We need to stand up for the low paid!!

Wiseman Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 02:34:09 PM GMT Print-friendly version Facebook

Dear all

I have seen the reaction to my last post and have been staggered by it.  At the end of the day if we don't change policy on the 10p tax rate, we our going to lose the support of the low paid.  Again I repeat, we must wake up here!  I hear there maybe signs of change beginning to happen at no 10 and 11.  This will be in the form of changing the tax threshold for lower paid workers.

John Wiseman





tags: (all tags)

Display: Sort:
We need to stand up for the low paid!! | 16 comments (16 topical)

Re: We need to stand up for the low paid!! (#1)

by krindlekrax on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 03:30:24 PM GMT

It is the Government that must back down. This, in borrowed words, is a non-negotiable issue for anyone with authentic Labour values. There are twelve good counter-arguments against the claim that the Government cannot afford not to abolish the 10p rate here:
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/prem_sikka_/2008/04/the_twelve-step_programme.html
 
They include the following proposals:
 
Introduce marginal income tax rate of 50% on incomes over £100,000 - £7 billion
Target organised UK tax avoidance - £97 – 150 billion
Introduce a tax on currency speculation - £116 billion
Abolish the artificial ceiling on national insurance contributions - £9 billion
Abolish ID Cards - £7 billion
End the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq - £5 billion
Restrict tax relief on pension contributions to the basic tax rate only - £21 billion
Charge full VAT on aviation fuel - £5-7 billion
Put capital gains tax rate in line with income tax rate - £1 billion
 
It is clear that the Government can afford to reverse this policy.

This is a fundamental question of priorities. 



Re: We need to stand up for the low paid!! (#4)

by madasafish on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 03:38:57 PM GMT

Stand by for perpetual opposition with that as a platform.
Politics is the art of the possible.


[ Parent ]

Re: We need to stand up for the low paid!! (#5)

by otware on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 04:04:41 PM GMT

That was a good article. Some of these things are more plausible than others though. For example the aviation fuel VAT would not go down well with voters, and withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan is complex (though I do support it).

I agree with a 50% rate of income tax and doing something serious about tax avoidance though. Also I am intrigued at the possibility of using windfall tax as a means to whip dodgy privatised utlities into line.


[ Parent ]

Re: We need to stand up for the low paid!! (#2)

by NB on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 03:31:26 PM GMT

John - It's much worse than this. 

People vote Labour because they think that Labour is on the side of the disadvantaged - not simply to buy their votes but because it is the right thing to do. 

Brown abolished the 10p rate so that he could get headlines of a 2p cut in the basic rate. He compensated the majority of people who he clobbered, but either didn't know or didn't care that there would be millions who lost our.  He could instead have reduced the basic rate to 21p and raised the  threshold, so  there would have  been no losers and everyone was treated fairly.  But he decided that some good  headlines were worth kicking several million of the lowest paid workers.


Re: We need to stand up for the low paid!! (#3)

by alsoleeds on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 03:38:07 PM GMT

I'm going to follow Northern Monkeys example and correct your spelling/grammar until you start to get it right (not write ;-)). In this article you use here instead of hear. Also although not technically spelling or grammar it's not the 10p tax credit it's the 10p tax rate. Keep sharpening up maybe you'll be up to the mark by the time we have the GE.


The content is fine and we do need to rectify the loss of income for those on low pay who have lost out.


Re: We need to stand up for the low paid!! (#6)

by CitizenAndreas on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 04:27:01 PM GMT

Yes, but....

Consider that those who will suffer most will be somewhere around £10-15 a month worse off. Then consider that over the last few years and indeed the whole of Labour's time in office that many working class families have had their income boosted by hundreds of pounds a month, amounts far in excess of what's being lost in this case.

The big problem I have with objections about the 10p tax decision, is that although it wasn't a particularly good idea, the amount of fuss kicked up is far in excess of what was really justified in this matter. A little less "Gordon is finished" rhetoric wouldn't go amiss.


Add to this the fact that this policy was introduced at last year's budget with far less criticism, it was even billed as "outflanking the Tories". What we have this year is a bandwagon that CCHQ started rolling and everyone else jumped on.

And while Labour tears itself apart, the Tories have manged to get away with not being asked any difficult questions.


Re: We need to stand up for the low paid!! (#10)

by treborc on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 08:58:33 AM GMT

Tell that to a married couple fighting with a mortgage higher power costs and rising council tax, I bet they will not agree with you.


[ Parent ]

Re: We need to stand up for the low paid!! (#7)

by Wiseman on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 04:28:48 PM GMT

to be a politician is to be a person who represents his people, having snipes over spelling and grammar, means some of us need to look at priorities!!

Wiseman 


Re: We need to stand up for the low paid!! (#8)

by krindlekrax on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 04:39:40 PM GMT

And for the next trick…. £50 billion to bail out banks who continue to pay huge bonuses in spite of their ineptness and failures, and who do not raise more capital but prefer taxpayer subsidy, whilst continuing to pay out large dividends to the rich and wealthy. This is a sign of how out of joint the system has got when we refuse to tax obscene profits, whilst placing additional burdens and risks on taxpayers – including those among the lowest paid who stand to lose out from last year’s Budget.
 
If the banks need more capital and cannot sell their assets, they should be cancelling dividends and asking the owners for more capital. The shareholders have had the benefits of risk-taking ownership in the form of dividends and share price. Meanwhile, taxpayers should not bear the risk and the liability – they are not investing, they do not stand to gain. Yet the Government sees its role as propping up a dysfunctional and grossly inequitable banking system with taxpayers’ money, while simultaneously opting for headline grabbing “tax cuts for Middle England", which in fact take more from the lowest paid. Where is the social justice in that?
 
When will we have the courage to curb these institutions from literally stealing our money? Our Government should be standing up for the interests of the people and should not allow itself to be held to ransom. Specifically, we need a quid pro quo – curbs on the appalling excesses of the banking industry outlined above - otherwise the people who have lost their 10p tax rate will end up financing the millionaires in the city. That would be an obscene state of affairs.


Re: We need to stand up for the low paid!! (#9)

by Mark Wadsworth on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 07:48:19 PM GMT

"If the banks need more capital and cannot sell their assets, they should be cancelling dividends and asking the owners for more capital"

Spot on!. I have done the workings

http://markwadsworth.blogspot.com/2008/04/uk-banking-crisis-in-perspective.html 

and if all banks did like Royal Bank of Scotland, a five-for-one rights issue or thereabouts would raise about £50 billion. This sounds like a lot of money, but as UK households have £1,000 billion on deposit with banks, it's not that big. And if they need another £50 billion in a few years' time, well do the same thing again. That'll teach them a lesson.

 


[ Parent ]

Re: We need to stand up for the low paid!! (#11)

by treborc on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 08:59:47 AM GMT

Teach us all a lesson if they go bankrupt


Re: We need to stand up for the low paid!! (#13)

by treborc on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 12:00:51 PM GMT

Would the Tories or the Lib Dems be any better, I doubt it, but yes your right.


Re: We need to stand up for the low paid!! (#14)

by Prbo on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:28:32 PM GMT

"We need to stand up for the low paid"

Won't our legs get tired?


Re: We need to stand up for the low paid!! (#15)

by Wiseman on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:23:19 PM GMT

yep, but at least the poor would have money in their pocket!!


Re: We need to stand up for the low paid!! (#16)

by Prbo on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:52:37 PM GMT

John, I really think you should consider using fewer exclamation marks.  I'm inclined to agree with Terry Pratchett's views on the subject...

Btw, why is that the poor can't stand up themselves - have they got tired from all this standing up too?


[ Parent ]

Re: We need to stand up for the low paid!! (#17)

by Wiseman on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:01:56 PM GMT

fair point,

john


We need to stand up for the low paid!! | 16 comments (16 topical)