BBC Blog Network

User Profile

yewlodge

Listed below are comments made by yewlodge between Thursday, 17th September 2009 and Monday, 30th November 2009 (3 Hours Ago) .

«Newer
Older»

Appetite for fat cat taxes? 9:47pm on 30 Nov 2009 There are several problems with a property tax ( apart from the fact that one exists already) foremost of which is that it doesn't rlate to income and ability to pay. It is a poor indicator of disposable income. It also raises relatively little money for quite an administrative burden. Given most government bureaucratic inneficiency and incompetence it may end up raising very little net income at all.

Surely putting a much higher rate of VAT (25% plus)on luxuries like yachts, cars, antiques, paintings, expensive wines etc is much more geared to those who can pay, will raise far more money and will be a minor increase in administration would be a much fairer and more beneficial route to take.

Taxing property which may delay purchase (slowing the building industry), decrease employee flexibility ( would you move for a job if 10% plus of the value of your home was going to disappear in duties and CGT?) and cause more to look to the state for accommodation just cannot be sensible.
The Lib Dems and a taxing subject 12:15pm on 30 Nov 2009 Am I missing something? I thought there was a need to raise taxes to pay off the Labour Black Hole? This seems to be essentially tax neutral.

Actually I also wonder if savings via a pension can be taxed twice as this appears to imply. In any other form of savings of tax paid income only the gain/dividend is taxable. Surely all it will encourage is a new form of "pension" saving schemes to avoid the double taxation. It could end pension schemes as we know them and actually reduce the amount raised in tax in the short term.

And finally I am against tax on capital because it doesn't relate to ability to pay( eg the elderly on pensions may be disproportionally hit) and it is somewhat arbitrary, as we have seen house prices go up and down. Surely art collections, wine cellars, yaughts, classic cars etc are more a sign of substantial wealth/disposable income and a damn site more easy to dispose of piecemeal to pay the tax. Lopping the chimney pot off this year and flogging the garage next year aren't realistic options. I know its difficult to identify such items relative to a house but higher VAT on luxuries such as these ( say 25% or more) may raise at least as much and from those with the ability to pay and with relatively little additional bureaucracy.
Map of the Week: Floods of Tears 10:57pm on 20 Nov 2009 Actually a fair amount of warning of exceptional rainfall was given to the whole Cumbria area, roughly 48 hours earlier and advice given that precautionary measures should be taken.

To expect much more precise, eg the flooding may be worst in Cockermouth, is frankly ridiculous and anyway what would you suggest was then done? Its hardly the sort of situation where you can put your finger in the dyke is it?

Nearly 2,500 square miles have been affected to some extent and it could have been any one of dozens of places that it affected worse. There is no way that all of them could have been protected against this sort of onslaught within the sort of notice period possible from modern weather forecasting.

I know journalist prefer a blame story to anything constructive but this is just plain silly.
Britain lands key EU foreign policy post 00:49am on 20 Nov 2009 Nick

I know you are a nice bloke and probably influential in your own way but why are you asking us questions about Europe?

I mean even our own government(or parliament come to that)doesn't give a damn what we think about Europe and is going to make sure they don't have to hear it either.

Surely you're not hoping to start a whispering campaign or even a minor insurrection?

Perhaps you could let us know what the official BBC editorial policy on this one is, often it's as transparent as decision making in Brussels.
When and how to squeeze the budget 12:15pm on 18 Nov 2009 Governments need to prioritise the basic principles of efficient management above political posturing and rhetoric.
An hour spent looking at the Public Accounts Committee website indicated that several hundred billion could have been saved this last decade by not doing projects which have delivered nothing at all. Cuts that would have made no impact whatsoever! Many other projects were delivered many years late and often not to the required standard which has its own cost beyond the financila implications such as dead soldiers, chinooks still sitting unused in hangers etc. In fact right across Whitehall underperformance by the Civil Service has cost this Nation dear. Add to that the costs of the cancerous Quangoland which seems to consume far more in resources and lards far more complexities onto others than it ever delivers in benefits and we have another huge opportunity to reduce costs and free enterprise from the suffocation of intrusive and largely unaccountable autocracies.

Until government at all levels cuts itself down to a size that our productive activity can sustain(including the radical idea of firing civil servants in charge of projects that fail to meet their targets) then there is no prospect of balancing the books. Fiddling around with punitive tax measures on e.g. housing (which already has a value tax called the rates) for a minority, who are just the people who can most easily go elsewhere just isn't going to work. It's too small, is not related to ability to pay, doesn't address the fundamental issue of expenditure being beyond the nations capacity to sustain and is thus purely political window dressing. Taxation and benefits are already a far too complex a regime and need radical simplification to make them both efficient to collect and comprehensible. For example putting VAT up on a wide range of activities, perhaps even to 25% on luxuries would probably be a benefit if it meant that some other taxes and their costs of collection could be eliminated. Legalise most drugs and tax them. At least 4 million people every year are ignoring the law anyway and there is a huge amount of cash there that could better go to the government rather than criminals ( well I suppose that depends on your views of politicians but you know what I mean).
Not one but two major rows 5:00pm on 02 Nov 2009 Peter_Sym

I don't think he did criticise his boss and he wasn't trying to make policy. If anything his boss via Civil Servants was trying to rubbish the experts report (and note the plural, this was the consolidated view of dozens of experts not just one) because it didn't fit comfortably with predetermined policy. The policy was predetermined by his boss's boss who quite falsely stated even before the report was issued that cannabis was a far greater danger than it is.

The fact that the professor stood up for the committee and the best considered view of the experts available is not interfering with policy! This is a national committee of experts who have a responsibility to the truth and society not just the minister.

The minister is certainly free to disagree on other grounds, explain those fully and argue why policy isn't going to run entirely congruent to the best available technical facts. There can and will often be other things to consider. What the minister and his boss cannot do though is misrepresent what the facts say and then claim that this is why the policy is as it is.

That is what has happened and now the politicians have the worst of both worlds. Their policy lacks coherent explanation and they have substantially alienated people whose advice they need.

After all we have the most technically illiterate government and parliament in the so called developed world. It's no wonder so many policies with a significant science and technology input look shallow and we slip further behind in our global position in their application when evidenced by this kind of incoherent incompetence from ministers
Over to you, Foreign Secretary 12:38pm on 30 Oct 2009 Frankly the vast majority of our politicians have become a disgrace and embarassment to the nation. Aside from the cynical exploitation of the expenses rules,any issue, even one as sensitive as antisemitism is just degraded and exploited as a political custard pie.

This weeks PMQ's was an even bigger and more pointless disgrace than usual with two parties competing to see who could be the most juvenile and displayed total contempt for the public who pay for it all.

Recent performances, and not just Mr Griffins, on Question Time have been little more than pathetic name calling against anyone who doesn't agree with the speaker and very little about addressing the question actually asked.

I really struggle to identify anyone in any party of any real stature and integrity in modern politics who I could vote for. A truly embarassing, disgraceful and dispiriting state for the nation to be in.
Is primary education threatened by authoritarianism? 5:25pm on 17 Oct 2009 Well from my perspective the problem lies less with the schools and central government than it does the LEA. For most parents the LEA is the most impenetrable and unchalleangable authority they will come across. Not only that but the last Treasury spending review showed that, for secondary education at least the LEA spent more of the pupil per capita budget on running themselves than the head teachers saw to run the schools.

If local is to truly mean local where there can be real dialogue and influence between heads and parents then much more of the money must find its way directly to the schools. Then they, the governors and parents can decide how best decide how to address local needs rather than another tier of bureaucrats intervening and taking decisions and leaving everyone else to live with the consequences. If the LEA add so much value to the classroom experience of our kids I am sure the heads, governers etc will recommend paying for their services rather than say hire more front line staff at the school! I won't hold my breath for that one to happen though.
The axe begins to swing 5:17pm on 18 Sep 2009 Sagamix 143

"the fact Gordon clings to that a bit doesn't make it untrue"

At least you now admit that Gordon is a Brown Klingon!
Project Blueprint: 'Not sufficiently robust' 8:04pm on 17 Sep 2009 Seems like the Home Office have been taking lessons from the MOD. Spend a load of money, deliver it late and no damn use anyway! Chinook Helicopters, SA80 rifle, snatch landrover replacement, submarines, MOD IT system etc. There are a total of at least 20 absolutely damning MOD project reviews on the Public Accounts Committee Website this year alone!

Everyone is talking in worrying terms about budget cuts and yet right across Whitehall we see in total hundreds of Billions being wasted on loads of projects. You could cut the lot with no consequences at all, they don't deliver anything worth having anyway!

«Newer
Older»

^ Back to top

BBC MMVI

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites

BBC.co.uk

BBC Blog Network

Find and talk to the BBC's bloggers.

User Profile

yewlodge