UK on mend with 'game changing’ year for jobs

No, it wasn't. It was supposed to be a safety net for those in real need, and we do need to get back towards that idea, because we can't afford it to be a blunt and simplistic mechanism of government redistribution of wealth, which is what Labour tried to bring in. I'm all for 'making work pay', of course, and helping those who need help - that has to be inherent in the system, but doing it by just giving tax payer money to relatively low-earners (not just those in real poverty) will never work, and will never be affordable without massive tax increases that would cripple everyone else. One method of helping, which this coalition has done, of course, is to simply allow lower earners to keep a much greater proportion of their income by raising the minimum tax threshold - that doesn't demand a huge system of bureaucracy in addition to the normal tax-raising system to implement, for a start, and doesn't involve so much taking with one hand and giving back with the other (and it benefits everyone, of course, but the less you earn the more you benefit in practical terms). We do need to be a bit careful about raising the minimum wage to a level that could damage employers, but dealing with minimum wage fraudsters and zero contract stuff is another avenue to ensure a bit of fairness in the system.


Old Labour were obsessed with redistribution of wealth, and taking money from the rich to give to the poor pretty much regardless of their own talents and efforts. It never worked, and never could. Nu Labour wasn't much different apart from leaving the wealthy to run riot too. The tax system for the rich does need to be tightened up so that they pay their fair share (and efforts have been and are being made to do that), but they shouldn't be asked to pay more than their fair share - not only can they afford to take their money elsewhere, but the harder they are squeezed the more they try to get away with, and the more emphasis they put on aggressive tax avoidance schemes that mean that they don't pay anything like what they should. They need to be taxed at a realistic level too, not punished for being successful (even if some of them have taken the urine when it comes to exploiting their success and their positions - that's a different issue from the tax itself).

Now that the economy is showing positive signs, Labour has noticeably switched its point of attack, but as usual without actually saying anything positive about what they would do differently. Until they come up with some kind of policy, they really aren't saying anything at all.

Surely it boils down to a simple matter of  common sense economics? A society needs a certain level of revenue to operate efficiently on behalf of all its citizens. The most effective way to generate that revenue is via taxation - either direct income tax, or indirect consumer taxes.

Which brings us to the two questions of ability and effect. The first is obviously answered by asking who is in the best position to contribute handsomely to the public purse, and the second needs to be considered in terms of who will suffer the most from having a given percentage of their annual income extracted by Her Majesty's Inland Revenue. It is obvious that indirect taxation, while in many ways a money-spinner, causes the greatest burden to those on a low income, and is thereby regressive, so the most equitable answer lies with progressive income tax.

The knotty problem, of course, being what is a 'fair share' of the tax burden. I think the late President Kennedy put it well when he said "For of those to whom much is given, much is expected." To which I would add the observations of John Donne - "No man is an island, entire of itself ..."

The wealthy may very well have worked hard (but unlikely to have sweated for as long as a miner, or a digger of ditches,) in order to earn their fortunes, but nobody becomes a billionaire on a desert island. The society, the infrastructure, the governance, and the market, all have to be in place in order to allow the amassing of material wealth. So it is not by his efforts alone that a man becomes wealthy, and very often, the major contributing factor is personal circumstances (like coming from a wealthy or well-connected family). So let us reserve our tears for the pensioner who cannot afford his power bills, and shivers in front of a one-bar radiator, rather than the man on a six figure salary who is required to pay one third of that in taxation (he is unlikely to be cold, or go without a meal, this winter).

As for aggresive tax avoidance schemes - they are only possible because of overly-complex taxation legislation. Let's simplify the tax act. Per example - a man who runs a small business may legitimately claim the direct operating costs thereof (cost of goods, direct operating costs - power bills, wages, etc.) - but why should his business lunches be deductible? Even more so in respect of a salaried business executive - entertaining clients should not be a legitimate cost of doing business. Nor should leasing and maintaining a vehicle which is used only for personal transport to and from the office. A farm labourer, or coal miner, or accounts payable clerk, is not entitled to go to lunch with his workmates and claim that as a deduction, so why should a company director?

Anyway, you get my point - the simpler and more direct the tax act, the fewer loopholes there are to exploit, and the more annual income a man receives, the less he is affected by VAT and all the other forms of indirect taxation. The wealthy are not those requiring protection in our society, nor are they being treated unfairly by progressive tax rates. A man on 500,000 pounds who is only left 300,000 pounds a year after taxation, can still live, and provide for his family, with a degree of comfort.

We're doing so well here that a special commuter's season ticket is being introduced for all the part-time commuters who don't have a full-time job.

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/sep/16/part-time-season-tickets-rail

People are 'in difficulties' because the thieves are taking so much there is nothing to spend, so the economy is totally flat. Wicked Brown - he seized control of world capitalism, especially the American housing market - to produce the slump! How shocking! Well, without the Liberals there'd have been no class-war government, and fortunately they are dead, dead, dead. All we need now is to build up a Labour Party to represent the British People against all these crooks and their lying media.

I've never read the Daily Mirror. What does it repeat? That the Westminster Parliament is less useful than Wipesnade Zoo? That Clegg is the biggest liar since Hitler? That this Government hates the British People and would destroy it if it could make profits without? Mirror must be worth reading after all!