Save content
Have you found this content useful? Use the button above to save it to your profile.

Margaret Thatcher and taxation

16th Apr 2013
Save content
Have you found this content useful? Use the button above to save it to your profile.

One has to say something about the woman who commenced the noble task of dismantling the structure of a civilised society, a task being carried forward bravely by Cameron and Osborne supported by the demented wailing of the Daily Mail and The Sun.

It is particularly worth noting that all the increased wealth in the country since then has accrued to the top 1% of the population in terms of income or wealth, and that for the average person income has effectively stood still, following the years from 1945 to 1979 when the country was moving slowly towards equality. The lowering of tax rates over time has simply given the advantage to the rich.

In 1979 I was working for the Inland Revenue, and saw how over the years that followed, as public sector incomes fell further and further behind the private sector, the department steadily lost its brightest performers to the burgeoning tax avoidance industry. It was in those years that the department started to lose its battles because it no longer had the right people to fight them, and its political masters took a distinctly relaxed view of complex tax avoidance: it just showed how clever you were. In some ways, I think, it has never recovered. Greed was good, and Greed won.

At the same time the great traditions of the UK Civil Service - the very notion of public service - were broken as workers in the public sector were, and are., constantly denigrated by their employers.

There was massive resistance to the Thatcher project: even apart from the miners, the 1980s seemed to be about demos as people tried to express their anger about what was being done to them or what was being done in their name. Resistance, whether passive or active, was in the air and in the end it was resistance to the poll tax that ended her career.

But the crushing of the trade unions, taking the law back to the nineteenth century, has left the ordinary worker helpless before the large employer. Work for nothing internships?  Zero hours contracts? Immigrants used as virtual slave labour by gangmasters? 

And then HMRC’s entirely toothless policing of the minimum wage legislation leaves even the worst employers untouched while it fiddles around with RTI to annoy those who are trying to comply.

We are still living in Thatcher’s Britain: and we are not the better for it.

Tags:

You might also be interested in

Replies (97)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

By Roger.Thornton
18th Apr 2013 11:06

Well worth £10million

It seems that “the left” are using the cost of Maggies funeral as another excuse for dragging out all their out of date trade union propaganda.

The fact is that Margaret Thatcher was this countries greatest Prime Minister (yes greater than Churchill etc). Not only did she lift Britain from it’s knees and make it great again, but, more importantly, she was one of the three world leaders who ended the cold war.  

Her domestic policies gave power back to the people instead of a handful of communist union barons.  Interestingly we have since had several Labour governments and none of them have even tried to undo Maggies union reforms.

She was again aq major figure in forcing the IRA to cease its terrorist attacks and showed immense personal courage in defying them after the Brighton bombing.  When Argentina invaded the Falklands she stood firm and showed the world that Britain was not a pushover.

She was never defeated at the ballot box and throughout her tenure at number 10 she put Britain and the British people first.

“The left” are now objecting to the insignificant cost of her funeral. Personally I’d be more impressed if these same people moaned about what Blair & Brown cost us with their inept handling of the economy, their handing back of the rebate to Europe, their selling off of our gold reserves at bargain basement prices, and their open door policy which has cost billions in benefits to foreigners.Odd how “the left” never moan about that isn’t it.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By justsotax
18th Apr 2013 11:15

who are these guys on the 'left' you speak of...

personally i am just offended that in a time when we all have to tighten our belts we can find millions out of the public purse for a funeral (bet all the pot holes were filled in time for that).

 

 

 

Thanks (0)
Replying to PALacc:
By Roger.Thornton
18th Apr 2013 11:54

Increased income for UKplc.

justsotax wrote:

personally i am just offended that in a time when we all have to tighten our belts we can find millions out of the public purse for a funeral (bet all the pot holes were filled in time for that).

I’m more amazed that in a time when we all have to tighten our belts, Labour and their supporters seem to think we have £billions (not a mere £10million) to waste on increased benefits for people who have never contributed a penny. That we can import more labour while 3million are already out of work, and , that we can continue to throw money at profligate councils, incompetent health authorities, and give money away to foreign dictators.

You need to get things in perspective. £10 million would do practically nothing, in national terms it is mere petty cash. Indeed I would not be surprised to find that extra overseas visitors who came for the funeral actually generated a lot more than £10 million in additional income for the tourist industry.

Even in death Maggie was still helping the British economy.

 

Thanks (0)
avatar
By justsotax
18th Apr 2013 14:45

perhaps i should use the same argument when

it comes to paying my tax bill..."but m'lord my tax bill would do practically nothing".

 

(wonder how many of the 'overseas visitors' end up claiming asylum etc and cost us money....)

 

Oh BTW....you will be glad to hear that labour are no longer in government....so not sure who you want to blame for the latest round of money wasted....just another government of self interested individuals on an ego trip (Labour....Tory....LibDem.....no difference...all wasteful in government, all know better in opposition....and more worryingly....all attended Eton it seems these days....hardly a reflection of society)

 

 

 

Thanks (0)
Replying to SXGuy:
By Roger.Thornton
18th Apr 2013 18:08

Grateful

justsotax wrote:

Oh BTW....you will be glad to hear that labour are no longer in government....

   That is a fact for which the nation is profoundly grateful.
Thanks (0)
avatar
By carnmores
18th Apr 2013 16:48

god i have just read the AWB guidelines again

what a load of rubbish , we are all grown up sentient beings (contrary to what some people think) and are happy to argue our corner. this site is as good as any to do so from especially when you consider the radical changes to taxation that Maggie's  governments oversaw. The ocassional bit of swearing is not going to do anyone any harm and the prohibition of the use of asteriks is childish big brother nonsense. Thank you .

 

Thanks (0)
avatar
By User deleted
18th Apr 2013 23:26

But ...

... worryingly they might be again soon by default!

Thanks (0)
avatar
By User deleted
19th Apr 2013 08:29

I'd like to repeat ...

... the comment made in another thread which sums up Mrs T to a T (no pun intended):

She put the Great back into Britain ...

... whilst simultaneously removing the United from Kingdom

In other words there's good and bad in everyone. Some people admired her for what she stood for, others hated her for it.

Thanks (0)
By ShirleyM
19th Apr 2013 08:48

New labour isn't Labour

It's a mongrel!

I'll repeat what I said in another thread, the next general election will be a farce (pretty much like the last one), with many protest votes.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By User deleted
19th Apr 2013 09:19

Generally acknowledged fact ....

@ShirleyM - agree with comments - also dont forget

Labour, with its original guise (roots) has proved in the past to be unelectable - hence the birth of New Labour. They took the middle ground - traditionally Conservative & as a consequence left the Tories with nowhere to go; hence the doldrums

In fact changing ground was really nothing more than a lie to garner support from the middle & it worked very well; although anyone who voted for New Labour was in fact voting for a 'branded' (should be franchised) version of conservatism and not true Labour at all

The underlying problem is that Labour seems incapable of changing/evolving its approach to the economy and history has shown that they simply cannot manage this aspect of the job (the money). If they could come to grips with this part then they would potentially have a lot going for them - unfortunately they cannot

Hence we have this cycle of Labour fouling it up, Conservatives trying to put it right (currently not very well) with unpopular measures & getting the country back on track. But being voted out because they become unpopular ... then Labour comes in and the whole cycle begins again - with the country going steadily downhill

In passing - I see that the Unions (Unite especially) are starting to flex their muscles again - despite being unelected by many of the people

Thanks (0)
avatar
By 4aterr1ers
19th Apr 2013 11:10

Time to move on ....

I know history is important but all that was all 25 - 30 years ago now.  Isn't it time to move on.

I for one am a bit fed up of hearing that every ill today is down to events of 30 years ago when times and circumstances were different.  We can't keep blaming everything wrong today on what happened so long since.  What about the actions, or inactions of all the Governments since Margaret Thatcher ?  .... and what about people taking responsibility for their own characters .... and what about the "Powers That Be" today actually doing something coherent instead of just looking for tomorrow's headline and then changing their minds (wishful thinking on my part) when someone asks a sensible question.

This is not a party political comment ... but are you listening Dave,  Nick and George any more than Tony or Gordon did ? 

Thanks (0)
avatar
By johnjenkins
19th Apr 2013 11:28

I voted for Tony Blair

to tell the Tory back stabbers that they had made a big mistake in getting rid of Maggie. I remember an interview that Frostie had with Maggie and Maggie was asked if she had still been in power would she have done things differently to Major and Co and she said yes. To me the removal of Maggie meant the rot had started. She kept a blance that has now tilted and unless someone like her comes along we will never get out of this smelly, greedy, selfish (I include the EU in this) governmental disorder that encompasses our everyday existance. 

Thanks (0)
avatar
By carnmores
19th Apr 2013 11:51

talking of innuendos i was tickled by this

Barry Cryer re Humphrey Lyttleton

he was the master of the double entendre he would always happy to give you one

Thanks (0)
By itp3asso
19th Apr 2013 18:44

Theegg
Jjjjj

Thanks (0)
By itp3asso
19th Apr 2013 18:55

Sweet an inland revenue quisling
An ex inland revenue. Man eh sweeting

Consider yourself persona non grata.... Henceforth you will replicate the biblical parable of the wandering jew . For the crime of taking the enemy s shilling you will be condemned to grow old and never die knocking on the soil every birthday aged 200 plus asking the good lord to letypumshuffle off the mortal coil asyou will have had enough of life s slings bows arrows and general tribulations

Foreply will come the admonition:

Your sin of being a tax inspector can only be expurgated when on the day of judgment all shall be forgiven for even the most heinous of sin . Until that day my son you are condemned to wander the earth in ever increasing frailty infirmity and loneliness .

Deffo bad move sinom. All those years go .....the sins of the past and all that .....

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Knight Rider
22nd Apr 2013 17:26

History

I don't think I have ever read such a twisted view of history. As I remember the 70's they were dominated by conflict and strikes which ended with the dead going unburied, post not being delivered and rubbish piling up in the streets.

After the Great Lady's 11 years there were more homeowners,more shareholders and fewer strikes. The closed shop was abolished and trade unions became answerable to their members through strike ballots.

The burgeoning tax avoidance industry was merely a consequence of the absurd tax rates faced by individuals and companies after Denis Healey's IMF enforced squeeze.

Unfettered immigration over the BlairBrown years has led to some appalling working conditions.

Shame the community charge didn't survive - it would have been much more effective in making local authorities  answerable to their communities.

 

Thanks (0)
Teignmouth
By Paul Scholes
22nd Apr 2013 17:36

Nothing like putting a new twist on history eh?

.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By carnmores
22nd Apr 2013 17:37

LOL @JC exactly , i think the noes have it the noes have it

NO NO NO   

Thanks (0)
By itp3asso
23rd Apr 2013 18:51

theegg
paul. scholes you had the most educated left foot that ever graced old trafford s hallowed turf

in fact it was so. sublime. sir alex once nearly broke it off in the dressing room axnd kicked it at beckham s head reamemberr???

are you no longer playing these vdays nd what has mad you take up online. wordsmithing ???

juve per sempre. itp3asso

Thanks (0)
Teignmouth
By Paul Scholes
24th Apr 2013 09:29

I am the original Scholsey and far more vocal

I was 42 on the day the other one set up his Ltd Company in 1996, and so have nothing to answer (in Latin or English), and I'm only responding today as it was, and is, 24 April.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By carnmores
24th Apr 2013 17:49

i like his nick name

sat nav  because he could always find his team mates with a pass

Thanks (0)
By itp3asso
25th Apr 2013 06:30

sholesy!!!!!!!
scholsey is that really you ??

you are a god on a par withyour nemesis denis bergkamp who retired long before coz he was. scared of flying and now does not exit holland other than on a bycycle or by mule and trap .

when you retire from man u please break off your other foot the one alex did NOT aim at becks. head and i will hang it on my lounge next to the bald faced atg i shot in the masai mara when i was young . thanks. ....

Thanks (0)
avatar
By ismac65
09th May 2013 03:27

Sweetman is a Marxist Disgrace

...Simon 'Sweetman' seems to be a Marxist who AccountingWeb gives free reign on their website to.

Why?

In 1979 I was 14 and clearly remember the short working week, power cuts, oil crisis, 'winter of discontent' etc etc etc

Margaret Thatcher, like any human being, had good and bad attributes but removed the label 'sick man of Europe', put Union Barons like Scargill (who even the NUM are sick of with his grace & favour London apt) in their place and put the Great back in Britain, defending the right of Falkland Islanders to self determination.

Ordinary Brits are sick of self righteous pompous left wing idealogues like 'Sweetman' (just how far back do your British roots go?) pontificating and using professional websites (what are 'Sweetman's professional qualifications? Working for HMRC counts for nowt as far as I'm concerned).

AW is there to discuss accounting & taxation issues, not act as some conduit for left wing Marxist ideology.

Get a grip!

Thanks (0)
By ShirleyM
09th May 2013 10:18

We all have our own opinions

Ordinary Brits are sick of self righteous pompous left wing idealogues like 'Sweetman' (just how far back do your British roots go?) 

A lot of us are sick to death of right wing Tory career politicians (and the opposition!). Just because they keep telling us how wonderful they are doesn't make it true!

This resulted in the recent massive protest vote for UKIP. I don't for a moment believe the voting public want UKIP in power. They just want the message to get across that the whole lot of the current major political parties are way off base.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By johnjenkins
09th May 2013 10:43

@ShirleyM

I wouldn't bet come GE time that UKIP do not increase their share of the vote by genuine voters not protest voters.

Since Maggie was kicked out (I know you will take issue with me on this) we have had nothing but wishy washy politicians. If SNP do well watch UKIP take over from lib/dems (I know that doesn't make sense).

The main problem with Simon's post was that we are not living in Thatcher's Britain, and it was John Major and Gordon Brown who started dismantling her attempt to structure a civilised society.

That's why we are in the state we are in. Just look at what the likes of Major and Blair have done to Europe.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By carnmores
09th May 2013 10:54

people only see what they want to see

thats is apparent

the facts are her government and the following one headed by JM  with KC@ No11 left the countries economic and  financial affairs in good order ,  the real culprits are the governments of TB & GB and in particular GB for his 'stewardship' of the exchequer 

Thanks (0)
avatar
By johnjenkins
09th May 2013 11:03

@carnmores

I'm afraid Mr. Lawson has a lot to answer for over the property collapse etc. etc.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By User deleted
09th May 2013 12:30

Sweetman a Marxist!

Harsh, but fair.

However, this is a blog and Simon can say what he likes, anyone can start a blog on here and do the same.

 

Thanks (0)
By ShirleyM
10th May 2013 10:37

@John

Why was Margaret Thatcher kicked out? Because she didn't listen to her colleagues, or the citizens of this country.

It seems to be a common fault with most politicians, including the current lot, and is the reason why UKIP are getting lots of votes. The voters are trying to tell the government what they want. We will have to see whether they listen.

Thanks (0)
Replying to I'msorryIhaven'taclue:
avatar
By User deleted
10th May 2013 11:46

Neither ...

ShirleyM wrote:

Why was Margaret Thatcher kicked out? Because she didn't listen to her colleagues, or the citizens of this country.

It seems to be a common fault with most politicians, including the current lot, and is the reason why UKIP are getting lots of votes. The voters are trying to tell the government what they want. We will have to see whether they listen.

.. she was kicked out because she was blocking the top spot for the other Tory members. IMVHO she was there because she genuinely wanted to do the best for the country (as she saw it) and the back-stabbers who deposed her were only interested in their own selfish ends - something that has continued in the three main parties ever since (certainly in the top echelons)!

Thanks (0)
avatar
By johnjenkins
10th May 2013 14:01

Thankyou OGA

I couldn't have put it better myself. I'm sure Tony Blair saw history repeating itself.

So labour decided (or should I say Gordon Brown) to undo all that Maggie had achieved.

Unfortunately this lot can't get us back on track.

Definately time for a General Election (which I thought would have happened already). Then we can have a four party government which might actually get us out of the current EU agreement and get us back to where we were before Maggie was kicked out.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Shirley Martin
10th May 2013 14:20

Not Lawson but Brown

@johnjenkins

The property crash had nothing to do with Nigel Lawson.   Not only he had stopped being Chancellor over 15 years previously, but under his watch it was still possible for the Government of the day to use Base Rate, or Minimum Lending Rate as it was then known, to tackle house price inflation

It was Gordon Brown who set up a new (now discredited) Tripartite system splitting responsibility between the Bank of England, the FSA and the Treasury.  A system that specifically prevented any one party from dealing with issues such as house price inflation.  He then limited the Bank of England's remit to using Base Rate to control a measure of inflation that excluded house prices.  So when house prices rose at approx 10% per annum during the 2004 to 2008 period, Base Rate rarely exceeded 5%.  It was this mismatch that fuelled the boom/2008 property crash.

Kind regards

Shirley

Thanks (0)
avatar
By johnjenkins
10th May 2013 15:13

we talk cross poorpoises Shirley.

My reference to Mr Lawson was the property crash of 1989.

IMVHO that sparked the recession which we really have never got out of fully. Mr Major, in his wisdom, decided to try and control growth from the bottom and Mr Brown carried that on (we will never have boom and bust again - echoed recently by Mr Osborn or somebody of that ilk).

The only reason it doesn't show in real figures is that labour paid out loads of money in benefits and some financial institutions were giving 125% mortgages and credit to everyone who had a vowel in their name.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Shirley Martin
11th May 2013 12:42

31 August 1988

Property prices did peak in August 1988.  I know because I bought my first house in 1987.  House prices had been rising where we lived since 1985, by about 5% per annum, and I wondered when they were ever going to stop.

Unlike previous Chancellors, Lawson recognised the danger and initially tried to dampen the market by increasing interest rates (my own mortgage rate increased by a whole 1% just one month after I had completed).  But this was undermined by the way that MIRAS worked, as the relief was a personal one.  People were grouping together to buy property and, despite Lawson's best efforts, the way MIRAS worked kept on pushing prices up.  He then took the only option left to him, which was to restrict the relief to the property rather than the individual. Removing it completely was out of the question.

The value of my own house fell to its 1985 value after 31 August 1988.  But, if I felt that I should be blaming any one Chancellor here, I would blame the Labour Chancellor Roy Jenkins who introduced MIRAS in the first place rather than Lawson who had simply inherited the unenviable task of trying to bring about the long overdue correction in the market.

When announcing the move in the April 1988 budget, Lawson felt it was unfair on people who were then currently part way through the purchase process to remove the relief immediately.  Hence his decision to allow 5 months for the change to be implemented.

I could never understand the mentality of those who rushed to buy during the 5 month period of grace.  As a singleton in 1987, I deliberately only took on a 75% mortgage to try and make sure that if I were to lose my job I would be able to sell at a loss and still be solvent.

I really don't know what else he could have done.  Thank goodness that he had the guts to do it when he did, as the longer it was left the worse it was going to get.

Kind regards

Shirley

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Knight Rider
11th May 2013 21:01

housing booms and busts are linked to economic cycles which go back to the dawn of human history.
The Thatcher administration gave millions of people the opportunity to buy homes and shares,contribute to pensions and revolutionised consumer choice.

Thanks (0)
By itp3asso
12th May 2013 06:47

theegg
i have nothingto say but i have just been emailed by h ccounting wfeb alert management to be told that i received. feedback to my comments hefre which i have not .

so as it is 7am in. sunday mornin and am due for a rumpy session for the next two hours i thought i would just get get myself into a positive mental state for the ardours ahead. by writing a load of rubbish rendering nothing to the total sum of human knowledge but giving me a fleeting sense of well being and smug self satisfaction at the. end of it all.

bit like a male [***] really. ...

Thanks (0)
avatar
By User deleted
12th May 2013 08:18

On the face of it ...

You have made a contribution to this thread (https://www.accountingweb.co.uk/user/129262 ) and the system was informing you that another post had been made

Nevertheless, do we really need to be regaled with your morning antics?

Suggest you use Twitter because that medium is far more suitable for this type of comment than Aweb  and a Twitter feed could also be updated with a running commentary on the results of your exertions

Thanks (0)
avatar
By johnjenkins
12th May 2013 15:24

@Shirley

Spot on. Now surely it doesn't take rocket science to work out that if you give people 5 months notice that their individual £50k allowance is going to be withdrawn, to be replaced by £50k per house, there will be a rush to "get in". Some bloke in America made a fortune predicting the crash. There was only one winner, yes the financial institutions when they reposessed and were able to sit on the properties till they made a handsome profit. Apparently Mr Lawson asked the banks to be lenient. You can guess where they told him to go. Unlike Gordon Brown (which is the only thing I can admire him for) who told the banks they they had to be lenient. So this time round not as many reposessions.

One of my clients' property was valued by Barclays at £1.2m. 6 months later the same person valued it at £850k. Eventually my client had to sell (pressure from Barclays to settle business overdraft) a year later for £650k. I understand there are winners and losers in the normal "trade risk" but artificial set-ups always bring problems. Look what happens when 125% mortgages are given. 

Thanks (0)
avatar
By carnmores
12th May 2013 17:48

@Paul

'I've no doubt that I and others have over-egged Thatcher's influence on things since she was dumped by her party and the country (just to remind people)

how was Thatcher dumped by the country

at least she won 3 elections , contrast that  with 2 of the last 3 labour PMs 2 who were never elected and never one an election and then of course there was dear old Michael Foot  we wouldnt want to leave him out , hows that for good old fashioned socialist democracy

Thanks (0)
By itp3asso
13th May 2013 06:29

theegg1958
disagree tot ally. jc. indeed i can further regale all with detail that. mynherman van rumpy session went very wvell and i performed three times tomthedelight of my partner .....

thus i now find myself bright "eyed". and bushy tailed in central london at six am ready to face the day

hope the rest of you "stiff" upper lipped accountants had a fifth as good a weekend as me in which case you can veritably congratulate yourselves ....

Thanks (0)
avatar
By johnjenkins
13th May 2013 09:25

@itp3asso

perhaps now that scholsey and fergie have retired you might like to invite them to one of your rumpy pumpy doos. I believe Fergie likes an early morning roll in the hay.

Now to brass tacks. If I read your post right you have a Hymer, (motorhome or caravan) well that explains the morning rumpy pumpy sessions. A bit of a tip for you, the ladies at Nottingham do not like to see vans swaying from side to side, or even backwards and forwards, so they politely knock on the door to enquire if "everything alright" " anything I can help you with".

Thanks (0)
Replying to DJKL:
By itp3asso
14th May 2013 07:47

god knows i ve forgotten
hello. jj.

yes. they do come nd ask if there is. "anything they can help ". me with do th ladies

how. d you think the herman van rumpy s get arranged ???!!!! ( don t encoursnge me. )

Thanks (0)
Teignmouth
By Paul Scholes
13th May 2013 10:05

@carnmores

As mentioned above, I've retired (from this thread) plus I've just had 7 brilliant days in warm blue waters so am in no mood to get myself dirty again but, since you asked, regarding her being dumped by the country, I don't remember mass demonstrations to bring her back, the grey suits did us a favour

Not sure about your other stuff, just because someone is anti-that woman doesn't mean they are socialist, plus comparing one set of damaged goods with another doesn't really prove much.

That's it, I'm off from here, you all clearly need some space for the process.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By User deleted
13th May 2013 13:54

Must be the name ...

... makes people have multiple retirements!

The question is though, where would we have been had Foot or God forbid Kinnock ever become PM? If only John Smith had not died, he may well have been a good PM - instead we got lumbered with Blair.

It is very easy to sit back with hindsight and say what people did wrong, but that must be tempered with what was the alternative - I hate to think where we would be if Brown was still PM.

 

 

Thanks (0)
avatar
By johnjenkins
13th May 2013 14:55

@OGA

There's me thinking I'm the only one that thought John Smith would have made an ideal PM.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By User deleted
13th May 2013 17:00

@John..

... I think he was one of the last really nice guy politicians, a quiet unassuming man, whom, if I remember it aright, almost had to be forced to take the helm, choosen because he was a man of the people after the party finally realised Kinnock was a complete waste of space. It was he who stripped the unions of their block votes for labour parliamentry candidates, and would have done more to shackle their disproportionate influence but for the rantings of a certain John Prescott, that wonderful bastion of the working classes who had his snout in the trough before they had finished counting the votes. 

Thanks (0)
avatar
By johnjenkins
14th May 2013 09:26

@itp3asso

I got a mate like you. I know it's not you cos he talks different.

Do you use the notice board to advertise or the tinternet, cos I hven't heard of you on the circuit?

I love the rainy mornings when you can really cuddle up.

Thanks (0)

Pages