Off Topic Great Britain General Election May 7th 2015.

I think at the time they made that decision they hadn't written off the next election ffs

 

Bollocks. They knew that if they had won, which was looking extremely unlikely at the time, they could have lowered it themselves. It was political point scoring, nothing else.

 

A labour govt increasing taxation knowing the Tories would reverse it and having that as the reason for doing it?

Oh do **** off

 

Nick Clegg: George Osborne is a very dangerous man
Lib Dem leader launches a scathing attack on his coalition colleague the chancellor and labels David Cameron ‘a classic traditional shire Tory’

please log in to view this image

Nick Clegg Photograph: JUSTIN TALLIS/AFP/Getty Images

George Osborne is a “very dangerous man” whose plan for the public finances would result in economic “disaster”, Nick Clegg has warned in one of his strongest attacks yet on the Tory strategy.
In an indication of a potential stumbling block in any post-election negotiation with the Tories, Clegg vowed he would do “everything in my power” to stop Osborne carrying out his plan.
After five years in coalition with the Conservatives, the Liberal Democrat leader said the prime minister, David Cameron, was “not too much about grand vision” and acknowledged he could “live with that” but was highly critical of the Tory chancellor.
He warned that Osborne’s plans for balancing the books, which involve an extra £12bn of welfare cuts and £13bn slashed from Whitehall budgets without any tax rises, were “socially and morally unacceptable”.
The Guardian email

please log in to view this image

 

Yeah it's not like politicians would ever put party politics before the interests of the Nation.

Labour had all of their time in office to introduce a 50% tax rate on earners of over £150000 yet only felt the need to put this up in 2010 as they were departing. In fact from 1997-2010 the highest rate was 40%. It therefore seems very hypocritical to have a go at the Tories over favouring millionaires.

 

....But the Conservative came to increase the VAT which is on the general public.

please log in to view this image

VAT rate rises from 17.5% to 20%

• 4 January 2011

The standard rate of VAT has risen from 17.5% to 20% as the government looks to boost tax revenues to cut its deficit.
Business groups have warned that retailers will be hit by the increase, while opponents of the rise have said the poorest will be hit hardest.
The government says the rise is necessary to help bring down the UK's high budget deficit.
Chancellor George Osborne said the move was more "progressive" than a hike in income tax or National Insurance.
Food, children's clothing, newspapers and magazines are not subject to VAT.
'Wrong tax'
When unveiling the VAT rise over the summer, Chancellor George Osborne said it would raise more than £13bn a year by the end of the parliament.
Read Stephanie's blog in full
However, the Labour opposition has accused the government of penalising low-income families.
Labour leader Ed Miliband said it was the "wrong tax at the wrong time", arguing that the rise would hit families at a time when they will be under pressure from government spending cuts.
And shadow chancellor Alan Johnson has warned the move is likely to hit the poor hardest.
But Mr Osborne told the BBC on Tuesday that targeting VAT was more "progressive" than increasing income tax or National Insurance.
Although they will end up paying less VAT in total, lower income households spend a bigger share of their incomes on taxed goods, meaning they are proportionately harder hit.

please log in to view this image

 

Are Labour going to reduce VAT? I'm not a Tory zealot and so I'm not going to defend the Tories raising it. I do think that we as a society need to be told clearly and honestly how we are are going to get out of this mess and not be treated to hypocritical statements all of the time. Unfortunately I don't think we as a society are ready to be told the truth and we don't have the calibre of politician across all parties to tell us either.

 

They announced it in 2009, it came into effect in 2010. Your notion that they merely introduced it at this point knowing that the Tories would reverse it is fanciful nonsense imo. They introduced it as it was a fair increase on the 1% of the population that hold the most wealth in this country.

The Tories have lowered it as they always look after their own, and the core of their own are firmly in the 1%.

 

Neither party is going to reduce VAT, increasing VAT is criminal. Most increment had been under the
Tories. Margret Thatcher took it from 7.5% and 15%..

 

You're exactly right mate. The Tories MO has always been to raise stealth taxation whilst appearing to lower income tax.

Lowering the top rate of tax by 5% is worth £50,000 a year to millionaire banker, whilst appeasing the masses with a £500 increase in the tax threshold worth £100 a year. Fair and equitable my arse.

 

If the Tories raise VAT and labour make no effort to reduce it I fail to see how labour are any better than the Tories. The politicians of both parties are cut from the same cloth these days, elite, rich and out of touch.

 

EU rules state that VAT can now not be lower than 15%. However the Tories increased it by 2,5% during this parliament.

I don't agree that all politicians across the spectrum are all cut from the same cloth, but 99% of Tories most definitely are, and a nice tweed it is to.

 

Plenty of millionaires from private schools, heirs and heiresses, large earners and property moguls within the Labour Party as well as the Tory party...

 

People who if they were puttng themselves first would be Tories, so therefore have a social conscience by definition

 

If you say so.

 

Put up a credible argument as to why that is an incorrect statement then?

As if you're a millionaire who'd personally benefit from Tory policies and you know you'd be worse off under a Labour regime, but still choose to not only support them but you feel that strongly about it that you make it your chosen career, then you're somebody who's got a social conscience by definition.

 

Any millionaire who goes into politics can have the same argument made. They could make more money by going into other careers yet become politicians so must have a social conscience as they are going into a job where they can make a difference. This logic applies to all the Tory millionaires who are MPs too.

 

If you can't see the distinct difference between someone who's actively supporting a party who they know will leave them worse off financially, than someone who's merely seeking to retain the status quo for the elite, then we might as well leave it there.

 

The Tory party deliberately and purposely targeted the poorest in society during these times of austerity with slogans like "we're all in this together" while the top earners have gotten richer and prospered.

 

A conservative minister once said "If it's not hurting it's not working"