Comments on: Would you leave this country?

By: Lynne Featherstone

Lynne Featherstone — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 15:16:41 +0000

Terence – exactly right. In fact, quite recently we voted for the House administration to take over all the administration of staff etc -which is how it was done when I was on the Greater London Authority – much better and clearer.

By: Terence Eden

Terence Eden — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 14:30:30 +0000

There’s currently a public consultation on the issue of MPs’ expenses – http://mpexpensesconsultation.org.uk/

One of the issues that I’ve raised on it is that MPs’ staff salaries shouldn’t be counted as an expense. The staff should be employed like /as civil servants.

I’d advise anyone interested in the issue to complete the consultation. It’s a fairly simple web form and won’t take more than 30 minutes.

By: Lynne Featherstone

Lynne Featherstone — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 14:25:22 +0000

Absolute rubbish Al – that’s part the problem – ‘expenses’ are for the most part staff salaries, office rental and costs, postage etc – not a penny of which is part of salary. I get the basic salary and London weighting and that is it!

By: Al

Al — Wed, 06 Jan 2010 16:54:44 +0000

Note that an MP on a salary of £64,000 is also claiming on average tax free expenses of £144,000 – equivalent to a total taxed salary of £304,000 for the rest of us mortals who have to pay tax on the full whack.

By: Lynne Featherstone

Lynne Featherstone — Wed, 06 Jan 2010 13:01:43 +0000

Well DK – if you want to test out 50% on MPs you would have to raise their salary to a point where the 50% kicked in. It comes in on earnings over £150,000. And whilst I sense your hatred for all MPs and your belief that we should be paid virtually nothing – you just make a tit of yourself when your argument is so rubbish.

By: Devil's Kitchen

Devil's Kitchen — Tue, 05 Jan 2010 19:06:39 +0000

Lynne,

I think that we should test out the 50% rate on MPs first—how about that.

Of course, with NI added on, it’s actually more like 64%, so I think that you’ll find that your… what? £65,000… becomes £16,900 take-home pay.

Of course, I don’t think that you deserve even that much—so it’s a good thing that your pay isn’t set at a level that I think you deserve, isn’t it?

By: Bishop Brennan

Bishop Brennan — Mon, 04 Jan 2010 15:48:38 +0000

The problems with a 50% rate are:

- The very rich are uber-mobile, so will move abroad. Revenue will fall.
- Someone who can’t move abroad has less incentive to work hard, with the State taking, by force, more than half of their earnings. Revenue will fall.
- These two factors also remove a large amount of spending from the economy. Revenue will fall.

In the end, high taxes are simply the politics of envy, and don’t increase revenues. As much as I would like to earn £150k +, I won’t ever do so. And, actually, that’s fine – I have a good life. But I don’t think others should be made slaves of the state for having the good luck and working hard enough to earn that much (for many of them, it will have been that or earn very little – they took the risk).

However, the economic mindset that goes with the creation of a 50% tax rate might make me leave the country (I am lucky enough to be able to move to the US). In particular, the reality that it is people like me who are on a middle income who end up paying most tax – only to see it frittered away.

By: Nonconformistradical

Nonconformistradical — Mon, 04 Jan 2010 09:05:54 +0000

“I think Nonconformistradical has misunderstood the nature of the bank “bailouts” – the equity and derivative traders who make the money and earn the big bonuses (generally based on the profits they earn for their employer, so they really do earn it: if I somehow made my employer a hundred million pounds, I’d feel quite entitled to 1%!) are a totally different activity from the “retail” banking which got overextended writing long-term loans on the back of short-term deposits.”

As I understand it the derivatives and other ‘funny money’ involve packaging up the original bad loans and selling them on in such a form that few understand what they are really buying.

These people are just messing about in a gambling casino making short-term gains and to hell with the consequences.

It would be interesting to know what are the bonus policies in some of the other FTSE 100 companies whose profits go up because of factors not directly due to their own efforts e.g. rising commodity prices – price of oil goes up and BP’s profits rocket. Do they dish out ridiculous bonuses on that basis?

By: Lee

Lee — Mon, 04 Jan 2010 01:34:50 +0000

I just think there is something wrong with the government taking half of your money. Obviously, we need to pay tax because we use the infrastructure and everything else, but 50% is too much. The super rich have the whizz-kid lawyers to help them avoid paying tax, but the aspiring cafe owner or the doctor will be the ones who get hit. I say this as someone who only works part-time and doesn’t even earn enough to warrant paying any tax. Give me that 50% and I’m sure I could benefit my local community a lot more with the money than the government.

By: James Sutherland

James Sutherland — Sat, 02 Jan 2010 18:20:10 +0000

I think Nonconformistradical has misunderstood the nature of the bank “bailouts” – the equity and derivative traders who make the money and earn the big bonuses (generally based on the profits they earn for their employer, so they really do earn it: if I somehow made my employer a hundred million pounds, I’d feel quite entitled to 1%!) are a totally different activity from the “retail” banking which got overextended writing long-term loans on the back of short-term deposits. The lax mortgages, some even offering instant negative equity, were ridiculous – but the government itself underwrote some of those, continuing to offer them through Northern Rock even after the government bought it!

I’m not close to hitting a 50% tax band, but the very concept of there being a level of income at which the state feels entitled to grab the majority (with NI) of your income for itself is disturbing.

Like Terence says, tax is the price we pay for services from the state. My local council is, for me, appalling value: thousands of pounds per year, and they only empty the bins every second week? If I had a use for more of their services, I could perhaps justify it, or more – but I don’t.

Nonconformistradical does perhaps have a point about bankers not really earning tens of millions of pounds – but can anyone honestly claim those bankers receive the tens of millions of pounds worth of services from the government that they are somehow being expected to pay for?

For me, paying more money for less service doesn’t make me feel better at all – it makes me feel ripped off and want to leave. Essentially, government, national and local, is just a provider of some services which has a monopoly within that region. If prices get too high or service gets too bad, I’ll switch suppliers – it’s more difficult than switching electricity supplier, but much the same principle.

I suppose I might feel differently if I felt I had a real say in the government’s actions – but neither my council nor the government has ever pretended to care. Twice a decade those of us who can be bothered go and cast a vote, almost all of us against the incumbent, who usually wins anyway by having a slightly bigger minority than the others, then the government goes ahead with whatever it felt like doing anyway. I see other countries – like Switzerland and some US state governments – where the electorate can overrule the government on specific issues. Right now, the only real choice the government leaves me is whether or not to stay here!