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes.

            Does not sound the type that Mr Kelham (above) should be quoting so freely, but socialists always fly by the seats of their pants…

            Like

          • Hоlmеs іnsіstеd оn thе sеpаrаtіоn оf оught аnd іs.

            Hе sаіd I thіnk оur mоrаlly tіntеd wоrds hаvе cаusеd а grеаt dеаl оf cоnfusеd thіnkіng.

            Аlsо: … sоcіеty cаn prеvеnt thоsе whо аrе mаnіfеstly unfіt frоm cоntіnuіng thеіr kіnd. Thе prіncіplе thаt sustаіns cоmpulsоry vаccіnаtіоn іs brоаd еnоugh tо cоvеr cuttіng thе Fаllоpіаn tubеs.

            Dоеs nоt sоund thе typе thаt Mr Kеlhаm (аbоvе) shоuld bе quоtіng sо frееly, but sоcіаlіsts аlwаys fly by thе sеаts оf thеіr pаnts…

            Like

      • 101
        AC1 says:

        I’d prefer we give everyone an equal dividend (from a Land Tax) and let them choose how much to spend on “services” (minus the cost of government).

        You’d soon see the state shrink…

        lesbian awareness 5-a-day consultants or money for 20 extra fags…

        No contest!

        Like

        • 118

          Only Mandelson can afford 20 extra fags …

          Like

        • 210
          Really? says:

          For all its virtues, Land Tax would fall disproportionately upon owners of significant tracts of land. If we insisted upon it, there would have to be provisions which had the effect of benefiting the likes of the Duke of Westminster to mitigate this result.

          Pile this level of complexity upon the complications of the CAP and the only beneficiaries will be the paper-shufflers who wade through the mess on behalf of landowners. If there is a genuine way through this, I’d appreciate being pointed in the direction of a truly simple scheme.

          Like

  3. 3
    East India Company wallah says:

    Cleggie has once again shown himself to be an opportunistic bandwagon hitcher not far removed from that Mr Bean who follows the Labour party
    “I agree with Nick”-an imbecile from scotland once said

    Like

    • 10
      Christopher Heward says:

      Raising the lower threshold was in their manifesto and the Coalition agreement – it’s Lib Dem policy, not Labour’s, so I don’t see what you’re saying?

      Like

      • 140
        Former Libdem voter says:

        It was actually one of the things that tipped me towards voting libdem. (The student fees issue didn’t effect me).

        Like

    • 20
      Universal Hiss says:

      Be fair. You must have seen the love in between Cleggie & Cameron in the rose garden.

      Clegg is just the useful idiot.

      Like

  4. 4
    Naive as fuck says:

    The hike shouldn’t be paid for by shifting the higher rate threshold either.

    What, like they did last time they boosted the tax threshold, thereby sucking tens of thousands into the higher rate tax band and negating any benefit at all for existing higher rate taxpayers?

    No, I’m sure they won’t do that again.

    Like

  5. 5
    Christopher Heward says:

    I think your use of proportions is a bit odd, but if people use proportional analysis for tax rises then they should also be used for tax cuts – must have it one way or the other for both.

    Whilst I don’t think it’s necessary to penalise the top to pay for the bottom, they could lower one of the higher thresholds (either the 40% or 50%) to the extent that anyone above that threshold doesn’t benefit (so if you raise the 20% threshold by £2,000 then lower the 40% threshold by £2,000). That would make it more fiscally affordable, without anyone being any worse off, whilst those earning above the current 20% threshold and below the current 40% threshold would benefit to varying degrees. This seems a sensible approach to me at a time where there is still a massive deficit.

    Like

    • 7
      sir humphrey says:

      if you want to reduce income inequality then raise the higher tax rate, everybody will lose but the rich would lose more.

      if you want to make the poor richer then cut the higher rate and use the extra money raised to cut the lower rate/increase the tax threshhold

      Like

      • 13
        Christopher Heward says:

        I was quite clear that you woudn’t end up raising taxes on higher earners, if this is what you’re implying?

        With regards to raising more money by cutting the higher rate, is there any empirical evidence that would happen currently? I’m not saying it won’t, and I can see the logic behind the Laffer curve, but my understanding is that it’s pretty difficult to say where the peak point is. I mean, wheat if we could find out that the revenue-maximising point was 60% marginal rate? Would you advocate a raising of the rate then? So I’m not disagreeing with your point, I’m just saying it’s presumptious to say that we’d have more money available to the government if they cut the higher rate.

        With regards to income inequality, it is a real issue, because if the rich get richer quicker than the poor, then this will cause inflation which the poor won’t be able to compete with and so will become poorer in real terms (the current housing bubble is an example of this, with a whole generation left dependent on the affluence of their parents to buy a house). Of course, you could caveat this by saying that if income inequality rose but REAL incomes rose for all then this is a good thing, but this assumes that the inflation measure we use captures the costs for the poor adequately? What if the goods the poor buy have increased in price more dramatically than the average rate? The other question I’d raise would be even if under one set of rates all real (real real) incomes rose and so too inequality, how do we know that an alternative set of more progressive rates wouldn’t lead to real incomes rising as much an inequality falling? It’s all very hard to predict really!

        Like

      • 16

        Reducing income inequality is not the objective.

        Like

        • 18
          sir humphrey says:

          what is the objective?

          Like

          • Christopher Heward says:

            Just to be clear Guido that was a side-point in response rather than me advocating it necessarily.

            I assume the objective is to increase the incentive to work for lower earners and the unemployed, as well as to put more money in the pockets of those paying the lower rate of income tax (and potentially all the other tax payers as well depending on what happens to the other rates).

            I definitely think that there’s no point taxing people just for the sake of it, but I also think that when there isn’t a lot of money about, that it can be targetted better (but without using over complicated things like Tax Credits and what not) by cutting the higher thresholds.

            Like

          • annette curton says:

            That is a question Sir Humphrey would never have asked, because he knew nobody has got clue about the answer.

            Like

    • 103
      AC1 says:

      Why should you be punished/fined more for having a higher productivity?

      Like

  6. 11
    A W_Thompson says:

    Today, I’d like to focus on safety. How many times have you used a cheese grater and nicked your finger – it really hurts doesn’t it. Well I’ve nicked a few things from Tesco and that’s caused me a bit of pain too!

    Like

  7. 12
    sir humphrey says:

    ok, so answer me this…they created 200 billion out of thin air in quantitative easing, why didn’t they then just give it to us to spend.

    or they could have held a dragon’s den and given two million entrepeneurs 100,000 each

    Like

    • 17
      Brown and out says:

      That would have been a good idea EXCEPT that wasn’t the real purpose of QE – just the spin. The real reason for QE was to save the banks, but that would have been too difficult to sell to the public, so they pretended the banks had to do the lemding. QE is DEVALUATION – but the public don’t like that word either, so its QE

      Like

      • 19
        sir humphrey says:

        true dat!

        Like

        • 24
          Christopher Heward says:

          If they really wanted to lend to people I’d’ve advocated a policy of giving credit unions long-term loans and low rates so that their interest rates could come down for lending to those that are most in need. But like the other guy said, I think their intention was rather to inflate away the debt and, primarily, to make sure the banks couldn’t fail.

          Positive Money’s stuff is worth a look (Google them and have a read/watch their video(s) (other search engines are available!!)).

          I think Ron Paul is also worth a look too!! :D

          Like

    • 105
      AC1 says:

      Because it never really enters the economy. It’s just “magic money” to magic into bank reserves (held @BoE).

      Otherwise as they raise reserve requirements to comply with Basel III the volume of credit would fall (I think that’s a good idea they don’t but that’s not relevant).

      Like

  8. 14
    Fairer Taxman says:

    Wouldn’t it make sense to scrap NIC’s which have a maximum cap and are painful to administer and simply add it onto normal taxation? NIC’s would then be paid without an upper limit which would pay for uplift and reduce staff at HMRC.

    Like

    • 21
      sir humphrey says:

      why not QE into existence £1 trillion, share it out equally and then we can use it to buy all the government debt.

      then uk citizens own all the uk debt. with the interest we get we can get rid of the benefits system

      Like

    • 76
      Wikifax says:

      The HMRC staff could be retrained to clean hospitals to make sure no more MRSA or C.Diff. They would then have a real purpose in life, rather than just making my life a misery.

      Like

    • 106
      AC1 says:

      Why not abolish taxes on Income and tax land values instead?

      Much simpler to administrate and Land has never done a runner…

      Like

    • 156
      Sherlock says:

      Yes!

      NICs paid by employers are a tax on jobs.

      NICs paid by employees are the vestiges of an ponzi scheme and are really no different from PAYE.

      Scrapping NICs would make the system fairer, cheaper and encourage job creation.

      But politicians like NICs because they make a great stealth tax.

      Like

  9. 25
    Universal Hiss says:

    Scrap income tax,nics,vat,corporation tax,window tax.

    Then scrap MPs,MSPs,MEPs,NHS & all councils.

    There.

    Job done.

    Like

    • 33
      Ah! Monika says:

      Don’t forget the salt.

      Like

    • 54
      Tessa Tickles says:

      I was going to say, “and all councils”, but you’ve got that one covered.

      How about the BBC? They don’t do anything useful.

      Like

      • 72
        Universal Hiss says:

        My post was off the top of the head after 1/2 a bottle of merlot(now 3/4’s) so I forgot about the BBBC.

        Of course you are right. We would have to make sure during the dismantlement they don’t get any pay offs or pensions or anything.

        I’d pay some of my taxes for branding on the forehead & a bell for ex employees so the whole lot of them can be shunned by all decent members of society.

        Like

      • 83
        Wikifax says:

        I don’t pay for the BBC directly, but indirectly they are hugely expensive due to their effect on the feeble minded, which has major negative knock-on effects.

        Like

    • 109
      AC1 says:

      Also Scrap
      Stamp duty.
      CGT.

      Like

  10. 26
    Rosie 47 says:

    As a dog I don’t pay tax.

    Like

    • 29
      Kennel Club says:

      I claim my £5 – Rosie47 – although you COULD be ‘arry, but I reckon you might really be Hazel Blears that well-known ginger chihuahua!

      Like

    • 42
      Handycock (Head of Planning, Portsmouth) says:

      I write like a 2 year old and can’t spell says ‘Arry (sounds a bit like me), my friend and a big investor in property development in Portsmouth with my ‘boys.’ More profit for them now we have agreed that they don’t have to build 28 social housing units, for their biggest 25 storey development, and the police are doing nothing, about them torching the listed building that was to be incorporated into it. Don’t forget my cut boys. Boaz.

      Like

    • 124
      Harrycasino.com says:

      Get in…

      Like

  11. 28
    Emirates Airlines says:

    Tonight as we pass over the Nort Sea we will be serving caviar and inviting Dianne Abbott to take a jump.

    Like

  12. 32
    Bob Diamond Geezer says:

    Bugger the poor ( who get all the credits etc) and the rich (who are stinking rich) – its the squeezed middle (i.e most of us) that need some help

    Like

  13. 34
    Breaking News says:

    Like

    • 44
      Universal Hiss says:

      He should be made bank corrupt. Then the shares would be worth diddly squat.

      Like

    • 75
      Another Engineer says:

      To be fair, he was brought in to sort out the mess – he wasn’t responsible for it.

      Though its a bit early to say he’s been a success.

      Like

      • 94
        I don't need no doctor says:

        Agreed. If he can turn RBS around then he deserves the bonus. That’s why payment in shares is a good idea.
        Of course all this might not have happened if the spineless Blair had sacked Loonytune Brown.
        The media should be pointing the finger at Blair and Brown not Hester.

        Like

  14. 36
    I don't need no doctor says:

    All MPs when elected should have to spend one year on the minimum wage. This should apply to the Lords as well. We would soon see who really wants to represent the people.

    Like

  15. 38
    nellnewman says:

    The truth is the libdems are desperate to claw back some of that hemorrhaging support. They think this policy will do it for them.

    It won’t.

    Like

    • 45
      Fools gold says:

      It might with me

      Like

    • 65
      Tessa Tickles says:

      I’m in favour of this policy. I stop working when I hit the personal allowance, so if it’s raised, I’ll work more and still keep my wages. Hurrah!

      It’s not going to make me vote Illiberal Dimocrat though. They’re all cunts.

      Like

  16. 39
    Gordon F Brown's former advisor says:

    You know somethinmg? I couldn’t care less…

    Like

  17. 41
    Universal Hiss says:

    Anyway,ANYTHING Clegg says should be looked at carefully.

    After laughing,it’s sensible to take the opposite view.

    Like

  18. 46
    Tessa Tickles says:

    “some policy wonks on the left complain that middle income earners will see their post tax income rise by some 2% and that this is “a waste of money””

    Hold on – isn’t that “2% rise” in “post tax income” actually the middle-income earners keeping their own money? Money they’ve earned?

    That is, it’s not going to be stolen by the State to piss-away on SureStart Centres for the terminally thick.

    Could someone ask the idiots of The Left how allowing people keeping their own wages is somehow “a waste of money”?

    Like

    • 55
      Universal Hiss says:

      I think it’s because they are (forgive me for using a technical term)fuckwits.

      & that post tax income is the folding stuff to stimulate the economy that even the hard of understanding should be able to grasp.

      Like

    • 64
      Ed Bollocks says:

      Because you’re taking money out of the economy!

      Only politicians know how to spend money. We spent a trillion quid without even an aircraft carrier or a new airport or even broadband to show for it.
      We’re the experts.
      You lot would just waste it.

      Like

      • 67
        Tessa Tickles says:

        You sum it up perfectly. “Our” wages are “theirs”. Only Labour can spend them properly. Labour instinctively regard our wages as their property. How dare we ask to keep that money – which we’ve earned – to ourselves.

        Like

  19. 53
    They're all the same says:

    45% tax rate at £90k that will catch the phuquers

    Like

    • 60
      Tessa Tickles says:

      It seems a bit cart-before-the-horse to think about how much workers should be taxed, before working out how much we should be spending.

      Cancel the HS2, foreign aid (all of it), EU contributionss, sack the Pilgrims blah blah blah and then, when you know how much you’ll *really* need to spend, decide how to raise it in tax.

      Don’t screw workers for all the tax you can get and then sit there with a thumb up your arse dreaming of grandiose ways to piss it all away.

      Like

    • 116
      AC1 says:

      Flat rate 0% after 0 pounds earned with an infinite allowance, and an apology from the government for this insanity of a tax.

      Like

  20. 56
    Abbot's fat face says:

    Except for the poor fuckers like me who get taxed at a marginal rate of 62 percent, every extension in the personal allowance makes me worse off. Still it’s fair because those at the top have done best through the recession, like my neighbour a banker who has seen his take home off by 60 percent, my accountant who is off by 30 percent and my lawyer who is off 25 percent. Until these fuckers feel wealthier the economy is totally fucked. A bigger personal allowance for low earners just shifts the tax to the cans of kestrel and fags they spend it on.

    Like

  21. 57
    Sir William Waad says:

    This could be a step towards a rational, fair and efficient tax system, but I’m not going to hold my breath. If medical science had progressed at the same rate as fiscal policy, we would still be bleeding and purging away. Come to think of it, we are, fiscally speaking.

    Like

  22. 66
    Ed Bollocks says:

    I’m progressive.
    No one can argue with something “progressive”

    Like

  23. 68

    Nokia’s revenues were down 9% for the full year, to €39m, and 21% year on year for the final three months of 2011.

    Fourth quarter performance has slumped from an €884m profit in 2010 to a loss of €954m in the same period of 2011.

    I wonder what caused that?

    Like

    • 78
      Another Engineer says:

      I don’t think it was Gordon – it was probably the Microsoft cuckoo in the nest.

      I reckon Gordon is still hurling the things around at home. Why change the habit of a lifetime?

      Like

    • 84

      Now, Bill.

      You can blame Gordon for a lot of things. In fact, you can blame him for 95% of the mess we are in today.

      But … Oh hell! Why am I even thinking of defending him? You are right, of course.

      Like

    • 98
      Gordon McRuin says:

      I shall always buy Nokia.
      They make a very satisfying thunk when they hit the wall.
      Those iphone just shatter with a weedy, tinkly sound.

      Like

  24. 73
    Expat Ex higher rate taxpayer says:

    this trick is as old as the hills.

    Thatcher tried it in 1979 and birdbrain Clegg and tinkerbell Cameron only last year.

    On both of these previous occasions Vat was increased to compensate unemployment went up and there was rioting on the streets. A lot of people too are on short hours.

    Try this for size:

    1. Have one tax rate only say 23%

    2. Cut out all subsidies grants and extra allowances

    3. Tax everything at this one rate i.e. earned income investment income and all capital gains. This includes house prices for the avoidance of doubt.

    I take financial risks every day of the week and factor in tax consequences before acting. if I know that for every pound I make I would have to pay 23p tax I would have no problem. if I realize I will have to pay 50p + in the pound I am more inclined to close up early and have three months holiday and avoid the hassle and stress.

    Like

  25. 77
    Bound to be fireworks between Phillips and pretty much everyone else says:

    For your, ahem, entertainment this evening, the Question Time panel are: Tory Liz Truss, Labour’s David Lammy, Lib Dem Jeremy Browne, comedian Mark Steel, and Daily Mail nutbag Melanie Phillips.

    Like

    • 79
      Another Engineer says:

      You mean Lib DemTory Liz Truss?

      What could she have seen in the party offering her a safe seat slightly less socialist agenda.

      Like

    • 81
      Another Engineer says:

      You meanLib DemTory Liz Truss?

      What could she have seen in the party offering her a safe seat slightly less socialist agenda.

      Like

    • 86
      Wikifax says:

      Sounds riveting!

      Like

    • 90
      His Smuggness the Chairperson says:

      Well, I agree with David.
      Liz agrees with me and Jeremy, and Mark makes us all laugh so.

      Let’s have a group hug – excluding Melanie of course, because she’s not part of our cosy consensus.

      And next week we’ll be at a social welfare office in Dublin wearing our pyjamas in solidarity with the locals.

      Like

    • 95
      I don't need no doctor says:

      David Lammy, Diane Abbott in drag. They all come out of the chip on the shoulder mould.

      Like

    • 104
      Fracking awful says:

      Comedian Mark Steel ?, surely that’s a mistake, when did he become a comedian.

      Like

      • 119
        AC1 says:

        When he starts on about lefty bullshit.

        I say we all go along to his show and LOL while he’s bullshit politicking then stony silence at the “jokes”…

        Might just stick to telling morrissey to “shut up and sing some tunes”

        Like

  26. 82
    Universal Hiss says:

    I think I’ll pass. Again.

    Like

  27. 91
    albacore says:

    Erm, if you were going to reform the tax system so as to make it equitable, efficient and effective, would you really be daft enough to start out by entrusting its governance and administration to the tools in Parliament, given their appalling record of transmuting everything they touch to shite?

    Like

  28. 93
    All welcome :-) says:

    Like

  29. 97
    I don't need no doctor says:

    Message to the media.
    Point the finger at Blair, Brown and Balls NOT Hester.

    Like

  30. 111
    genghiz the kahn says:

    As Red is concerned by inflation of waist lines, it is Cameron’s fault for allowing chocolate to be sold.

    “Ed Miliband has attacked David Cameron for failing to stop the sale of cut-price Chocolate Oranges – something the PM complained about in opposition.

    In 2006, Mr Cameron criticised WH Smith for discounting chocolate rather than fruit despite the UK’s obesity crisis.

    But the Labour leader told The House magazine the situation had not changed.

    “If he can’t sort out the chocolate orange, he’s not going to sort out the train companies, the energy companies, the banks, is he?” Mr Miliband said.

    Mr Cameron complained in a speech while in opposition about “irresponsible” marketing techniques by shops.

    “Try and buy a newspaper at the train station and, as you queue to pay, you’re surrounded, you’re inundated by cut-price offers for giant chocolate bars,” he said.”

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-16750583

    Perhaps this explains why Ms P looked as if she had been buying more than magazines in Smiths.

    Like

  31. 115
    All welcome :-) says:

    Like

  32. 120
    Universal Hiss says:

    & O/T but this made me laugh even though it’s in the guardian,

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jan/26/doll-protesters-problem-russian-police

    Like

  33. 128
    Drop a Daisy cutter on the BBC says:

    So the BBC mongs and Nu Liebore are upset that Stephen Hester is getting a million bonus.

    Here’s an idea, anyone know which deformed mongs appointed Hester in the first place? Perhaps THEY should lose their bonus as well, now the BBC won’t tell us who appointed Hester but I think we know who it was. Here’s a clue

    Gay
    Jock
    One eyed
    Mental
    Liar
    Fat
    Stupid
    C u n t

    Perhaps the Scots might like to take their fucking rancid bank back and bail it out themselves?

    Like

    • 130
      Tessa Tickles says:

      “Perhaps the Scots might like to take their fucking rancid bank back and bail it out themselves?”

      I think it’s actually *two* banks: “Royal Bank of Scotland” and “Halifax Bank of Scotland”. And they can’t “take” them back, they have to *buy* them back, from us, England, for £200billion. Because that’s what it cost us, in total, to bail them out.

      Scotland is a proper, independent, viable, country after all. So they keep telling us. So it shouldn’t be too much trouble for them.

      Let’s have the money. ASAP.

      Like

      • 135
        Universal Hiss says:

        Rubbish. Us Jocks need 8% of everything in the soon to be former U.K. + £1 for every perceived insult since 1707.

        Therefore you owe us a trillion pounds.

        Like

        • 138
          Tessa Tickles says:

          Yeah, but we want £0.01 for every real insult since 1707.

          So you owe us £2trillion by Monday morning.

          Like

          • Universal Hiss says:

            I’m sorry but you have no legal mandate for that. A real insult is the total fault of Westminster to legislate on insults.

            I ask you the fair & balanced question; Do you agree that Scotland should be independently insulted?

            Like

          • Drop a Daisy cutter on the BBC says:

            We were insulted by the one eyed retard trashing our economy. We want our 500 billion back this retard pissed away.

            Like

        • 199
          sockpuppet #4 says:

          you are clearly not a real scottish nationalist.

          Otherwise you’d be aiming for every insult since the battle of stirling bridge, if not 1066.

          Like

  34. 129
    the cuts? says:

    The burning body of a decapitated man was found this morning in stockport. police say they do not know the cause of death!!!

    Like

    • 145
      Sherlock says:

      Sounds fair enough, he good have been poisoned first.

      Like

    • 155
      Missing Marbles says:

      Could have been a weapons inspector who has swallowed a petrol-driven chain saw while taking a walk in the woods.

      Like

    • 184
      Detective Superintendent Plod of the Homicide Detail says:

      He died of natural causes. You get those sorts of things happening to you, it’s just going to naturally cause you to die.

      Like

      • 192
        Drop a Daisy cutter on the BBC says:

        Ask the Labour party, they know a thing or two about suspicious deaths of people in woods.

        Like

    • 198
      JH says:

      He wasn’t a nuclear weapons inspector by any chance?

      If so it was definitely suicide.

      Like

  35. 134
    Lovely says:

    Nadine Dorris ripping Diane Abbott a new chimney on Newsnight.
    Even Kirsty Squawke is keeping her gob shut for a change.

    Like

  36. 136
    QT reversts to the socialist mean says:

    ABSOLUTELY DISGRACEFUL. The Chairman of QT allows the Lefty to speak without interuption about his politics of envey but constantly interupted Jeremy Browne.

    FFS it’s common knowledge that Landlords push up rents because they know the government will pay. If the government no longer paid the rates then they would have no choice but to reduce rents. Supply v Demand.

    Like

  37. 137
    QT reversts to the socialist mean says:

    ABSOLUTELY DISGRACEFUL. The Chairman of QT allows the Lefty to spe@k without interuption about his politics of envey but constantly interupted Jeremy Browne.

    It’s common knowledge that Landlords push up rents because they know the government will pay. If the government no longer paid the rates then they would have no choice but to reduce rents. Supply v Demand.

    Like

    • 141
      Tessa Tickles says:

      “Landlords push up rents because they know the government will pay.”

      No, they push up rents because they know the government will steal workers’ wages and use the stolen cash to pay..

      Even Camoron’s £26K cap is a gross insult to the British worker. People on benefits should be struggling – their incentive to get off their fat lazy useless backsides – not luxuriating.

      If you’re fucked-off with QT – and the BBC at large – do what I do – don’t pay the license fee. It’s worked since 1999. But that said, I don’t have a tv. What’s the point? It’s all shit.

      Like

    • 167
      Scrupulous Landlord says:

      When will we get legislation to protect us from unscrupulous tenants?

      Like

    • 169
      sneering lefty cocksucking fuckwit says:

      Mark Steel’s a bigger arsehole than Marcus Brigstock

      Like

      • 174
        let's all be rich socialist comeediuns says:

        Could we not agree that they are both snivelling turds with the intelligence of a retarded 14 year-old son of a marxist?

        Like

  38. 139
    Drop a Daisy cutter on the BBC says:

    Forced to stand for 24 hours, suicide nets, toxin exposure and explosions': Inside the Chinese factories making iPads for Apple

    ‘Working excessive overtime without a single day off during the week’
    ‘Living together in crowded dorms and exposure to dangerous chemicals’
    Two explosions in 2011 in China ‘due to aluminum dust’ killed four workers
    Almost 140 injured after using toxin in factory, reports New York Times

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2092277/Inside-Chinese-factories-making-iPads-Apple.html#ixzz1kbmf0cte

    Isn’t it funny that the lefty luvvie brigade, especially the BBC, Stephen Fry and co all LOVE APPLE and never have a bad word to say about these fuckers.

    Can you imagine if Apple were owned by a Tory? the BBC wouldn’t shut up about “human rights”

    Like

    • 144
      not now cato says:

      +1

      Like

    • 200
      Hugh Janus says:

      “Isn’t it funny that the lefty luvvie brigade, especially the BBC, Stephen Fry and co all LOVE APPLE and never have a bad word to say about these fuckers.”

      Strange, too, (but definitely not funny) how some brain-dead retard of a footballer can be paid £250,000 PER WEEK for kicking a ball around a muddy field. If my arithmetic is correct then that sounds like £12m per annum, plus all the sponsorship and freebies he can get his hands on. And yet – total silence. Politicians clambering onto any passing bandwagon are lots of unpleasant things, one of which is cowards.

      Like

  39. 143
    not now cato says:

    “policy wonks on the left complain that middle income earners will see their post tax income rise by some 2%”

    The correct interpretation is that middle income earners would, if the figure is correct, retain more of their *own* money . No one is giving them a pay rise.

    Like

    • 168
      Technomist says:

      Very true. We must all stop allowing politicians to pretend they are giving us something when they have really only sought to gain our votes by taking less.

      Like

  40. 149
  41. 151
    Simple says:

    It’s not fucking rocket science. If you tax the poor at a higher threshold then they benefit, and so does everyone else. It’s something the Conservatives should have proposed years ago, but well done for the Lib Dems and the Coalition for cracking on with it.

    Like

  42. 153
    not a machine says:

    We have debts , we have deficets but not enough of growth (growth is a little of an imprecise term for me but hey) , we have a labour party desperately trying to distract from anyone understanding the sorts of scales of difficulty that there legacy left and wishing not to branded as the implimenters of the crash , we then have a second group of leftists thinkers who seem to me to have not quite worked out what kinds of poverty have occured to the UK when they were once co echos to seeing the bust being spun , and consider a charitable position as a vote pleaser.
    It is perhaps interesting that those who the former labour maladministration has utterly stuffed (and was doing when in power) are those facing the longest wait for the economy to come to the rescue , in either scenario of left or osbourneconomics . Whilst Nicks idea is not exactly new (we are after all discussing timing and not if ) , it is one of those topics that just briefly reveals the sort of economy labour left , not paying tax on earnings (or is it wages )of less than 10k is an admission , that a lot of people must be in a sort of life where 10k or a little more is all they actually have , true there are some people who it suites to earn 10k , part time , family jugglers , students etc , but it also true that many of these people will in trun be needing other benefits from the state to get by , beyond the 16k there are still people in need of benefits , and at the other end an estimated 5-6mn of working age but in recipet of benefits and not getiing any wages at all . If Nick Clegg can only stumble across those earning 10k or less and make a song and dance , I rather feel sorry for the rest of his approach to whatever he thinks labour did that was so wonderful .
    Now if Nick was to have the sort of industrial economy (rather than the one labour left for the low paid ) what would need 500,000 private sector jobs at 16k gross each , it should lessen the benefits , increase the tax take and provide some growth . Instead (and I dont deny for some in this group low income is problem rather than lifestyle choice) he improves there income to soak up a little of the inflation , but it isnt really a growth measure as i understand it .
    The obvious marker is when the deficet comes down sufficently (which labour are totally disengenous about in both time and effect) for any such inorganic jobs plan to make any progress . Until such time you are either making neutral or even debt increase on any attempts to use goverment investment efectively to prop up or add some inertai to the recovery .
    The sooner the deficet is down the more confident the recovery will be , that does not mean however that we can just sit on hands waiting for time to arrive at the magic deficet pivotal point , (which as events have shown is not quite as easy as in any plan) , it is at this point that even experienced govermental economists differ , my view is that this great recession is very unlike previous for want of better word , shocks, that previous ecnomic models have explained , the indebtedness shown in so many economies perhaps firstly reared its head in form in Japans 10yr stagnation , but it is rather curious that so many developed economies have ended up with large deficets and debts .
    Peter Mandelson wants us not to give up on globalisation , I rather think Peter should be considering if not giving up on balanced budegts and debt ratios of 30% (rather than the 60% we have) would not have helped more people in the Uk rather than globalsation .
    The only shock in reality we are having to endure in the UK is the one where a labour goverment ruined the economy and fiddled the books .Basically all the pain is to recover the time and wealth lost when labour were mismanging and unbalancing the economy when in office , and others were rather foolishly going along with it.
    Solutions : anyone disagree state spending has to be reduced and put in order to tackle the debt….. mmm no disgreements , well then that carrys on.
    Growth : mmm depends what you mean by growth , in my view we want a measure of seeing people in private sector industry , going into work and either reducing benefits or comming off them , it may only start as a modest 200,000 per year , but none the less should be a rolling aim annually of this goverment , this requires smart investment and some undoing of how labour messed up imported finished goods . I am pretty much sick of hearing how the service sector is providing revenues , when you are going to need jobs in industry in any complete imagination of recovery .
    Dead zones are exactly that , once the factory goes , so does the small business supporting and adding to the areas wealth , leaving the 99p shop for the benefit economy left , its really not rocket science is it ?
    Nick being charitable is wide of the mark about how SMEs actually co lift smart investment when you make secure industrial jobs , and if thats all his daily high end meetings can come up with , I dont really have much hope for him doing very much for the Uk economy , what next a charity investment trust to make labour voters not quite so angry at what there ruinous party has done to there prospects of having a job ?.

    Like

    • 159
      Universal Hiss says:

      I’ll get back to you on that one.

      I can only read a few lines after 9.

      Someone sober may come along soon.

      Anyway,it’s Brillo time.

      Like

    • 160
      Technomist says:

      Which do you think is your best point in all that?

      Like

      • 163
        not a machine says:

        The lid dems appraoch to the dead ed ecnomic zones caused by superimposing an ecnomic system detached from real local ecnomic functions, they just seem clueless about what labour have done .

        Like

    • 171
      Go to bed Dude says:

      You may think you ain’t a machine but only a machine could read your epic post this time of night. I gave up at word six where you incorrectly spelled deficits.

      If you must write such a long diatribe, put it through the spell check before posting it.

      Like

    • 194
      In a nutshell says:

      Succinctly put Sir.

      Like

  43. 164
    Dave the Uber God says:

    God says a person should tithe 10%, why does Dave want more than God?

    Genesis 14:20

    Like

    • 166
      Technomist says:

      If we are going to be literal about it, we should all still be paying taxes to Caesar.

      Like

      • 172
        The Holy Roman Empire aka The EU says:

        We are

        Like

        • 177
          Labours boys took a hell of a beating says:

          It was sold to the naive leadership within Europe as a reincarnation of the HRE, but the masterplan concocted by j e w s in America from the start was always to form EURABIA.

          You are on the right track though if you understand the basis of the conspiracy, a few pokes around the WWW and you will find the rest of the literature and fragments of evidence that can lead you to the fuller picture if your prepared to go far enough down the rabbit hole.

          Like

      • 176
        Pontius says:

        At least Ceaser didn’t have any time for the priests and the benefit culture. Even Jesus endorsed his taxes.

        Like

        • 185
          Jesus H. Christ, Almighty says:

          And whilst I was at it, I opened up a can of whup-ass on the money-changers, too. Might not be such a bad idea today, either.

          Like

  44. 170
    edmund blackabbott says:

    Andrew…andrew…..andrew, sorry i cant with you tonight, taxi hasnt arrived.

    Like

  45. 173
    brillos hair plug says:

    no problem dianne, the postman has arrived to save the day.

    Like

  46. 175
    Labours boys took a hell of a beating says:

    DENIS MC J E W you got owned son.

    Like

  47. 179
    Archie says:

    Vaguely apropos, but why don’t you go after this prize wanker, Guido, old toff! http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/consumertips/tax/9043087/Paying-cash-in-hand-is-diddling-the-country-says-HMRCs-Dave-Hartnett.html
    Now THAT would be a scalp worth getting and judging by the comments over there you’d be cheered to the rafters, I shouldn’t wonder!

    Like

    • 202
      Hugh Janus says:

      His card has already been well and truly marked by Private Eye, and his scalp will be removed very soon. Odds on it will then be a nice juicy earner with one of those businesses he let off billions in unpaid tax.

      Like

  48. 181
    Universal Hiss says:

    Dear me Brillo was boring. Portillo & postman with little to say & a french person with curvature of the spine.

    Du Bottocks talking the same as usual.

    With so much going on in the world this week how come is was so dull?

    Like

  49. 183
    cheche says:

    I agree – dull as ditch water. Who wants to listen to Alan Johnson talk about the economy which he left because he couldnt understand it. Or the DHSS what a big budget and what a mess he made

    Like

  50. 186
    albacore says:

    Never mind all those Dimbleby dumbs
    Who can’t tell their elbows from their thumbs
    Relish the sense of Ed Miliband
    He’s sharp and he’s fruity. He ain’t bland
    He knows his onions. He knows what’s what
    And why we end up chock-full of rot
    Dave couldn’t hack it, that orange too far
    If he can’t do that, he’ll never hit par

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-16750583

    Like

  51. 187
    Don't unseat the Chocolate Orange says:

    Hat Tip Plato on PB.com

    “Today the DPM made a speech about the £10k tax threshold, the PM made a speech about trade at Davos, the LotO made one about chocolate oranges.

    Let no one say that Ed Miliband doesn’t see the Big Picture.”

    Like

  52. 188
    Clint Eastwood says:

    Taxes should only be cut when there are equal cuts in government spending.

    Like

  53. 191
    anonymous says:

    why do the rich constantly need and receive incentives to work when the rest of the population is constantly kicked in the bollocks????

    Like

    • 205
      JH says:

      They don’t need ‘incentives’ to work.

      The need to believe that it is worthwhile releasing their money to work, growing the economy. As opposed to every looter and moocher for 100 miles popping up with their palm out the second they lift a finger, making the whole endeavour pointless.

      Do you see the difference?

      Like

  54. 201
    Anonymous says:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-16754600

    Meanwhile in the real world, at least 5 million Spaniards are suffering just to save the Germans, the French and the Euro.

    Where is the German pain?

    Haven’t we been here before?

    What is happening is complete and utter financial madness and everyone knows it, just to save face for the Elite Euro politicians ffs!

    There isn’t enough money in the world even to save the Euro.

    Free these countries from the Euro now and let them go back to manage their own currencies,warts and all, and start again.

    Like

    • 203
      sockpuppet #4 says:

      I don’t know why you’re putting France and Germany in the same boat there.

      It isn’t just geographically that France situated between the two, and depending on how you look at it they’re closer to Spain than Germany.
      In fact if you squint a bit, some parts of france are a bit like Barnsley.

      Like

  55. 209
    Anonymous says:

    …and some labour types were trying to say that this is a regressive measure!

    I know they have no shame, but this opposition for the sake of it and in such plain disregard for fact & logic would have taken it to the next level of shamelessness had ken livingstone not already done that earlier when accusing Boris of childish tricks.

    Like


Seen Elsewhere

Small State Keynesians, Anti-Corporate Hayekians? | Chris Dillow
Ruffley Shows Why We Need a Proper Recall Bill Now | Alex Wickham
How is Miliband’s ‘New Politics’ Working Out? | Speccie
State Should Send More Poor Children Private | Sam Bowman
£1 Million Cost of Ed Balls’ Ego | Laura Perrins
William Hague’s Sausage Fest | Rochdale Online
Public Doesn’t Prioritise Housing | Mark Pack
Mysterious Case of Ruffley’s Missing Letter | Speccie
All the Single Ladies (And Lords) | Bloomberg
How Ruffley’s Resignation Became Inevitable | ConservativeHome
We Need a Recall Bill Now | Speccie


new-advert
Westbourne-Change-Opinion Guido-hot-button (1)


Damian McBride writes in the epilogue to his memoir…

“At the time of writing, nine months from the election, I’ve concluded that Labour currently has no positive messages to communicate to anyone about why they should vote for the party, no policies which will persuade them, and is being run in a totally dysfunctional way.”



Rob Wilson says:

Without Predujice

Darling

What time will dinner be ready this evening?

Yours

Rob Wilson MP

In the interests of me I am placing a copy of this email in the public domain.


Tip off Guido
Web Guido's Archives

Subscribe me to:






RSS




AddThis Feed Button
Archive


Labels
Guido Reads