I have to say some things amuse me.
This Labour government has cut VAT (for a year) but fails to pass on that cut to those who purchase from its website, as you can see from this story by Iain Dale.
Ridiculous surely?
No. That is perfectly ordinary.
What makes this ridiculous is that the Labour party's official credit card has very high interest rates, something which this Labour government are criticising credit card companies for!
You can read about Labour's current credit card scam here, but you will belly laugh about how they were ripping off their supporters in 2004 here, compared to a Northern Rock credit card!
It gets better, though, if you read both, they screw the less well off harder into the ground than the wealthy!
You just could not make this up!
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
Tuesday, December 09, 2008
What Labour MP's don't understand about Greengate
And, to be fair it seems, Bob Spink and Chris Paul, is this:
Labour will not always be in government. It is true that many on the Labour benches have not known opposition, and also will never know it on those benches because when Labour eventually do lose power, many Labour MP's will have had to have lost there seats. What they need to realise is that many Labour MP's will be left and will need to hold the government to account.
They will find that very difficult to do, if as now, the police and civil service are politicised to the point where they will not only hunt down leakers (fair enough) but seek to intimidate and prosecute not only the leaker but the MP.
They will no doubt witter on about police operational independence, in which case they ought to read this, or indeed that MP's are not above the law, in which case they ought to read history.
Labour will not always be in government. It is true that many on the Labour benches have not known opposition, and also will never know it on those benches because when Labour eventually do lose power, many Labour MP's will have had to have lost there seats. What they need to realise is that many Labour MP's will be left and will need to hold the government to account.
They will find that very difficult to do, if as now, the police and civil service are politicised to the point where they will not only hunt down leakers (fair enough) but seek to intimidate and prosecute not only the leaker but the MP.
They will no doubt witter on about police operational independence, in which case they ought to read this, or indeed that MP's are not above the law, in which case they ought to read history.
Pound continues to slide against the Euro.
Rather sadly I have been comentating and indeed watching the pound against the dollar, which, whilst it has during the last week hit another 52 week low, is trading between $1.44 to $1.50 to the pound. On the other hand the trend against the Euro is relentlessly down, reaching new depths on a regular basis. In fact it has hit as low as 1.14 Euros to the pound.
The reasons for this are simple. Gordon Brown wants to borrow hideous amounts of money to buy his way out of a recession and it appears that if that does not work he will try printing his way out. Similar ideas seem to abound in the US whereas Germany contrary to Labour and Gordon Brown's spin think this policy is nothing other than nuts.
You can see the rate against the Euro here (current £1 buys €1.15 Euros as opposed to a year ago when it brought €1.40). On the other hand it buys $1.48 dollars against a 52 week high of $2.05. Current price is here.
The reasons for this are simple. Gordon Brown wants to borrow hideous amounts of money to buy his way out of a recession and it appears that if that does not work he will try printing his way out. Similar ideas seem to abound in the US whereas Germany contrary to Labour and Gordon Brown's spin think this policy is nothing other than nuts.
You can see the rate against the Euro here (current £1 buys €1.15 Euros as opposed to a year ago when it brought €1.40). On the other hand it buys $1.48 dollars against a 52 week high of $2.05. Current price is here.
Sunday, December 07, 2008
A Conservative Mole in Labour's cabinet?
The Mail on Sunday carries news that the Conservatives not only have a mole in Gordon's Brown's cabinet, but that the mole has been leaking over the Smith Institute (Guido's favourite subject) and Chris Grayling has written to Gordon Brown about it!
Explosive stuff!
Politicalbetting has this.
Explosive stuff!
Politicalbetting has this.
Mandelson to wring blood from a stone!
Apparently Lord Peter Mandelson will be meeting with bank executives on Monday to try and get the banks to lend.
Well, this will be like wringing blood from a stone. They have no money to lend. Our banks have lent £700 billion more than they have on deposit since 2001, and that money has been borrowed short. As I pointed out in my articles on Bank of England interest rate cuts, banks are trying to buy money from consumers at as much as 6%.
Clearly the government are in cloud cuckoo land and may even let the presses roll.
Andrew Rawnsley has this in the Observer.
Well, this will be like wringing blood from a stone. They have no money to lend. Our banks have lent £700 billion more than they have on deposit since 2001, and that money has been borrowed short. As I pointed out in my articles on Bank of England interest rate cuts, banks are trying to buy money from consumers at as much as 6%.
Clearly the government are in cloud cuckoo land and may even let the presses roll.
Andrew Rawnsley has this in the Observer.
Saturday, December 06, 2008
Why did the police investigate this leak?
I, as Iain Dale also did, listened to The Week in politics on Radio 4 earlier.
Lord Butler was being asked about leaks. He was of course a permanent secretary. He said they often had leaks and looked for the moles though their own internal inquiries seldom found the moles.
The police had better resources for the job.
The thing is that most of the time the police when asked to investigate refused to do so on the grounds that the offence complained about was simply not serious enough.
So why now? We already know that national security was not involved because Jacqui Smith has said as much in Parliament. She said that they feared they might become involved at some future date!
That is the nub of the question that Iain asks.
The answer is of course this:
Sir David Normington will be on the panel that does initial vetting of candidates for the job of Chief Constable of the Metropolitan police. So if you can't get passed him you can't get the job. he is also of course permanent secretary of the Home Office and the person who made the original complaint to the police.
Lord Butler was being asked about leaks. He was of course a permanent secretary. He said they often had leaks and looked for the moles though their own internal inquiries seldom found the moles.
The police had better resources for the job.
The thing is that most of the time the police when asked to investigate refused to do so on the grounds that the offence complained about was simply not serious enough.
So why now? We already know that national security was not involved because Jacqui Smith has said as much in Parliament. She said that they feared they might become involved at some future date!
That is the nub of the question that Iain asks.
The answer is of course this:
Sir David Normington will be on the panel that does initial vetting of candidates for the job of Chief Constable of the Metropolitan police. So if you can't get passed him you can't get the job. he is also of course permanent secretary of the Home Office and the person who made the original complaint to the police.
Friday, December 05, 2008
Let the presses roll!
I have been hearing many people talking about "quantitative easing" including on Newnight last night. It appears that the government and treasury are considering it and indeed modeling it.
Of course "quantitative easing" is a nice bit of jargon, but what it actually means is printing money. It is as simple as that. On the upside at least there will be no chance of deflation, on the downside, the value of the cash and savings you have will fall through the floor.
Well Guido has noticed an odd clause in the banking bill before parliament. It removes a clause from the 1844 Bank Charter act. That clause requires the Bank of England to tell government how much money it has printed, and also to publish that information. It makes the Bank of England transparent.
The only reason I can see for removing that clause is so that the Bank of England can let the presses roll and try to print our way out of this economic hole.
It won't work, it will be dire. What is more, the mere fact that that clause will be removed will damage confidence in the pound even if the Bank does not print any new notes.
Of course "quantitative easing" is a nice bit of jargon, but what it actually means is printing money. It is as simple as that. On the upside at least there will be no chance of deflation, on the downside, the value of the cash and savings you have will fall through the floor.
Well Guido has noticed an odd clause in the banking bill before parliament. It removes a clause from the 1844 Bank Charter act. That clause requires the Bank of England to tell government how much money it has printed, and also to publish that information. It makes the Bank of England transparent.
The only reason I can see for removing that clause is so that the Bank of England can let the presses roll and try to print our way out of this economic hole.
It won't work, it will be dire. What is more, the mere fact that that clause will be removed will damage confidence in the pound even if the Bank does not print any new notes.
Lebanon's banks fine shocker!
Apparently the fact that Lebanon's banks are in fine financial order is some kind of shock.
I was not born in the Lebanon, nor am I Lebanese, but I grew up there, and I can tell you I am not surprised.
There are various articles in the media, like this in the Financial Times, and this on the BBC and Robert Fisk here, who asks this:
The Lebanese banking sector has been both strong, and trusted in western markets for as long as western markets have existed, even in times of war. I was there when people tried to rob banks of there cash and gold reserves. It didn't work.
Yet the Lebanese banking system works on few rules, like adequate liquidity and not buying into risky investments.
In fact the reality is that the Lebanese banking rules are so short that anyone could understand them, to the point where they can't be got around.
Crucially also Lebanon's banks are regulated by their central bank, like ours were until Gordon Brown became Chancellor of the exchequer. With 0 years experience at banking as against 4,000 years he handed over the regulation of our banks to the Financial Services Authority who look after insurance and assurance, and came up with 8,000 pages of regulation.
Brilliant.
I was not born in the Lebanon, nor am I Lebanese, but I grew up there, and I can tell you I am not surprised.
There are various articles in the media, like this in the Financial Times, and this on the BBC and Robert Fisk here, who asks this:
But someone needs to explain to me how this little Middle Eastern cabbage patch is bouncing along so happily amid the cyclones ripping through the world's economy.The answer is of course simple. The Lebanese have been engaged in the business of banking, both national and international, contracting, both national though more frequently international and trade for something like 4,000 years. After a while you get the hand of it, and avoid tulips, radio shares, the dot com bubble and so on.
The Lebanese banking sector has been both strong, and trusted in western markets for as long as western markets have existed, even in times of war. I was there when people tried to rob banks of there cash and gold reserves. It didn't work.
Yet the Lebanese banking system works on few rules, like adequate liquidity and not buying into risky investments.
In fact the reality is that the Lebanese banking rules are so short that anyone could understand them, to the point where they can't be got around.
Crucially also Lebanon's banks are regulated by their central bank, like ours were until Gordon Brown became Chancellor of the exchequer. With 0 years experience at banking as against 4,000 years he handed over the regulation of our banks to the Financial Services Authority who look after insurance and assurance, and came up with 8,000 pages of regulation.
Brilliant.
Thursday, December 04, 2008
The Bank of England's pointless interest rate cut
Many people have been calling for the Bank of England to cut interest rates, even after last months massive shocker of a 1.5% cut which I said was pointless when it happened.
Well, they have done it again, and cut interest rates by 1% to an all time low of 2% which has not been seen for 57 years. If it goes any lower it will be lower than since the creation of the bank.
It seems some people think that what the Bank of England does on interest rates is relevant.
It isn't. Not even a little bit.
If you don't believe me try lending money to a bank, offering good terms for how long they keep it, and see how much they are prepared to pay. You will find that it is considerably more than 2%, or even 3%. In fact it is more likely to be at the range of 4.5% to 6%.
It is also clear that the Bank of England has absolutely no intention of lending money to banks at 2% either, so where is this money going to come from?
It should be noted that UK lending institutions have since 2001 lent £700 billion more than they have in domestic deposits. Non domestic lenders must think we are mad if we think they are going to buy a rapidly devaluing pound with high inflation to lend at a very low rate which will see their original capital devalued. In essence we are asking for people to give us money on a non commercial basis.
What is more savers are being savaged.
Here is a thought, going against just about every other commentator.
Put interest rates up, so that people are prepared to lend to inflation + 1%.
I know lots of people will howl, but the problem we have right now is less that banks are charging lots for money, and far more that they just do not have the money to lend, especially as lenders can get a far better rate lending to our government which is about to swallow a massive amount of cash.
The BBC has this.
Well, they have done it again, and cut interest rates by 1% to an all time low of 2% which has not been seen for 57 years. If it goes any lower it will be lower than since the creation of the bank.
It seems some people think that what the Bank of England does on interest rates is relevant.
It isn't. Not even a little bit.
If you don't believe me try lending money to a bank, offering good terms for how long they keep it, and see how much they are prepared to pay. You will find that it is considerably more than 2%, or even 3%. In fact it is more likely to be at the range of 4.5% to 6%.
It is also clear that the Bank of England has absolutely no intention of lending money to banks at 2% either, so where is this money going to come from?
It should be noted that UK lending institutions have since 2001 lent £700 billion more than they have in domestic deposits. Non domestic lenders must think we are mad if we think they are going to buy a rapidly devaluing pound with high inflation to lend at a very low rate which will see their original capital devalued. In essence we are asking for people to give us money on a non commercial basis.
What is more savers are being savaged.
Here is a thought, going against just about every other commentator.
Put interest rates up, so that people are prepared to lend to inflation + 1%.
I know lots of people will howl, but the problem we have right now is less that banks are charging lots for money, and far more that they just do not have the money to lend, especially as lenders can get a far better rate lending to our government which is about to swallow a massive amount of cash.
The BBC has this.
Wednesday, December 03, 2008
Harriet Harman refuses to back speaker Martin!
I have just watched a clip of an interview from tonights News Night where Jeremy Paxman asked Harriet Harman if she had confidence in the Speaker Michael Martin or the Sergeant at Arms Jill Pays.
She refused to do so!
Oh dear!
I shall of course be watching at 10:30!
She refused to do so!
Oh dear!
I shall of course be watching at 10:30!
Greengate, Jill Pays, Speaker Martin and the Police
The Speaker of the House of Commons, Michael Martin made a statement in the house of commons today which as Iain Dale notes tends to lead to more questions than it gives answers.
Lets look at the arguments.
No body is above the law!
Rubbish. How is the archery practice going, and how many hackney carriages carry a bale of hay? Further more the police and other emergency services get away with speeding when on an emergency.
Clearly there are circumstances where the law is not applied because it is ridiculous or overlooked in the public interest.
Firstly many parliamentarians, and indeed many journalists and commentators have cited parliamentary privilege, and its breach in this case. This is not some antiquated old rule that allows members of parliament to do what ever they want, it is a protection that parliament has so that it can do its job of protecting people and their liberties from an over mighty state. The following resolution is passed before each session of parliament:
The crime it is alleged has been committed is that of misconduct in public office, or aiding abetting conspiring to cause misconduct in public office, defined in CPS guidance as:
In order for the crime to be committed it has to in effect injure the public interest as well as falling well below the standards of the office holder. Rather obviously the leaks which are complained about are in the public interest and in fact have caused to government to fix things which it knew were broken but sought to hide.
Even if you could accuse Chris Galley of the offence (which you can't because you can't show he injured the public interest) then we have the question of parliamentary privilege. This protects an MP from interference in his job as an MP amongst other things, and in this case the job of holding the government to account. Clearly if the government is trying to hide its failings then the only way to get hold of information is via leaks. It is the legitimate business of parliament and there have been leaks for as long as there has been government.
It gets worse for the government because the cases involving leaks to the press have all either been lost by the Crown on appeal or thrown out before the jury trial started.
Some say "Ah but that does not put him above the law!" well, I say cobblers. It does not put him above the law as in he can ignore it, but laws apply differently to different classes of people. The order which states parliamentary privilege gets passed every year by parliament and so one would have thought it superseded the common law offence which we are talking about.
Then some even cite the case of Lord Cochrane who they say was arrested whilst sitting on the government benches supposedly to prove that parliamentary privilege does not make you immune from the law. The argument is sophistry at its very best. Lord Cochrane was arrested after having escaped from prison having been found guilty of fraud. It can't be said that the criminal act of which he was accused was part of the legitimate business of a parliamentarian so obviously the question of parliamentary privilege did not arise for it to be put aside.
Lets look at the arguments.
No body is above the law!
Rubbish. How is the archery practice going, and how many hackney carriages carry a bale of hay? Further more the police and other emergency services get away with speeding when on an emergency.
Clearly there are circumstances where the law is not applied because it is ridiculous or overlooked in the public interest.
Firstly many parliamentarians, and indeed many journalists and commentators have cited parliamentary privilege, and its breach in this case. This is not some antiquated old rule that allows members of parliament to do what ever they want, it is a protection that parliament has so that it can do its job of protecting people and their liberties from an over mighty state. The following resolution is passed before each session of parliament:
Any action taken by either a Member of Parliament or a stranger which obstructs or impedes either Parliament in the performance of its functions, or its Members or staff in the performance of their duties, is a contempt of Parliament. Examples of contempt include giving false evidence to a parliamentary committee, threatening a Member of Parliament, forgery of documents and attempting to bribe members.This law clearly protects parliament and its members, not in all circumstances but where they are carrying out their duty. The main duties of an MP are to represent their constituents and to hold the government to account. The later is what concerns us here, and that is what Damian Green was doing. Alas it is frequently the case that a department that is not fit for purpose, such as the Home Office does not try to fix it self but hide its failings instead. This is where leaks come in.
The crime it is alleged has been committed is that of misconduct in public office, or aiding abetting conspiring to cause misconduct in public office, defined in CPS guidance as:
a) A public officer acting as such.Now where do we start? If you read this article on the subject here on wikicrimeline and this case here where the Attorney general sought the advice of the court, it is clear that no crime has been committed, further more that the police would have established such by merely asking what had been leaked and where it had turned up.
b) Wilfully neglects to perform his duty and/or wilfully misconducts himself.
c) To such a degree as to amount to an abuse of the public's trust in the office holder.
d) Without reasonable excuse or justification.
In order for the crime to be committed it has to in effect injure the public interest as well as falling well below the standards of the office holder. Rather obviously the leaks which are complained about are in the public interest and in fact have caused to government to fix things which it knew were broken but sought to hide.
Even if you could accuse Chris Galley of the offence (which you can't because you can't show he injured the public interest) then we have the question of parliamentary privilege. This protects an MP from interference in his job as an MP amongst other things, and in this case the job of holding the government to account. Clearly if the government is trying to hide its failings then the only way to get hold of information is via leaks. It is the legitimate business of parliament and there have been leaks for as long as there has been government.
It gets worse for the government because the cases involving leaks to the press have all either been lost by the Crown on appeal or thrown out before the jury trial started.
Some say "Ah but that does not put him above the law!" well, I say cobblers. It does not put him above the law as in he can ignore it, but laws apply differently to different classes of people. The order which states parliamentary privilege gets passed every year by parliament and so one would have thought it superseded the common law offence which we are talking about.
Then some even cite the case of Lord Cochrane who they say was arrested whilst sitting on the government benches supposedly to prove that parliamentary privilege does not make you immune from the law. The argument is sophistry at its very best. Lord Cochrane was arrested after having escaped from prison having been found guilty of fraud. It can't be said that the criminal act of which he was accused was part of the legitimate business of a parliamentarian so obviously the question of parliamentary privilege did not arise for it to be put aside.
Monday, December 01, 2008
Greengate, Harriet Harman plans a secret meeting!
Apparently Harriet Harman, Jacqui Smith and Speaker Michael Martin (along with Jill Pays sergeant at arms and others) are having a secret meeting tomorrow to discuss Speaker Martin's statement about the arrest of Damian Green.
Needles to say that is highly irregular as it includes no members of opposition parties.
All this we know from a leaked email sent to the Conservatives.
Iain Dale has this.
Needles to say that is highly irregular as it includes no members of opposition parties.
All this we know from a leaked email sent to the Conservatives.
Iain Dale has this.
Sharon Shoesmith sacked!
Sharon Shoesmith, Haringey head of children's services has been sacked with immediate effect according to Ed Balls the children's minister, after what he has described as a devastating interim report into the death of baby P, who as you will know died of persistent horrific long term abuse.
Makes you kind of glad she did not resign. I do hope she does not get some kind of massive payoff.
I am also pleased, that unlike Gordon Brown, Ed Balls has not tried to use this case for party political advantage but seems to have done the right thing.
The BBC has this.
More later when the situation is clearer.
Makes you kind of glad she did not resign. I do hope she does not get some kind of massive payoff.
I am also pleased, that unlike Gordon Brown, Ed Balls has not tried to use this case for party political advantage but seems to have done the right thing.
The BBC has this.
More later when the situation is clearer.
The Political implications of the arrest of Damian Green
I note that the political implications of the arrest of Damian Green are growing by the hour.
It started as outright horror on the opposition benches, with both David Cameron and Nick Clegg coming out strongly, followed by people like Tony Benn (Viscount Stansgate as was).
Well over the weekend whilst there has been briefing by the police against Damian Green (who is going to investigate that leak?) and cobblers talked by the Alleged Home Secretary Jacqui Smith we have had some interesting cover been broken by members of the cabinet.
We have had Harriet Harman, Jack Straw coming out against, whilst the speaker Michael Martin will make a statement on Wednesday. Now even Gordon Brown the Prime minister has come out and said there may need to be an inquiry.
The police are looking very bad as is Jacqui Smith.
The BBC has this.
It started as outright horror on the opposition benches, with both David Cameron and Nick Clegg coming out strongly, followed by people like Tony Benn (Viscount Stansgate as was).
Well over the weekend whilst there has been briefing by the police against Damian Green (who is going to investigate that leak?) and cobblers talked by the Alleged Home Secretary Jacqui Smith we have had some interesting cover been broken by members of the cabinet.
We have had Harriet Harman, Jack Straw coming out against, whilst the speaker Michael Martin will make a statement on Wednesday. Now even Gordon Brown the Prime minister has come out and said there may need to be an inquiry.
The police are looking very bad as is Jacqui Smith.
The BBC has this.
Friday, November 28, 2008
Damien Green and the Police's contempt of Parliament
In order for Parliament to hold the executive to account it needs to operate without fear and also needs to be given information which the executive does not want it to hear. In other words leaks. They are part and parcel of parliament holding government to account.
There is an offence of Contempt of Parliament which is defined as (Also see here):
The police officers involved need to be arrested and brought before parliament.
The speaker, Michael Martin also needs to be relieved of his position as he has clearly failed to protect parliament.
Labour bloggers are apparently talking all sorts of twaddle on the subject. Consider this from Daniel Finkelstein on what was leaked to Gordon Brown when he was in opposition and ask yourself the question; would you want that stifled? Would that be in the interests of democracy?
Iain Dale also has this, Dizzy has this and Guido has this. The Guardian also has this.
There is an offence of Contempt of Parliament which is defined as (Also see here):
Any action taken by either a Member of Parliament or a stranger which obstructs or impedes either Parliament in the performance of its functions, or its Members or staff in the performance of their duties, is a contempt of Parliament. Examples of contempt include giving false evidence to a parliamentary committee, threatening a Member of Parliament, forgery of documents and attempting to bribe members.Clearly as getting leaks and using them to hold government to account are part of parliaments daily business then interfering with that is contempt of parliament.
The police officers involved need to be arrested and brought before parliament.
The speaker, Michael Martin also needs to be relieved of his position as he has clearly failed to protect parliament.
Labour bloggers are apparently talking all sorts of twaddle on the subject. Consider this from Daniel Finkelstein on what was leaked to Gordon Brown when he was in opposition and ask yourself the question; would you want that stifled? Would that be in the interests of democracy?
Iain Dale also has this, Dizzy has this and Guido has this. The Guardian also has this.
Stasi arrest Damien Green over telling the truth!
After in sheer disbelief looking around for a bit and reading various reports it appears the East German Secret Police (Commissioner, New Labour Commissar Comrade Ian Blaire) have arrested Damien Green the Conservative Shadow immigration minister for the heinous crime of having proof the government are telling lie after lie after lie after lie shoved in his hand and quite possibly telling people about it in an attempt to hold the executive to account.
The speaker of the House of Commons, Michael Martin allowed the police to search his house of commons office.
This is all unheard of stuff in this country and is reminiscent of all sorts of totalitarian regimes, such as Hitler's, Stalin's or indeed East Germany's/ (Oh, and of course, the EU).
Be afraid, very afraid. Or just stand up and say NO!
The BBC has this, the Telegraph has this. Iain Dale has this and Guido has this.
The speaker of the House of Commons, Michael Martin allowed the police to search his house of commons office.
This is all unheard of stuff in this country and is reminiscent of all sorts of totalitarian regimes, such as Hitler's, Stalin's or indeed East Germany's/ (Oh, and of course, the EU).
Be afraid, very afraid. Or just stand up and say NO!
The BBC has this, the Telegraph has this. Iain Dale has this and Guido has this.
Thursday, November 27, 2008
Woolworths to be saved?
Last night we received news that Woolworths was being put into administration, broken by the burden of excessive debt.
I felt very sorry about that, not least because up to 30,000 jobs could be lost, but also because I regularly buy things there and always have. Last night I was fitting an external draught excluder in the dark. I used a battery powered rechargeable fluorescent lamp bought from Woolworths several years ago. Still works fine!
The good news is that Woolworths might well be rescued! Good.
The administrator will keep Woolworths open until after Christmas, but with a bit of luck it will be rescued by then.
The BBC has this.
I felt very sorry about that, not least because up to 30,000 jobs could be lost, but also because I regularly buy things there and always have. Last night I was fitting an external draught excluder in the dark. I used a battery powered rechargeable fluorescent lamp bought from Woolworths several years ago. Still works fine!
The good news is that Woolworths might well be rescued! Good.
The administrator will keep Woolworths open until after Christmas, but with a bit of luck it will be rescued by then.
The BBC has this.
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
What I could have done with an extra £100 a month!
It is I have to say fascinating talking to real people of all parties, including those running businesses, middle and low earners and hard bitten old Labour types.
None of them can see much point in what this government is proposing to do with VAT.
However, looking at the relative costs, both Bob Piper (not new Labour, not old Labour, just Labour), the Adam Smith institute, Iain Dale and indeed I agree on is that it would be oh so much better just to raise personal income tax allowances, for the same cost as the VAT giveaway to £10,000 per year giving every wage earner £66 per month, or for the cost of the whole package over £100 per month.
It would have lifted millions out of tax and really incentevised work.
I could really do with the money. I wont see any of the VAT decrease, but i would see cash in my pocket, to do with as I want.
Now wouldn't that be good?
None of them can see much point in what this government is proposing to do with VAT.
However, looking at the relative costs, both Bob Piper (not new Labour, not old Labour, just Labour), the Adam Smith institute, Iain Dale and indeed I agree on is that it would be oh so much better just to raise personal income tax allowances, for the same cost as the VAT giveaway to £10,000 per year giving every wage earner £66 per month, or for the cost of the whole package over £100 per month.
It would have lifted millions out of tax and really incentevised work.
I could really do with the money. I wont see any of the VAT decrease, but i would see cash in my pocket, to do with as I want.
Now wouldn't that be good?
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
VAT cut wont work and wont help the poor
Alistair Darling's pre budget report is out and it is nothing of the sort it is an emergency budget as the debt bubble comes home to roost.
The VAT cut wont work in that it will not sufficiently boost spending.
It crucially will do very little for middle and low income earners whose budgets are already stretched as they already have little spare to spend on items on which you pay VAT that has not also been clawed back in duty raises.
Consider the average family budget. What is it spent on at the moment and why is it squeezed? Well lets look at the top items.
What is more as massive shop discounts have not brought about nirvana what will a paltry discount do?
Now, what will help. Well when lower household gas and electric bills turn up they will relieve the pressure on hard pressed households and may even make them feel good. Rises in tax credits will help for those who claim them as well.
All in all it would have made much more sense to cut income tax though.
The BBC has this.
The VAT cut wont work in that it will not sufficiently boost spending.
It crucially will do very little for middle and low income earners whose budgets are already stretched as they already have little spare to spend on items on which you pay VAT that has not also been clawed back in duty raises.
Consider the average family budget. What is it spent on at the moment and why is it squeezed? Well lets look at the top items.
- Housing costs (rent or mortgage) no VAT.
- Food. Mostly no VAT (Special cases luxury foods such as biscuits not essential ones like cakes, go figure.)
- Gas and electricity. No VAT reduction as VAT is only charged at 5%.
- Transport costs. Fuel VAT cuts will be made up for by increases in duty.
- Beer, wine and cigarettes. All VAT reductions to be more than clawed back.
What is more as massive shop discounts have not brought about nirvana what will a paltry discount do?
Now, what will help. Well when lower household gas and electric bills turn up they will relieve the pressure on hard pressed households and may even make them feel good. Rises in tax credits will help for those who claim them as well.
All in all it would have made much more sense to cut income tax though.
The BBC has this.
Monday, November 24, 2008
National Insurance and Fuel to rise!
Is Alistair Darling having a laugh?
National insurance to rise again and petrol and deisel duty to rise to take account of drop in VAT!
National insurance is in effect a tax on jobs!
What a git!
National insurance to rise again and petrol and deisel duty to rise to take account of drop in VAT!
National insurance is in effect a tax on jobs!
What a git!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
