91热爆

One u-turn after another. But if the government can't set its own tax policy and stick to it; what use is it?

Clarke and Balls fighting each other in the press, Balls and Straw figthing each other in cabinet. When does it end? When they see the light of day and call a general election; the country has had enough of these self serving and self interested charisma by-pass losers.

It couldn't be clearer.

Nick,

Whether or not Government sources think so, I always understood that a Government that could not get its Finance Bill through had to resign - that certainly seemed to be the case in Canada recently, and I seem to recall was one of the original reasons behind the Parliament Act of 1911.

Can you shed some light on this, please?

According to Brown there are no losers. Now we need a cunning plan to help those non-existent losers

Oh what a tangled web we weave
When first we practise to deceive

What puzzles me is that most commentators (and naturally the Opposition) are ignoring the fact that 10% tax rates remain for dividends and for interest. So there are some such as pensioners on low incomes, mostly from savings, who might not be losing so much as they are being told.

No doubt that any moves by the government to redress the stripping of the UK underclass of their 10% will involve some form of Brown's 'Tax Credits' dehumanisation.

'Fill in this form - have all your assets assessed by Big Brother - undergo inspection by the NewLab Bureaucratic Thought Police - have a voucher to let everyone in the world know that you are now on Handout'.....

....just to get back to where you were before Brown screwed it up.

And then all the NewLab MP's can cheer as they vote for the next bit of Tax nonsense perpetrated against the UK underclasses - a group which is steadily growing under this Government.

The lot of them are shameless and out of touch with the reality of higher Council Tax, fuel costs, food rises.

So lets all ironically applaud as the MP's vote themselves another rise as Brown and Darling insist that
'the UK is all ok'

Well their bit of it is.

Ed Balls is one of the Tories' greatest assets. Apart from his childish behaviour recently, he gets involved in an argument with another useless ex-minister.

David Cameron needs to push for a vote of confidence. The timing is right and whilst Labour will claim it is opportunism, it will cause more discord in their ranks.

A Government which is fighting itself should call for an election, as the uncertainty will cause problems in the economy.

If everyone is going to be compensated, then one has to ask why the rate was removed at all...

Just to generate more pointless work, and so keep employment up? I wouldn't mind if it was their own money they were throwing away.

So now that Labour have, sort of, admitted that actually, there will be losers in this and that those losers will now be paying income tax at 20p in the pound, instead of 10p in the pound. Can the media please STOP calling this the abolition of the 10p rate? It is a DOUBLING of the 10p rate. It is the increase of income tax by 100%. That is NOT abolition of a tax band in my book.

Why oh why do the media keep deliberately and wilfully protecting this vile Government from their own messes? Be honest media. Tell the truth. This is the tax being doubled on the working poor.

What happens if Frank Field's amendment is passed? (Not too unlikely, depending upon how badly Harperson gets up the backbenchers' noses)

Will Gordon - err, sprry, Darling - withdraw the finance bill and ask HM to dissolve parliament, or (given their desperation to cling to power for as long as possible) will they just let the bill go through with this amendment?

Either way, they have demonstrated that they can't even fool their own MPs any more, let alone the voting public...

Good grief! Mrs Balls announces, er, well nothing!

They have lost the will to govern.

Great just what we need another expensive enquiry by civil servants to rubberstamp the decision when the headlines have died down. Maybe the solution is to create another complicated and expensive to administer tax credit.

Nick

The government now seems to be falling apart, with no guts, no policies it believes in and no strategy other than staying in office.

Vote of confidence? Hah! Election now!

ps

not sure Harriet H will welcome the comment about "a more senior minister"...

One thing that puzzles me, Nick, is Darling's assertion that the 10p business is a fait accompli because it is impossible at this late stage to rewrite the budget. If something that has not yet been voted on by Parliament is immutable, then the supposed 'will of the Commons' is a sham.

Ed Balls really is a piece of work. If they make him leader that really is curtains for the Labour Party.

It's not just the removal of the 10% tax band that is going to hit people hard. A less discussed change includes the substantial increase in the Class 4 upper profits limit - 15% increase no less.

That means, as a self employed person, I am paying 8% contributions on 15% more of my income! Surely this is going to hit self-employed entrepreneurs and tradesmen alike?

Yet another stealth tax it seems - surreptitious in nature and at a time when the government needs to shore up its finances due to years of financial mismanagement.

Comment please Nick!

I dub this Crowbar Politics. I believe this is a wholly artificial spin exercise to separate the Labour brand from Gordon Brown's many, many problems. The fact is, most of the Labour MPs supposedly threatening to rebel are the same ones who voted this budget in, complete with the abolition of the 10p tax rate, over a year ago. They THEN proceeded to almost unanimously elect the author of that budget as their new leader!

The press has disappointingly fallen for it hook, line and sinker. The fact is that these Labour MPs are either extremely dishonest people who are shifting their positions purely for electioneering purposes, or they're incompetent enough to vote in a bill they meant to oppose without realising it (for a whole year!!). Either way, they have proven that they are unfit for their jobs as representatives of the people.

Andy_AJA - you are correct. Finance Bills are automatically Supply Bills and hence the failure of such a bill would constitute a loss of supply and the fall of the government.

He'll probably see it through, but Brown is certainly playing a high stakes game.

Although this government is making foolish errors does one suppose that the help for the poorest would have happened under the Tories. This government is finished but it could easily be 1981 again after the next election: massive public spending cuts, huge unemployment and tax cuts for the rich.

Watch this space!

Any supply bill (ie - taxation) is a de facto vote of confidence in the government. If Brown were to lose, he'd be forced to call a general election. If he refuses, Her Majesty will have to call one for him.


Let's see whether the Labour backbenchers will put country before party and vote against the government.

Nick

I'm interested in an earlier comment where the poster asked if a government must resign if it fails to get its Finance Bill thro' parliament. Is this the case? I make no bones about my thoroughgoing despondency and distaste for the present government. We Brits made a spectacular mistake when we voted for unreconstructed-socialism-disguised-as-a-new-political-party in 1997. I didn't vote for this bunch of charlatans as it happens, but boy oh boy are we paying for it now!

I'm fed up of the media saying that only the lowpaid are hit by the 10p/ 22p tax issue. That is a view from London maybe, but 拢15-18k salaries are pretty common in plenty of parts of the country, which are the levels where lots of single people/ couples without children will be losing money.

Up here in North Yorkshire, lots of the smaller towns and villages see this as a realistic level for a salary, though larger centres like Harrogate would be at generally higher levels. The past week I have had to tell a number of individual staff at four of the places where I do their accounts that their salaries are lower this month than last. This goes for me too, by the way.

I'm also perplexed why this has only become an issue in the past month or two. The moment the potential changes were announced, I and a number of colleagues were very well aware that it would spell bad news for us.

When Labour introduced only a few years ago the 10p rate, the press and the tory party described it as a gimmick by Labour designed to play to the gallery, but which gave little to the poor.

So consequently Labour was given no credit for it and it was barely noticed

When it is removed, the same Press and the tory party describe it as a tragedy for the poor.


Well what was it? A good thing when it was introduced so that the Press, including the 91热爆, and the Tories should have joined in praising Labour for this incredible act of redistribution of wealth?

Or was it just a gimmick , so its removal now is meaningless

Thing is , why isn't the all knowing Mr Robinson looking into the files , dragging out those quotes from a few years ago , and asking the Tories why they have changed their tune.

Have they discovered that wealth redistribution and that giving benefits to middle England at the expense of the poor is a bad thing?

The government has some issues simplifying taxation and encouraging fairer income distribution. While this issue looks like a road crash, generally, I'm of the mind that the process of bringing the two views together will be successful. This is important to make the take system more effective and incomes more appropriate. Far from being a poll tax moment this looks more like a turning point where both government, back benchers, and public develop some mutual enlightenment.

I'm generally more in favour of tax simplification as it eases the administrative burden, and people at the bottom have less paperwork to deal with to get their due, and people at the top have fewer loopholes to hide their arguably already fat earnings in. As a more balanced focus begins to develop both law, business, and social attitudes should form a better consensus. If the minimum wage is strongly raised and AAA rewards for Z class performance trimmed this will be a win.

Looking at the Prime Minister's recent key note presentation in America, the unfolding strategy at home, and bringing the newly emerged economies and developing economies on stream, it looks like a proper balance of profit and trade will take hold. I think, that will be good for the top tier as stopping the rug from being pulled helps sidestep a race to the bottom, and new players in the global market can begin to invest in their poor without risking long-term growth.

All hail Blessed Leader!

Maybe canaries for now, but cats in a sack coming soon.

Labour MP鈥檚 need to start thinking about the real and everyday people that put them into power rather than following the party line. Jobs for the family, second homes and flash expense accounts are on the line here boys and girls.

And Nick, please鈥� every time you mention Ed Balls add a link to the 鈥渟o what鈥� moment on budget day. It really does cover everything we need to know about the man.

To me, the most interesting view of the 10p rate is in the original press release when it was first announced. This can be found at www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/newsroom_and_speeches/press/1999/press_59_99.cfm
and 9 years ago meant a better deal for the people of Britain!

Thanks pierreknight for the reference to the 199 press release. Still on the Treasury website, though I wonder for how long...

I looked this up and I quote:

"As a result of the new 10p rate, 1.8 million low-paid workers will see their tax bills halved as a result..."

You don't need a PhD in economics to work out that the reverse, removing the 10p rate, will tend to have the opposite effect!

#26 pierreknight refers us back 10 years, following the URL gives a report that every worker paying NatIns would be better off, and this is true, but it doesnt hide the fact that the government are today making nearly 10% population worse off, and even more people if you take into account those who find the tax credit form too complex, are unsure what it is, or who dont fill it in because they fear a year later the tax man will say sorry we gave you the wrong amount and demand a large, unaffordable sum back. Labour spent in the good times and have nothing left.

They have mortgaged the country to the hilt with PFI contacts that run on and on, they dithered over Northern Rock, and again they demonstrate they don't know what they are doing with tax.

Rising Tax, NHS closures, Teachers on strike just what decade is this? What was that in '79... "Labour isn't working" and although in the boom time it survived and seemed to bloom we find we are now in their mess.

Nick:

a. The Commons can amend the Finance Bill and the govt does not have to resign. The Rooker-Wise amendment that indexed Income Tax thresholds is a clear precedent.

b. It is complete nonsense that they "cannot afford" compensation. They waste astronomical sums. Scrapping ID Cards would save 拢7-12bn for example. And 拢0.7bn is a rounding error in their Borrowing Requirements

I have never seen such a collective sense of fear among Labour MPs. They are terrified, not so much of losing their philosophical roots but losing their jobs in two years time.

These MPs are fighting for their political survival and Gordon Brown should remember that when dealing with them.

Morning Nick.
Stephenherlihy says the following 鈥� Quote - When Labour introduced only a few years ago the 10p rate, the press and the tory party described it as a gimmick by Labour designed to play to the gallery, but which gave little to the poor.
So consequently Labour was given no credit for it and it was barely noticed
When it is removed, the same Press and the tory party describe it as a tragedy for the poor. Well what was it?
A good thing when it was introduced so that the Press, including the 91热爆, and the Tories should have joined in praising Labour for this incredible act of redistribution of wealth? - unquote
Sometimes I get the urge to get back into the fold, but then something like this comes along and reminds me of the misery when the so called poor were only getting 拢1.20 an hour because we were the only country in Europe without a minimum wage.
You are correct Stephen, and to all those that you mention, the word HYPOCRISY comes to mind.

Charles E Hardwodge,

Thank you for your pithy comments*. I really, really tried to progress beyond the first paragraph but....

Crikey!, Do you actually believe the pompous twaddle you write?


(*Bernard Levin once suggested a punctuation symbol called ironics. We certainly do could do with it....)

Am I right to think that reinstating the 10p tax band, coupled with changing the 20p band back to 22p would be revenue neutral whilst at the same time benefitting those on low incomes ?

If this is the case, is there any reason other than political expediency not to do it ?

If so, this craven government deserves all the opprobrium it gets.

Nick, I agree that one needs to be pretty quick , because look at what is happening to the opposition, it is disintegrating in front of our very eyes.

The UK Independence Party has its first MP after former Conservative Bob Spink announced he is to join its ranks.
Mr Spink resigned the Tory whip last month in a row over apparent efforts by his local party to deselect him.
He claims the Tories have been "dishonest" over Europe.

Enough said! Have a nice day Nick.

I imagine one thing is certain, the highly principled Labour MP's when called on to vote, will not risk having their snouts removed from the Westminster trough.The government will carry the day and Brown will make his usual triumphal grimace (nearly a grin) across at the opposition benches.The only way this incompetent government will leave is of old age or if the ghost of Guy Fawkes returns and gets it right this time.

Now we see that thinks that the way to raise benefits for the low paid is to export more civil service jobs away from London, rather than re-instate the 10p tax rate.

Makes you wonder which school of economics they studied at!

I particularly enjoy the fact that at the same time Labour is increasing the tax burden on people like my pensioner mother they're setting up a system to bail out the banks by having the tax payer buy up 拢50bn of the worst Mortgage Backed Securities they've landed themselves with. This is of course on top of the 拢26bn (and counting - although I don't suppose we'll ever see a penny of the interest that's supposedly accruing).

Obviously it wouldn't be fair to increase the tax on the bonuses of the bank executives and traders who got our financial institutions into this position.

Am I the only person to spot the irony in Brown, Darling, Balls, Cooper et al calling those who will be paying more tax the 'losers'...

A vote of no confidence should be called immediately.

40 Labour MPs oppose their own government's finance bill. Ther has never been a clearer reason to call a vote of no confidence.

Harman and Cooper's chirrupping about the long term strategy of the government won't wash with 6.3m people. They face rising food and energy costs now.

As Gordon Brown is on public record and national TV as saying about 5 times that "no-one will lose as a result of these budget income tax changes", can the 5.3 million people who will lose out by up to 拢235 legally withold this amount from the Inland Revenue this tax year? Could a tax lawyer please investigate?

I am on a low wage with no kids so I'm one of the people affected. In fact I beleive I will be about 拢5.50 a week worse off.

The politicians are over complicating a very simple argument.

I am poor. You have made me poorer.

You want my vote, I want my money back.

Do you understand know? Or should I make you chant it out until the light comes on in your febrile little brains.

The "rebel" MPs must all have been aware of the consequences of the removal of the 10% tax band when it was announced. The media certainly made this fairly clear - it wasn't hidden in the detail of the finance bill as one MP seemed to be suggesting on the news last night.

The budget introducing this change is now over a year old, and in the recent budget did nothing to alleviate the potential problems as far as I am aware.

As well as hitting the lower paid people, it also reduces the financial gap between benefits and working - difficult to argue that this gives anyone on benefits an increased incentive to get a job.

All of this was done to simplify the tax structure. Given that it was the same government and chancellor that introduced the band in the first place, it does seem somewhat strange. Yet all of this situation was entirely avoidable. Did the government really have no alternative but to remove the 10% band? Could the basic rate have been reduced from 22% to 21% instead of 20%? Whilst I don't have any figures relating to this, it would certainly have helped offset the problem, whilst still giving Gordon Brown his headline grabbing taxcutting credentials.

To all those calling for a 'no confidence' vote - hang fire!

This is just about the only way to reunite the disgruntled squabbling Labour MPs - giving them a clear enemy (that's not Gordon) to line up against

Far far better to have the amendment pass, and then see what Gordon does
1) Admit that he cannot pass an unamended finance bill, and ask HM to dissolve Parliament, and so the changes don't go ahead
or
2) Allow the amended bill to be voted on (and passed, presumably) thus saving these 5m people from sliding further into poverty

Either way, the people at the bottom of the pile will be better off

What REALLY worries me is that even though this year's finance bill has not yet cleared the House, certain of its provisions are being enacted already (see 660A's replacement)

I have just looked at our April payroll

The 10p tax band went as of April 6th. Salaries being paid this week reflect that.

One person on 拢35k is 拢33.00 better off this month.

Another on 拢12k is 拢5.39 worse off.

These figures will both increase in the wrong direction when applied to the full month of May.

Not quite why, I suspect, most Labour MP's joined the team, or why so many voted for them.

Letter to Alastair Darling
As a 62-year-old pensioner I have been reviewing my finances and am shocked to find that, as a result of the abolition of the 10% tax rate, I will pay double the amount of tax on my small private pension which I receive in addition to the state pension. My state pension amounts to 拢5655 p.a. and my tax allowance is 拢5435. My private pension amounts to 拢1445.16 p.a. so I will be taxed on 拢1665. At 10% I would pay 拢166.50 and at 20% I will pay 拢333. This increase seems most unfair especially as the private pension contributions were paid latterly from a very low part-time salary of around 拢5000.
In addition to this all the savings I have will be taxed at the basic rate although these have accrued from taxed income ....
I cannot see that there can be any justification for raising tax rates for pensioners and lower paid people in a climate where savings and investments have earned far less than was predicted 5 or 10 years ago. This is a double penalty for people who have tried to be economical and prepare for the future.

Hilwall

How do I become an MP? They seem to be bullet-proof against everything.