Poll: *** 2010 General Election Result & Discussion ***

[Dj_Jestar]

Yeah, I'm sure.

Being somewhat keener on democracy and fairness to all than you are, I will be sorry to see Great Britain revert to a medieval feudal system based entirely on power, wealth, greed and selfishness under the Tories

Completely ignoring the fact that the party YOU wanted in power is, as a matter of fact, also in power?

There's a surprise.

 

[scorza]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/10112936.stm

First real test for the coalition as VAT is set to rise to 20%, punishing the hard working low paid the hardest.

My view on this is that I'd much prefer to see progressive tax rises like income tax rises instead of regressive tax rises like VAT, but since this tax rise was set in motion in 2009 with the temporary reduction in VAT it's probably unfair to blame the new Conservative-led government at this time.

Also, cabinet ministers agree to take a 5% pay cut: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8679344.stm

Preparing the way for a 2.5% pay cut for all public sector workers maybe?

 

[stockhausen]

Completely ignoring the fact that the party YOU wanted in power is, as a matter of fact, also in power?

There's a surprise.

Your comment makes absolutely no sense at all in the context of what I have written or my responses to RDM's eagerness to see the demise of the Labour party.

Not having any idea who you are or what your views are, I really can't be surprised or even that interested, just very faintly bewildered by your post

 

[Westyfield2]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/10112936.stm

First real test for the coalition as VAT is set to rise to 20%, punishing the hard working low paid the hardest.

Eh?

As far as I know this is fair, not unfair.

A £100 ex-vat item will cost £120 inc-vat to buy. It's not £120 if you're a but £125 if you're b - that would be unfair. It's not £120 if you're b but £125 if you're a - that would be unfair. The same item costing people the same ammount of money is fair.

Oh and I assume all "high paid" (in whose definition btw) people don't/didn't work hard in the slightest?

 

[dirtydog]

11.28am: There's been a lot of discussion in the comments section below and elsewhere about the 55% threshold required for an early dissolution of Parliament (ie before the five-year term ends in May 2015).

The exact wording in the Con-Lib agreement is:

Legislation will be brought forward to make provision for fixed-term parliaments of five years. This legislation will also provide for dissolution if 55% or more of the House votes in favour.

The former justice secretary Jack Straw had strong words on the Today programme on the proposals for early dissolution, describing it as a fix, and "totally undemocratic and totally unworkable".

Let's say this rule was passed where you required 55% of the Commons vote to have an election. What if 51% of the Commons was against any confidence in the government and was refusing to pass legislation ... You then get into the extraordinary position where parliament could not be dissolved ... but government would be completely unworkable.

In view of the controversy I thought it would be useful to point you to a Q&A written by the Guardian's home affairs editor Alan Travis in which he answered the question "Does that mean that the Con-Lib coalition will now be in power for the next five years come what may?" in the following terms:

The legislation will provide for a general election to be called if 55% or more of the Commons votes in favour. The convention since 1782 has been that a significant defeat on a major issue can lead to a vote of no confidence in the government. If they lose that vote then they are obliged to resign or call a general election. This happened twice in the last century – in 1923 and 1979.

The fixed-term parliament legislation will take away the power of a prime minister to call an election in these circumstances. But it will also mean that if the government falls the sitting prime minister can try to form a new coalition government from among the opposition parties. If that fails in other fixed-term parliaments, such as in Germany, the head of state can call an election, but in Britain there is no wish to involve the Queen in such decisions.

So they have settled on a threshold of 55% of MPs to force a general election. The 55% figure is significant because the Conservatives have 47% of MPs and it ensures that the Lib Dems cannot simply walk out of the coalition and vote with the opposition to call a general election as they can only muster 53% of the vote.

It is worth pointing out that it is supposedly intended as a safeguard for the Lib Dems so that the Conservatives cannot choose to end the coalition and go the electorate at any time they choose.

The allegations of "fix" come from the fact that the Lib Dems, if they pulled out of the coalition, could not force an election with the other opposition parties as they would only hold 53% of the votes.

Traditionally, the custom is that if 50%+1 seat vote against the government in a vote of confidence then the prime minister would dissolve parliament.

Under the new legislation if more than 50% of MPs delivered a vote of no-confidence the prime minister could not dissolve parliament (that would require another vote supported by 55% of MPs) but in effect the government would be hamstrung in terms of passing legislation (assuming the opposition parties refused to support the now minority government on a case-by-case basis).

The Conservatives could in theory struggle on as a minority government but if they could not pass any legislation it would serve them no purpose (or help their popularity) to remain in government, so they would presumably vote in favour of dissolution and thereby the 55% threshold would be reached.

I hope that helps. I put in a call to No 10 this morning and they haven't responded yet so I think there is a lot of confusion surrounding this issue.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/may/13/coalition-government-conservatives#start-of-comments

 

[JBuk]

Eh?

As far as I know this is fair, not unfair.

A £100 ex-vat item will cost £120 in-vat to buy. It's not £120 if you're a but £125 if you're b - that would be unfair. It's not £120 if you're b but £125 if you're a - that would be unfair. The same item costing people the same ammount of money is fair.

Oh and I assume all "high paid" (in whose definition btw) people don't/didn't work hard in the slightest?

eh?

 

[dirtydog]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/10112936.stm

First real test for the coalition as VAT is set to rise to 20%, punishing the hard working low paid the hardest.

My view on this is that I'd much prefer to see progressive tax rises like income tax rises instead of regressive tax rises like VAT, but since this tax rise was set in motion in 2009 with the temporary reduction in VAT it's probably unfair to blame the new Conservative-led government at this time.

Also, cabinet ministers agree to take a 5% pay cut: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8679344.stm

Preparing the way for a 2.5% pay cut for all public sector workers maybe?

The Lib Dems are shameless if they are going to support a VAT rise.

Remember this from the election campaign?

Nick Clegg reveals Tories’ £13bn VAT bombshell


Liberal Democrat Leader Nick Clegg today revealed the £13.4bn VAT bombshell at the heart of the Tories’ tax plans.

Analysis of the Conservatives’ proposed tax cuts or reversals shows that they will cost over £13.5bn a year in 2011-12 prices – yet just £100m has been specifically identified to fund them.

This leaves a £13.4bn black hole, equivalent to a 3% rise in the standard rate of VAT. This would mean an extra tax of £389 on the average household.

http://www.libdemvoice.org/nick-clegg-reveals-tories-13bn-vat-bombshell-18755.html

 

[beachBOYken]

pleased that they have scrapped ID cards and the extra airport runway , both seem pointless especially the runway at present

 

[D.P.]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/10112936.stm

First real test for the coalition as VAT is set to rise to 20%, punishing the hard working low paid the hardest.

My view on this is that I'd much prefer to see progressive tax rises like income tax rises instead of regressive tax rises like VAT, but since this tax rise was set in motion in 2009 with the temporary reduction in VAT it's probably unfair to blame the new Conservative-led government at this time.

Also, cabinet ministers agree to take a 5% pay cut: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8679344.stm

Preparing the way for a 2.5% pay cut for all public sector workers maybe?

"punishing the hard working low paid the hardest."
No that is really false. You see, everyone pays the same VAT rate and VAT is on non essential items. Therefore, those with low income who shouldn't be paying for luxury items will get hit the least. Those with large amounts of spendable money and who buy luxury products will pay more VAT.

VAT is a very fair tax. the more money you have the more items you buy, and the items are more expensive. Ergo, you pay more tax.

Whats the deal?

 

[dirtydog]

"punishing the hard working low paid the hardest."
No that is really false. You see, everyone pays the same VAT rate and VAT is on non essential items. Therefore, those with low income who shouldn't be paying for luxury items will get hit the least. Those with large amounts of spendable money and who buy luxury products will pay more VAT.

VAT is a very fair tax. the more money you have the more items you buy, and the items are more expensive. Ergo, you pay more tax.

Whats the deal?

VAT does not only apply to 'luxury' items!

 

[Glaucus]

Whats the deal?

People with irrational hatred to wealthy people, despite most of these wealthy people working hard and studying till 26+ years old. But no all rich people are lazy bums who are old money.

Far to much irrational hatred and me me me in the UK.

 

[The Mad Rapper]

VAT does not only apply to 'luxury' items!

He didn't say it did? He said non-essential, then gave luxury items as an example when discussing wealthier people.

 

[The Mad Rapper]

People with irrational hatred to wealthy people. despite. Most if these wealthy people working hard and studying till 26+ years old. But no all rich people are lazy bums who are old money.

far to much irrational hatred and me me me in the UK.

Yes, and by extension on OCUK Forums...

 

[dirtydog]

He didn't say it did? He said non-essential, then gave luxury items as an example when discussing wealthier people.

How is VAT only on non essential items?

Petrol/diesel?
Utility bills?
Phone bill?
Food such as orange juice?
Internet access

A whole range of stuff which are considered essential in modern life are subject to VAT.

 

[scorza]

Whats the deal?

You're forgetting that VAT is a tax on consumption, the hard working low paid have a much higher marginal propensity to consume, and therefore will pay a much greater proportion of their income in VAT than someone with a greater income. Any rise in VAT will hit the hard working low paid hardest.

 

[D.P.]

VAT does not only apply to 'luxury' items!

Things like food, water, and medicine is VAT free. these are essentials.

There is also many things that have a reduced VAT rate of 5%, These include electricity etc.

Items that are taxed at the full rate include things like TVs, playstations, etc.

 

[D.P.]

How is VAT only on non essential items?

Petrol/diesel?
Utility bills?
Phone bill?
Food such as orange juice?
Internet access

A whole range of stuff which are considered essential in modern life are subject to VAT.

You don't need to drive a car. If you are really struggling with moeny you wont own one. Like me for example, I don't have the spare cash to run a car so save money by using public transporting, walking and cycling. Even if VAT was remove,d you still have fuel tax to pay for.

Electricity and fuel bills have a reduced VAT of 5%, this wont change. You can reduce the effect of VAT on fuel by minimizing your fuel expenditure by being efficient.

VAT is on foods that aren't essential, like ice-cream, sweets, chocolate. You don't pay VAT on an apple, chicken or rice.

Internet access is not essential. I regularly go months without having internet access at my residence. Anyway, tis is more of an argument to make internet of phones VAT exempt or reduce. not an argument against raising VAT to 20%.

 

[Dj_Jestar]

How is VAT only on non essential items?

Petrol/diesel?
Utility bills?
Phone bill?
Food such as orange juice?
Internet access

A whole range of stuff which are considered essential in modern life are subject to VAT.

Internet access is essential?! Having a phone is essential?! Owning a car is essential?!

 

[D.P.]

You're forgetting that VAT is a tax on consumption, the hard working low paid have a much higher marginal propensity to consume, and therefore will pay a much greater proportion of their income in VAT than someone with a greater income. Any rise in VAT will hit the hard working low paid hardest.

What about the lazy low paid that don't work hard, how do the get hit?

 

[Dj_Jestar]

What about the lazy low paid that don't work hard, how do the get hit?