And another thing…

Of course you are right Tom. But your Party appears to love the poor so much it wants to keep them poor.

(or so it’s political attacks seem to say).

The trouble with Socialists is they love the poor so much that when they leave office, there are always more poor than when they entered office .

A paraphrased quote from a not one of my favourite politicians: Berlusconi.

Many a true word…

Remains true that Chameleon chose his first front bench so that half of them were old etoniaans, and, should he form an administration, he will tend to do the same again.

This will not produce the best Government which the tory benches could form, and that would be even worse news for my country.

Of course most of the case on this and similar effects is being mis-stated, usually deliberately, by Tories and people on our side who have their axes to grind.

Cameron declared the class war in his choices of people and, so far as we have been told them, policies.

It has been particularly striking how enervated tories have been on the matter. If they screech they are worrying about it.

Oh, and the recent poll, which shows only 20% of people think Chameleon’s Etonian education is relevant quite clearly doesn’t bring his favouritism of his cronies to the attention of those polled.

How loudly we used to hear about Tony’s cronies from the foreign billionaire owned press and those who follow them . . .

So what about the 50% serps pension you took off the widows then. Does that not count. What do you have to say about that.

The real question to pose should be: is aspiration really encouraged and rewarded by tax cuts for the richest 3%?
********************************************

Remind me, what tax cut is this that just benefits the richest 3%?

I forget.

Or have you just made it up?

The real real question of course is why anyone looking at the state of (say) the economy would think that the answer is another five years of Labour.

Labour believes tax cuts start from the bottom up do they …

So why the 10p tax increase for the poorest? And why the NI increase for people earning only £20,000 a year – less than the median wage?

The fact is, Gordon Brown increased stealth taxes throughout his time as Chancellor – and stealth taxes hit the poorest hardest. There is nothing ‘fair’ about Labour’s tax policy.

And the last thing we need is another Labour MP in London.

Me, I’m full of aspiration.
Survey leaflet anyone?.

I think the problem here is that too often Labour tries to force the result.

The fundamental difference between the right and the left is that the right believes in equality of opportunity and the left in equality of outcome.

Forcing the result that you want doesn’t solve the underlying problems in society. Just put in place the structures (particularly education) that enable people to maximise their potential. Then accept that there will be differences – that some individuals are naturally more talented than others – while ensuring that (as is the obligation of a civilised society) that there is a safety net to take care of those who are unable to achieve an acceptable standard of living.

Why does the govt not have a calculator that allows you to fiddle with spending and taxes so we can see what the 10p tax rate did to public finances, what a £20,000 allowance would do, how a 10% reduction in NHS spending or a pulling out of Iraq and Afghanistan would affect the PSBR?

This would allow people to see the actual effects of their personal pet theories about what would be good for the country. (The £20k allowance is mine, coupled with a massive reduction in government spending.)

Whenever this “tax cuts for the richest 3%” thing is talked about, the one thing that I really don’t understand is why it is accepted as being the case. Because isn’t it exactly the opposite of this? The whole point of the IHT change is that it means that only the richest people will pay IHT.

At the moment, the IHT threshold is £325,000, and while I don’t have an estate worth anything like a million pounds, I do have a house that is worth more than £325K. It is not a big house, but it is in the South East and because of property values it is worth more than the threshold. So, in the event of my death, my estate would be subject to IHT and my kids would have a tax charge of 40% of all the value over £325K.

So, the IHT change proposed by the Conservatives would take me and my family out of this tax.

Sure, it would also mean that people who had an estate worth more than £1 million would pay no tax on the first £1 million, but they would still pay the 40% tax on anything over that £1 million.

So the only people who would pay IHT are millionaires.

Why is a tax change that as far as I can see means that only the rich pay this tax being portrayed as being a tax cut only for the rich. Surely a tax change that takes everybody except for the rich out of having to pay tax is a good thing?

What am I getting wrong here?

It’s not so much aspiration, it’s education. Why has this government pandered to the lowest common denominator and tried to make everyone a winner? Why do they feel everyone needs a degree, even if it is in “awareness of green issues” or hairdressing?

I have submitted my tuppence ha’penny worth on the “toff” issue –

http://wrinkledweasel.blogspot.com/2009/12/how-do-you-define-elitism.html

@GarryM – I think that many people would consider that couples who are worth more than £650K (the point over which IHT is payable) are, if not rich, at least pretty affluent and that it’s fairer that those people (or, rather, their beneficiaries who’ve just received a substantial gift) pay a tax on their assets than that the poorer pay tax on earnings or purchases. I don’t think that IHT, in principle, is particularly unfair although there could be fairer ways of implementing it. It’s possibly, though, an inefficient tax given that it can be avoided.

jay is right about IHT (Death Duties).

Perhaps the nastiest aspect, though, is the clamourous campaign of avaricious wannabe beneficiaries trying to stop the estate of their late ‘beloved’ paying their dues.

Seriously unpleasant. Sort of Scrooge in reverse.