Poll: Darling announces one-off shock tax to 'break bonus culture'

[Hatter The Mad]

Utterly pointless. I bet you any money that clever tax experts will find a way to circumvent this using off shore accounts in Switzerland.

lolololol

Spoken like someone who really understands tax and money.

 

[Hatter The Mad]

I understand that's what senior civil servants largely do, but it would be more reassuring to have a chancellor that knows what they're talking about.

No, senior civil servants tend not to be specialists. The government hates specialism, and civil servants are always being rotated as part of a 'career development' program.

 

[Gepetto]

And culling them...? What on earth are you talking about?

Thank you for posting a definition, but I am aware of what culling means.

Errr?

 

[OLDPHART]

Whats the point of a one off, why not all the time and back date it for good measure what a guttless Goverment.

 

[Seft]

Cameron, as in the man who's only experience in government was advising Norman Lamont, at the time of Black Wednesday?

We're really spoilt for choice aren't we?

Oliver Letwin - who is probably the most qualified candidate for Chancellor - is in charge of policy research, so hopefully he'll have a say.

 

[dangerstat]

No, senior civil servants tend not to be specialists. The government hates specialism, and civil servants are always being rotated as part of a 'career development' program.

This varies massively between departments / agencies

 

[semi-pro waster]

It would make sense, wouldn't it? Having a minister that's actually qualified in their field.

It might seem like a nice idea but it would be extremely limiting, an MP is broadly speaking a figurehead for their department (if part of the Cabinet) but provided they are adequately advised (normally the Civil Service do this although you can possibly debate the adequacy of some advice) then I've got no real issues with them not having a formal qualification in the area. They should, obviously, learn a sufficient amount during their time in the post to discharge their duties properly and remain cognizant of the advice given even if they subsequently choose not to follow it.

Whats the point of a one off, why not all the time and back date it for good measure what a guttless Goverment.

Because that would be an absolutely terrible idea. Make it apply going forwards if you really must but retrospective taxation is almost indefensible, the same as retrospective and retroactive legislation.

 

[dangerstat]

It might seem like a nice idea but it would be extremely limiting, an MP is broadly speaking a figurehead for their department (if part of the Cabinet) but provided they are adequately advised (normally the Civil Service do this although you can possibly debate the adequacy of some advice) then I've got no real issues with them not having a formal qualification in the area. They should, obviously, learn a sufficient amount during their time in the post to discharge their duties properly and remain cognizant of the advice given even if they subsequently choose not to follow it.

I disagree on this. I think it is massively beneficial for the minister to understand the technicalities of the departments they over see. Especially in areas such as science and technology where truly understanding the value of and implications of research efforts (for example the 100+ million Euros we give to CERN each year to fish baguettes out of the LHC).

 

[Naffa]

Errr?

I'm sorry, obviously the concept of human culling is common place for some people? :s

Oliver Letwin - who is probably the most qualified candidate for Chancellor - is in charge of policy research, so hopefully he'll have a say.

My father had a meeting with Letwin about a month ago, and apparently he's totally nuts. I didn't ask him why, or how, he came to that conclusion, but I will do as I think it would be quite interesting to speak about.

It might seem like a nice idea but it would be extremely limiting, an MP is broadly speaking a figurehead for their department (if part of the Cabinet) but provided they are adequately advised (normally the Civil Service do this although you can possibly debate the adequacy of some advice) then I've got no real issues with them not having a formal qualification in the area. They should, obviously, learn a sufficient amount during their time in the post to discharge their duties properly and remain cognizant of the advice given even if they subsequently choose not to follow it.

Good point. I suppose that's what I mean, to a degree. It's not that they're not qualified in their field, but it feels like they're lacking knowledge and experience. For instance, in a reshuffle, somebody that had been minister for health may become minister for foreign affairs, or something along those lines. It doesn't seem as though there's a great deal of consideration for the candidate's merits of experience (I'm sure there is to a degree, but it doesn't really feel like it).

For example, I'm a professional musician and wouldn't feel comfortable being transferred from being in charge of a music department, to being in charge of IT. A pretty lame analogy, but it conveys my point.

 

[semi-pro waster]

I disagree on this. I think it is massively beneficial for the minister to understand the technicalities of the departments they over see. Especially in areas such as science and technology where truly understanding the value of and implications of research efforts (for example the 100+ million Euros we give to CERN each year to fish baguettes out of the LHC).

Beneficial and necessary are not always the same thing as I'm sure you are aware. While it would be nice to have people with a background in subject X as the minister for subject X it isn't automatically a realistic prospect nor am I convinced that it should be - having an understanding of that particular subject may be a help but it doesn't follow that it must be so, many skills are transferrable and provided the minister is willing to learn a sufficient amount to discharge their duties effectively then as I say I have no problems with it.

It is also worth remembering that sometimes a fresh perspective is beneficial, if the minister only works to the orthodoxy of their field then it may be no advancements are made or they are only made more slowly. Basic point is that I don't think making specific rules about who should or should not be in charge based on their formal qualifications or education is intrinsically the best policy.

Good point. I suppose that's what I mean, to a degree. It's not that they're not qualified in their field, but it feels like they're lacking knowledge and experience. For instance, in a reshuffle, somebody that had been minister for health may become minister for foreign affairs, or something along those lines. It doesn't seem as though there's a great deal of consideration for the candidate's merits of experience (I'm sure there is to a degree, but it doesn't really feel like it).

For example, I'm a professional musician and wouldn't feel comfortable being transferred from being in charge of a music department, to being in charge of IT. A pretty lame analogy, but it conveys my point.

I appreciate that it may seem less than ideal and may even be less than ideal but as I've noted to dangerstat above a lot of the skills required are transferrable and the ability to evaluate information presented to make a useful decision is certainly one that can exist outwith the confines of a particular field.

I'm fairly sure that many politicians don't feel instantly comfortable on transferring jobs in a reshuffle but there's a limited number of elected politicians to choose from so we/they've got to make the best of it. Unless we go to the step of appointing experts to be the figurehead of each department and forgo electing MPs for the position - not keen on that idea personally, people shouldn't have their own personal fiefdom in perpetuity.

 

[Vonhelmet]

Utterly pointless. I bet you any money that clever tax experts will find a way to circumvent this using off shore accounts in Switzerland.

We'd be up to something regardless of what the government came up with.

 

[Furton]

Good good good.

It'll raise £510m in extra tax revenue which isn't an insignificant amount of money, it all helps.
It punishes the bankers for getting us into this mess
It's only on bonuses over 25k, I hardly think people getting these size bonuses are short on cash are they? I assume they all have savings for those rainy days
Bankers won't move away because of a one off tax, I've spoken to a few of my friends who work in the industry who will be affected by this and they have no plans to leave and know of no one planning to as a result of this. Typical scaremongering by the right.

 

[LabR@t]

where on the poll was " A waste of time?"

its payable by the banks not the bankers isn't it?
Big deal they will just charge us more to cover it.

 

[Von Smallhausen]

It makes you wonder who really runs the country ?

 

[scorza]

You ask me what we should be talking about wrt the pre-budget report is the reduction of Bingo duty by 2% to 20%. WTF? why the hell is he giving away money to a bunch of daft old bints who probably shouldn't be gambling with whatever money they have in the first place. It'd be bad enough at the best of times but with the current economic crisis we can't afford to be giving anything away to those participating in undesirable behaviour.

Nothing to do with NuLabour being in the pockets of the big gambling companies I suppose

 

[dangerstat]

You ask me what we should be talking about wrt the pre-budget report is the reduction of Bingo duty by 2% to 20%. WTF? why the hell is he giving away money to a bunch of daft old bints who probably shouldn't be gambling with whatever money they have in the first place. It'd be bad enough at the best of times but with the current economic crisis we can't afford to be giving anything away to those participating in undesirable behaviour.

Nothing to do with NuLabour being in the pockets of the big gambling companies I suppose

STFU scorza. So they want to throw there money away so what, why should they pay 22% tax on it. Of all the things in the pre-budget report you point that out???

 

[Von Smallhausen]

You ask me what we should be talking about wrt the pre-budget report is the reduction of Bingo duty by 2% to 20%. WTF? why the hell is he giving away money to a bunch of daft old bints who probably shouldn't be gambling with whatever money they have in the first place. It'd be bad enough at the best of times but with the current economic crisis we can't afford to be giving anything away to those participating in undesirable behaviour.

Nothing to do with NuLabour being in the pockets of the big gambling companies I suppose

Either a troll post or incredibly blinkered.

 

[scorza]

Either a troll post or incredibly blinkered.

Well go on then, justify reducing this tax when we need all the money we can get. Are the government expecting more people to play bingo as a result?

 

[meghatronic]

£1bil to poorer countries to offset climate change. << there is some savings for you Moron Brown.

 

[Von Smallhausen]

Well go on then, justify reducing this tax when we need all the money we can get. Are the government expecting more people to play bingo as a result?

Should senior citizens, the main clientele of bingo halls, be charged a 22 or even 20% levy on a pastime in their twilight years after many of them have paid a lifetime of tax and contributions ? Hardly fair.

As for saving money, would a better way to start be to stop financial aid to China, a country that has over 1.5 TRILLION dollars in cash reserve ? That is over 50% of the UK's entire GDP.

Or perhaps the 500 MILLION dollars that we have just given Pakistan for border security.

Maybe trimming a little fat of a grossly inflated civil service that is mired in bureaucracy, waste and ridiculously expensive A to B via Z procurement procedures.

What about the seemingly ineffective 2.5% cut in VAT ? Many stores dropped their prices to entice people in during recession which renders the cut almost useless.

Could we at least try to cut a welfare cost to the UK which is £150 BILLION 2008/9 and expected to hit £170 BILLION 2009/10. By cutting I mean by redoubling efforts to get some workshy off their backsides and into work or getting getting the legions of people on incapacity benefity who are clearly taking the hot water and neither need it or deserve it off the public purse. Does a couple on a joint income over over, say, 50k a year need child benefit ?

ID cards ..... Not required, not needed and will make little to no difference to terrorism matters that the Government would have you believe. Billions saved there.

Any cash generated by green taxation ploughed straight back into the pocket of the taxpayer. ie reduction in income tax, reduced or frozen council tax or use this to help fund greener energy and desperately needed nuclear power stations.

These are just a few that would save amounts that would make bingo tax revenue look like peanuts.

Look after the pennies and pounds take care of themselves. Never a truer word spoken.