BBC Blog Network

User Profile

Justin150

Listed below are comments made by Justin150 between Wednesday, 11th November 2009 and Monday, 30th November 2009 (55 Minutes Ago) .

«Newer
Older»

Europe's top jobs 1:21pm on 30 Nov 2009 184# seems fair.

I am slightly pro-EU but anti Euro (for UK). The reason that I am anti Euro is that fundamentally I believe that decisions about currency should be made on the basis of economics and for the UK the economics do not stack up - they may work in the future but over the last 20-30 years they would not have.

It is difficult to be more than slightly pro-EU because of some of the policies that EU promotes and there are as many fundamentalists in the pro-EU camp as the anti EU camp which makes sensible argument almost impossible. Here are some of my problems

1. The current proposals on regulating financial capital markets are clearly more about penalising London than economics. For example the EU own report makes it clear that hedge funds had either no role in the crisis or such a limited role as to be irrelevant. Of course 90% of hedge funds that operate in EU are based in London so the EU wants to regulate them in a way to force them offshore.

2. EU working time directive. Is total nonsense. The justification is vreate a level playing field - ie no country, no matter what its history or traditions or mandate from its voters is allowed to deviate from an EU mandate social policy. Sorry but social policy is always about trading off social benefits against potential trade benefits, each country should be allowed to come up with their own trade off

3. EU has kept the peace - how! Of course the various regiments of US soldiers had nothing to do with it and EU did such wonderful wirk in the Balkans keeping the peace.

4. Gary MacKinnon - has nothing to do with the EU. UK created that problem all by ourselves.

5. CAP: it is not merely a policy which has passed its sell by date (by decades) but an immoral policy. It should have been scrapped 20 years ago instead it is used by German and French politicians as a way of bribing the rural vote, the fact that as a direct consequence of the CAP (and to be fair the American equivalent policy) thousands of Africans starve to death becuase they have been reduced to subsidence agricultural is ignored.

Getting back to the original topic. What is needed is a very robust attitude to the EU on international trade and financial affairs. The EU needs to be told that regulation of financial affairs starts in London, and if we do not accept what is proposed it will not happen. You can call it a veto if you like (but it only upsets people)

Finally I do think UK will eventually leave the EU and we will not be any worse off for it. The reason is simple, in general UK people do not think about politics the way EU people do. It comes down to a very fundamental point about the way laws work - it is the difference between common law and civil law. The difference is so profound that both in why we need laws and how we think of politicians that eventually both UK and EU will realise that it is better to be apart
The Lib Dems and a taxing subject 11:55am on 30 Nov 2009 Fantasy - pure fantasy.

Raising personal allowance is sensible - takes people out of the tax net totally and has a much bigger impact (relatively speaking) for lower paid than higher paid.

Anti-avoidance measures never produce the figures claimed.

Reducing pension relief to basic rate tax looks sensible until you do the maths. Bearing in mind that Lab has already (in effect) capped pension contributions at £20,000 a year how exactly is someone supposed to save enough to generate a decent pension. Most people will not be able to afford to pay the full £20,000 per year ever and those that can will usually not be able to do so until kids have left home and mortgage paid off (obviously this does not apply to top 1% of income earners) The net result will be to make pension investment at best a marginal use of money. That will reduce the size of pension funds and thereby reduce the amount of money they put into shares which will reduce the wealth of the country (and reduce stamp duty)

Increasing CGT - you might want to cross check that against the newspaper reports from businessmen who say that the worst thing Lab did was increase CGT from 10% (if held long enough) to 18%. It was a disincentive to entrepreneurship. Reducing CGT threshold to £2000 is just plain daft - now no one has any incentive to invest in shares.

As for the 1% levy on mansions - will that apply to MPs collective properties founded by the tax payer? Now lets see how to avoid this - are simple my house will become 2 flats each worth say £1.25m and of course if all else fails simply dispute the valuation.

This counts as primary school level tax plans and a poor primary school at that. As for it being radical - I suggest Nick Clegg looks up the meaning of the word.

Here is a radical plan:

1. Increase the personal allowance to £10,000 but apply to both income and capital
2. Merge NI and Income tax into a single tax
3. Flat rate of say 30% on all income and capital gains subject only to the following exceptions
3.1 The old taper relief brought back for business assets
3.2 Charitable donations
3.3 Pension contributions
3.4 Main home exempt
3.5 some form of business angel investment relief to encourage investment in SME in UK
4. VAT at 20% and on much wider range of goods than currently
5. Stamp Duty on houses increased (first £250,000 free then say at 5-10% which should slow down property speculation)

I have no idea how the numbers add up but at least it counts as radical
A healthy squeeze (II) 5:47pm on 26 Nov 2009 Sadly we have in the UK proved pretty conclusively that when top rate tax is set at 60%+ it actually generates in the long term less tax than when the top tax rate is 40%. It is possible that by increasing tax from 40% to 50% (it actually goes up to a net 61% for incomes between £125-150,0000 under proposed rules) govt might generate more tax but I rather doubt it.

Our tax system is way too complex and I fail to see any govt that is willing to cut through the complexity. The problem is that the population views progressive tax as "fair" and politicians like it because they can introduce tax reliefs (which become loopholes) to support the latest fad.

Whilst radical I would instead simplify tax to a single flat rate payable on both income and capital gains. There would be a nil band of sy £15000 a year and everything else would be taxed at say 25-30%. There would only be 3 reliefs. No capital gains on main home, no tax on charitable donations and no tax on pension contributions. I would also put a maximum cap on tax payable by anyone at say £5m per year - lets face it above that figure those people would probably leave the country to avoid the tax bill so it is unlikely to cost govt much but gives the message that we want rich people in our country.

The very simple nature of the tax system would allow HMRC staff to be reduced and re-deployed to fight tax fraud (they are having real problems coping with VAT fraud at the moment) which would save govt money.

Sadly my system has no chance of being implemented as too many political minefields and no party will pass up chance of giving tax credits or reliefs to their favourite people.
A healthy squeeze? 5:30pm on 24 Nov 2009 Lets start on the mad and bad ideas

1. Raise tax on higher earners. Will not work - indeed the likelihood is that the announced tax rise to 50% will reduce tax revenues not increase them, classic example of populist knee jerk reaction

2. Windfall tax on banks - hang on I thought we were trying to get banks to increase capital. Capital is either various form of equity (or funny forms of debt) and retained earnings. How exactly does taxing the earnings help increase bank capital?

There are clear examples of govt largesse that is indefensible. Lets start at the MOD. Roughly 1 civil servant for every 2 members of armed forces. Most other countries run at ratio of 1 civil servant to 4-5 members of armed forces. This implies you make 50% of the MOD redundant at least.

DTI (or whatever it is called). For the last 10-15 years people have called for it to be closed - lets do so.

Based on the numbers it looks like we need to chop spending by 10-15% compared to 2007 levels, that is 6-7% simply to eliminate the structural deficit and the balance is recession specific spending.

Totally agree that a lot of the decision making should be decentralised subject to one point. Head office (in this case whitehall) has to bear a substantial level of cuts. Whether that is 10% of staff or 50% of staff is up to politicians but it will not be acceptable if whitehall does not shoulder its fair share.

One of the most difficult aspects of these type of cuts is that it will almost certainly involve govt (either local or central) deciding to completely withdraw from some types of service. That will be painful and political dynamite even if it is clear that either govt should never have been involved or that the public sector would do a much better job.

Sadly two of the long term issues will almost certainly not get addressed: public sector pension arrangements are indefensible. Now I have no problem with public sector workers being part of good quality pensions but they should be on the same basis as private sector. Govt has essentially made old style final salary schemes completely uneconomic for the private sector so that we are all on money purchase schemes, public sector should be the same.

The other issue is the NHS which is a sacred cow of UK politics. Personally I believe that the principle that access to appropriate health care should not depend on ability to pay is a sacred cow (it is a vital moral principle of UK society) but the manner in which that principle is delivered should always be questioned. Instead what we have is that no-one is allowed to suggested that the NHS is the wrong solution without being howled down as some sort of moral degenerate. Well I believe we should look at how other countries deliver their health programs and learn from their successes and failures. I have no doubt that the NHS is now the wrong solution, and maybe was always the wrong solution, what I do not know is what the better solution looks like (although USA would appear to be a very bad place to start from)
Tories tweaking their message 4:12pm on 23 Nov 2009 #1 a 60% income tax has been tried - it produces less revenue than a 40% tax so is counterproductive, also effectively we already have that on incomes above £150K because of changes to pension rules and NI.

Whilst it may be a question of timing - funny how this is often the case in politics, silly me for thinking it was a rule about comedy - there is no question that public spending needs to be cut by around 15% from its 2007 levels because this lab govt has grossly overspent in good times. Our structural budget deficit before the recession hit was nearly £100 bn. That is not just waste of colossal proportions but a deliberate tactic by lab govt to create lots of people wholly dependent on state (for which read labour) patronage.

In my home town it is estimated that more than 2 out of every 3 working people are on benefits or working for state or local govt or for a company in a pfi scheme (ie wholly dependent on state funding). Now admittedly this is slightly warped due to the fact the town is also the local county town and so has the county council secretariat within its confines but either way we have less than 1 person in private sector supporting slightly more in the public sector (and then having to support the people not of working age such as children and pensioners). This is totally unsustainable, not surprisingly in my home town the aim of most school leavers is to get a job in public sector because that is all they know.

If Tories want growth, then we have to get rid of 20% of govt (local and central) employees. Not matter what people say that will effect front line services, the issue is which services and by how much.

You want growth well here is a summary of what is required

1. Radical changes in tax. Merge income and NI and reduce both to say 20% basic and 35% top rate, but ditch all tax reliefs other than for pensions

2. To pay for it 25% VAT and 10% stamp duty on houses.

3. Cut 20% of govt workforce, close DTI completely and cut MOD (not armed forces) by 75%

4. Change employment laws to allow for sacking back to roughly where they were in 1997 - if they are easy to fire then they are easier to hire. I know this will be rough for some.

5. Education is vital. Teachers should be professional, many particularly members of the NUT are not. But if they are to be professional the public (and pupils) should treat them with the respect that they currently do not get.

6. NHS is the black hole of public finance and ultimately an entirely unviable solution to the provision of public health. Now I agree with the principle that access to medical treatment should not depend on the ability to pay. But very very few countries adopt our solution, we need to scrap the idea that the NHS is a sacred cow and look at what actually works in the rest of the world.
Will EU flunk its big moment? 5:34pm on 18 Nov 2009 I do not think most EU politician recognise that this type of horse trading is one of the reasons in the UK the majority of the population just want to get out. What we have is the most important decision being made by a process that lends itself to corruption and has nothing to do with democracy.

It is embarrassing to be pro-EU when faced with this. Worse still we will end up with a political dwarf on the based we will not get a positive candidate but one who is disliked least and whose backers were able to offer most
Google Books: The latest chapter 6:39pm on 16 Nov 2009 Let me understand this:

A company does a deal in the US with the relevant copyright royalty collection agency about copyright material under which it pays an agreed, but low, royalty in order to allow internet access. In this case for stuff which is difficult to get hold of and is not in print in the US. The copyright owners have no say in the matter (oops they can opt out, but it is not as though the US company will chase the owner for the opt out).

A company in Russia does a deal with its copyright royalty collection agency under which it pays an agreed but low royalty in order to allow internet access to the material. The copyright owners get no say in the matter.

Of course the first one is books and Google so it is a good thing and the second is music and the Russian MP3 website and so is a bad thing.

Total hypocracy.

Whether or not the book is in print, if it is still in copyright, then if google want to publish it and, make money out of it, they need to do a deal with the copyright owner on a case by case basis. Anything else is nothing more than the US legalising copyright theft
Gordon Brown and the military 1:58pm on 13 Nov 2009 If the enemy of defence is the treasury who exactly was in charge of treasury for most of this givt - Gordon Brown!

Of course the armed forces have been underfunded for years. Lab took a political decision, squaddies are not normal labour voters, nurses and teachers are. So Lab cut the defence budget and increased health and education. Nothing unusual in this all govts go through similar calculations it is just that they do not admit to it.

Of course the fact that the MOD has one bureaucrat for every 2 members of the armed forces and gives bureaucrats bonuses (but not the armed forces) makes sure that what little budget is given to the MOD is was wasted.

Afghanistan is merely a symptom of this govts total disregard for this nations defence
The real debate has scarcely begun 5:54pm on 11 Nov 2009 342 I am happy to give GB the benefit of the doubt and accept that he did take time to write the letter. He has bad handwriting and poor spelling is not something I can criticise as mine is not that good either. Nothing can make politicians realise the true cost of war faster than having to personally explain to dead soldiers relatives. It is commendable that GB, as a number of past PMs have, takes time to personally write letters of condolences. I suspect that from now on he will take more time and have them checked.

335# all I can say is that the Mandy story and Nick's blog appear within hours of each other and are putting the same basic spin on the story. Whether you treat that as conspiracy or co-incidence is up to you, but if the BBC is to be accepted as an impartial reporter of events it has to be concerned about the impression given. Sadly this is a regular feature of many of Nick's blogs
The real debate has scarcely begun 1:29pm on 11 Nov 2009 Firstly the debate over the letter is getting totally OTT. That GB, like previous prime ministers, takes time to write personal letters to widows of soldiers killed in the line of duty rather than getting some flunky to type it is commendable. Nothing will bring home to politicians the real cost of war than having to do this. That he made some spelling mistakes and has bad hand writing does not bother me, his aides should have read it and sent it back to GB for correction.

What I have a problem with is Nick's blog. I go onto the BBC Website and read a report in the politics section that Lord Mandy attacks the Sun for crude politicking on the letter issue, I then read Nick's blog to find that he is basically saying the same thing. The BBC has a duty to be impartial, yet the inevitable impression of the combination of the Mandy story and this blog is that Nick is simply repeating the Lab govt line.

This is not the first time, as regular readers of Nick's blog will be fully aware, that this complaint has been made - and no doubt this post will be deleted by the mods.

«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

Justin150