PDA

View Full Version : Gordon's 10 worst financial gaffes



Clippy
29th December 2009, 22:18
Read 'em and weep! (http://timesbusiness.typepad.com/money_weblog/2009/06/gordons-10-worst-financial-gaffs.html)

Prudence my @rse!

Gonzo
29th December 2009, 22:55
1. Taxing dividend payments

There is an argument to be made that this was a clever tax grab because it is not obvious to people how they are being effected and those effected are not core Labour voters in any case. The full impacts such as the closure of so many final salary pension schemes (although this was not the only cause of that) would take years to become obvious.

2. Selling our gold

You could argue that noone knows whether the price would go up or down over the long time so it could have turned into a good call. It is just that it didn't but the impacts were not huge.

3. Tripartite financial regulation

This is the one thing that Gordon seriously got wrong and has been a huge disaster but few people seem to realise.

4. Tax credits

I am not surprised that complicated policies are difficult to implement but you have to expect that from socialists who want to micro-manage everything.

5. The £10,000 corporation tax threshold

There is an argument that this clever move brought large numbers of cash in hand businesses out of the black economy.

6. Abolition of the 10p tax rate

Guilty of a bad policy move there. You have to expect one or two of those during a parliament.

7. Failing to spot the housing bubble
Gordon Brown said he ended boom and bust, and in those innocent days before the collapse of the global finance system we believed him.:laugh All Chancellors say that after a long spell of good luck. They are always wrong. :laugh

8. 50 per cent tax rate

We might not like it but I doubt that this will end up counting as a "gaffe".

9. Cutting VAT

Too early to tell. We have to wait and see the effect on inflation work through yet. That said it was too small a gesture to have any great effect on the consumption driven UK economy - what were they thinking?

10. Public-sector borrowing

Whatever happened to the "Golden Rule"? :laugh

All in all, I think that is a pretty piss-poor article.

NickFitz
30th December 2009, 03:15
Ah, so the Murdoch press are still anti-Labour then? The fact that, less than six months ago, the same journalist would have been writing an article praising Brown's policies makes me wonder how much faith to place in this :rolleyes:

(Only kidding - I've known all my life not to place any faith in anything printed in a Murdoch rag, whether I want to believe it or not.)

d000hg
30th December 2009, 03:59
8. 50 per cent tax rate

We might not like it but I doubt that this will end up counting as a "gaffe".Agreed. People here talk about how it will lead to a 'brain drain', but then praise Tory policies to raise tax as a necessity to fix Labour's cock-up. Make up your minds. Or maybe you only want to raise tax for the poor people (Labour voters) who don't have much to tax in the first place. Like it or hate it, the rich (and most here ARE rich comparatively) are the ones who have the money to spare on fixing the nation's economy, regardless of whose fault it is.

xoggoth
30th December 2009, 09:39
Time to stop thinking in terms of rich and poor and start differentiating between the deserving and undeserving. Why are Western socialists so lax in requiring everyone to make an effort commensurate with their ability as Marx required?

Maybe it isn't somebody's "fault" that they lack drive and discipline, we are all the products of our upbringing but in such cases the state should impose on them the discipline they lack. Did they have able bodied people on long term benefits in the USSSR? Hand out benefits to dishonest foreigners who have made no contribution to the UK? I don't think so. In China they place an enormous emphasis on acheivement.

PS I don't think there are enough idle rich for their taxes to solve our problems. "Rich" in Labour terms means the moderately well off who have worked for a living.

PPS A major reason why we still have this ludicrous class struggle in the UK is that we never had the catharsis of a bloody revolution. Where is our Franco?

BrilloPad
30th December 2009, 09:44
Agreed. People here talk about how it will lead to a 'brain drain', but then praise Tory policies to raise tax as a necessity to fix Labour's cock-up. Make up your minds. Or maybe you only want to raise tax for the poor people (Labour voters) who don't have much to tax in the first place. Like it or hate it, the rich (and most here ARE rich comparatively) are the ones who have the money to spare on fixing the nation's economy, regardless of whose fault it is.

If JP MOrgan decides to relocate its new London offices somewhere else then the 50% might be seen as the worst gaff of all.

The 50% tax will be on people who could be located anywhere. They are the sort of people who need to be encouraged to come here.

Did you know the top 1% of earners contribute 24% of the tax income?

norrahe
30th December 2009, 10:43
It doesn't matter who gets in, in the next election, for all the promises Cameron has been making, he might as well forget them as the country is fiscally hamstrung for the next 20 years.

norrahe
30th December 2009, 10:44
Ah, so the Murdoch press are still anti-Labour then? The fact that, less than six months ago, the same journalist would have been writing an article praising Brown's policies makes me wonder how much faith to place in this :rolleyes:

(Only kidding - I've known all my life not to place any faith in anything printed in a Murdoch rag, whether I want to believe it or not.)

They're currently fence sitting, hard on labour but not exactly praiseworthy of the tories

OwlHoot
30th December 2009, 11:24
.. Why are Western socialists so lax in requiring everyone to make an effort commensurate with their ability as Marx required? ...

Although I agree Western governments are too indulgent with handouts and useless make-work employment and so on, there isn't nearly enough worthwhile work to go round any more, and in years to come it'll get much much worse as far more tasks are automated.

In a way western societies are already venturing into a post-employment age, and it's countries like China who are still in Industrial Revolution mode.

Today a large poor population is a boon for cheap labour and military might; but in forty years or sooner the boot will be on the other foot ...

(We just have to ensure the Chinks don't leapfrog us and become the first to develop practical robots)

d000hg
30th December 2009, 11:46
Time to stop thinking in terms of rich and poor and start differentiating between the deserving and undeserving. Why are Western socialists so lax in requiring everyone to make an effort commensurate with their ability as Marx required? Because we're not Marxists?

norrahe
30th December 2009, 12:03
Although I agree Western governments are too indulgent with handouts and useless make-work employment and so on, [/SIZE]


I have to ask why are governments so ready to hand out money to those who cannot be bothered to find work (not matter what) for themselves and why do we as taxpayers have to fund the beer swilling masses who are nothing but a leech on society.

It seems if you pay taxes for 20 years and then have the mishap to have been made redundant, you sign on and are entitled to sweet FA, but if you can't be bothered to get a job, it's a case of "here, how much do you want?" :tantrum:

It's a tad skewed, if you ask me!!!!!

Tarquin Farquhar
30th December 2009, 12:26
If JP MOrgan decides to relocate its new London offices somewhere else then the 50% might be seen as the worst gaff of all.

The 50% tax will be on people who could be located anywhere. They are the sort of people who need to be encouraged to come here.

Did you know the top 1% of earners contribute 24% of the tax income?It's called progressive taxation, you'd expect higher earners to pay more, and the extreme high end to pay a lot more. In the USA the top 1% of earners pay 39.4% (http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2007/10/top-1-pay-more-.html) of federal income taxes; so the top 1% in the UK are probably not going to escape to the US to save taxes! It seems that the UK is a lot more unequal that the USA. You want to be even more unequal that that?

Doggy Styles
30th December 2009, 13:41
8. 50 per cent tax rate

We might not like it but I doubt that this will end up counting as a "gaffe".I'm not sure about that (http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/banking_and_finance/article6969976.ece)

JP Morgan and HSBC may be the first of a few.

Platypus
30th December 2009, 13:45
I'm not sure about that (http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/banking_and_finance/article6969976.ece)

JP Morgan and HSBC may be the first of a few.

I doubt it - just the usual scare tactics.

Doggy Styles
30th December 2009, 13:55
It's called progressive taxation, you'd expect higher earners to pay more, and the extreme high end to pay a lot more.That's a common socialist mistake. They already do pay more. 40% of 250,000 is a much larger contribution to public funding than 40% of 40,000.

And 40% of 2.5 million is a hell of a lot more that that. If just one of those leaves the country, the taxes of more than 200 people on average wage are needed to make up the slack.


In the USA the top 1% of earners pay 39.4% (http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2007/10/top-1-pay-more-.html) of federal income taxes; so the top 1% in the UK are probably not going to escape to the US to save taxes!

It seems that the UK is a lot more unequal that the USA. You want to be even more unequal that that?The USA has a comparitively richer top 1% than us, and a lot more very low earners, hence the difference.

original PM
30th December 2009, 13:59
I have to ask why are governments so ready to hand out money to those who cannot be bothered to find work (not matter what) for themselves and why do we as taxpayers have to fund the beer swilling masses who are nothing but a leech on society.

It seems if you pay taxes for 20 years and then have the mishap to have been made redundant, you sign on and are entitled to sweet FA, but if you can't be bothered to get a job, it's a case of "here, how much do you want?" :tantrum:

It's a tad skewed, if you ask me!!!!!

Its completely fooked to be honest.

Give those without jobs food stamps and clothing vouchers so they can stay fed and warm - we need to stop giving the money as all they do is buy booze n drugs.

They should all be sterilised too - most of em are do not have the brains to be in charge of their ovaries/sperm.

Pondlife
30th December 2009, 14:01
Its completely fooked to be honest.

Give those without jobs food stamps and clothing vouchers so they can stay fed and warm - we need to stop giving the money as all they do is buy booze n drugs.

They should all be sterilised too - most of em are do not have the brains to be in charge of their ovaries/sperm.

I'd love to know the cut off point here. :D

hyperD
30th December 2009, 14:13
They should all be sterilised too - most of em are do not have the brains to be in charge of their ovaries/sperm.

Simply pay a fixed amount of benefits as vouchers. Want 10 spawns from 10 different baby fathas? Fine. Your choice. Just don't expect extra cash for opening your legs wide to the world without taking responsibility for your own actions.

Scary
30th December 2009, 14:16
That's a common socialist mistake. They already do pay more. 40% of 250,000 is a much larger contribution to public funding than 40% of 40,000.

40,000 is needed to live fairly comfortably outside London, the other 210,000 is spare extra money over and above what's needed for a comfortable lifestyle so should be taxed differently.

Doggy Styles
30th December 2009, 15:33
40,000 is needed to live fairly comfortably outside London, the other 210,000 is spare extra money over and above what's needed for a comfortable lifestyle so should be taxed differently.Spare money left over? Only a marxist would make a comment like that.

Same tax rates for all of us. There can be no quibbling then, unless we get into the politics of envy.

norrahe
30th December 2009, 15:46
Spare money left over? Only a marxist would make a comment like that.

Same tax rates for all of us. There can be no quibbling then, unless we get into the politics of envy.

10% flat rate all round then, that should keep everyone happy! :grin