Save content
Have you found this content useful? Use the button above to save it to your profile.
The paradox of pandering to the people
Save content
Have you found this content useful? Use the button above to save it to your profile.
Replies (15)
Please login or register to join the discussion.
??
The government is clearly pandering to the masses ie the unrich people.
How?
Thanks (0)Pandering to the people
Simple - by capping reliefs it makes the masses happy that *rich* people are not gaining
Thanks (0)Shirley ...
... come on , they are trying to be seen to be "cracking down" on the rich and privileged by curbing their tax breaks as a sop to the "unrich" - I thought that was obvious!
The fact it is the middle income "engine" of the nation that is taking the real damage is of little import!
Thanks (0)lol
You mean they are spinning a tale to make themselves look good???
We have a different interpretation of 'pandering'. In our part of the world pandering is used to mean 'spoiling' or 'waiting on them hand & foot'.
Thanks (0)Hmmm
pander 1) v. to solicit customers for a prostitute. 2) n. a pimp, who procures customers for a prostitute or lures a woman into prostitution, all for his own profit. 3) v. catering to special interests without any principles, such as a politician who says to whatever group he/she is addressing just what they want to hear to win their support, contributions, or favors. (See: prostitute)
Thanks (0)Old Graying Accountant?
Favors..... I ask you. You could at least quote from an English dictionary!!
Thanks (0)Another definition
Main Entry: pander [pan-der] Show IPA/ˈpændər/ Show SpelledPart of Speech: verb Definition: cater to, indulge Synonyms: brownnose, cajole, fall all over, gratify, lay it on, massage, play the game, play up to, please, politic, satisfy, snow*, soap, soften up, stroke, suck up to
... in any case ... dropping the 50% rate to 45% is hardly going to be seen as 'getting tough' on the high earners! They'll have a tough job convincing the 'unrich' that they are getting tough on the wealthy!
Thanks (0)Pandering
It may not be a BIG hit on *the rich* but it sends a signal to make others feel better. Herein exposes 2 issues that plague our nation.
Firstly , the jealousy of those who do well for themselves and create wealth and jobs for others , and secondly, the pejorative use of the term *rich* for people earning a very good living . I am a professional and in business - many people would define me as *rich* on the basis of the current debate. I do not consider myself rich so why should myself and my business be a target for people less financially fortunate as myself ? And by the way , what is wrong with being rich , even seriously rich with inherited wealth ? Good luck to those who have it if they got it legally.
However , I have little respect for those who abuse their money - not because they have it but because they think it makes them better than the rest of us. There is BIG difference between my view of the rich and the popular view that is being fomented at the moment in Westminster and in the press
Thanks (0)Peter ...
... like your old team I am multinational in my outlook these days.
Thanks (0)Another viewpoint
I think the main reason that people get upset is 'rich' people/big business dodging their responsibilities, or blackmailing the government into giving them more favourable terms.
If the big companies, and the wealthy, pay little or no tax, then others have to pay more if we wish to maintain our police, the health service, etc.
I have lost count of the times I have heard that big business and entrepeneurs help the economy by employing people. This scenario applies to all businesses that employ people, big or small, but the small businesses don't have any influence with the government.
Businesses are not employing people for some philanthropic reason, but because their employees help them make profits. They wouldn't employ them otherwise.
It is said that small business employ more people overall than big business so why are big business given such favourable deals? Maybe they are sitting ducks because they can't threaten to move their business out of the UK!
I declare I may be biased in my opinion because all of my clients are small business and I don't have any millionaire clients either.
Thanks (0)As the air borne kilted one says ...
... define rich?
To me a salary of £150,000 in London is not exceessive enough to justify a 50% (or 45%) tax band, where as in parts of Scotland £100,000 pa would make you a Laird.
Similarly, there are parts of the country where the £10k PA means you pay no tax, but the same job elsewhere means you do as the salries are more.
More unjust is the 40% band, in the SE most people on a modest wage will be higher rate tax payers, most in the NE won't!
Thanks (0)It would be nice :)
Unfortunately, the wages in the North don't equal those in the South. Those on £100k are few and far between so we should consider them to be extremely lucky! I suspect that is why people tend to move South, but rarely move North, in their search for a job. We also have higher unemployment, which maybe goes some way to explaining why they don't have to pay much.
I beg your pardon ... on second thoughts I think I heard that civil servants get the same rate of pay countrywide. The government wants to change this to reflect national averaging, but this is being strenuously resisted as some civil servant unions claim that this would cause local pay rates to drop even further.
EDIT: this subject is a bit like the chicken and the egg puzzle. Did the higher pay rates happen because of the higher cost of living, or the other way round?
Thanks (0)The rich
Unfortunately the term rich has moved from a conventional understanding that it covers those
with oddles of assets , such as our laird mentioned above , to those with a good salary . I reckon that
the vast majority of those earning £100k + have no substantial assets . Hardly rich .
I would even expand the salary to £250k per annum . Asset rich ? Perhaps a few investments but not going to be running a yacht .
Of course public services need funded and that has to come from tax but using loopholes and allowances is something everybody does . How many people "employ" their wives in non-existent jobs to utilise their allowance - the list goes on and on. It is not just the so-called rich that use the rules to their benefit , and often when they do it is more honest than Mr Average SME owner.
I think that as accountants you know exactly what I mean. But it doesn't make a good headline in a redtop newspaper , does it ?
Thanks (0)I do see your point although I wouldn't allow imaginary expenses
I think you are also strengthening my case ... in that if everyone paid a minimum of 20% tax on their income/profits (other than very low earners) it could well provide enough tax income for higher rate tax to be scrapped altogether.
Whilever big business is paying under 10% (we know some exist), and the very wealthy paying little or no tax, then it just has be made up by taxing middle and low earners more .... and then they will wonder why they pay a higher % of their gross income than wealthy people, etc. etc. It just goes round and around.
Thanks (0)Tax
I prefer a blanket allowance of around £10k and 15% across the board as it is apparently a level that discourages the black economy and is perceived as fair. Mind you I would keep the gift aid rules.
Together with this I would scrap all writing down allowances and such like except for R & D and a blanket CT of 15%
And my piece de la resistance is to extend VAT to many of the things currently exempt. Travel , books and yes , kids clothing. We have moved on a bit now from the old days and it will not discourage reading , and clothes have never been so cheap for basic decent apparel.
No accountant allows an imaginary expense but.....
Thanks (0)