Press Release Archive
Click here for the full report
Click here for the report summary
Click here for the full press release
Britain's independent grassroots campaign for lower taxes
I hope virtually none of this ever gets close to being implemented.
Why? because you are afraid that it might actually make a positive change in society and prove the tax system currently in force to be a horrible injustice that has suppressed prosperity for decades?
Finally a daring and exciting prospect for economic growth and mass prosperity. An absolute must-read !
Great to hear about this on Radio 4 Today Program this morning, shows that we must start to look at new ways of running of the economy and making the indervidual responsible for social and economic market by their indervidual power of purchase and choice,
Having a much reduced public sector is not the only method , but a system that ensures a safe and secure use of energy and natural resources is essential for now and future generations .
So replacing all end user taxes with a simpler tax on all natural resources, based on the environmental impact they cause, collected as near source as possible would would make all equally responsible as inderviduals and as corporations .
who pays for this drivel? im guessing you are funded by rich right-wingers who want to reap all the benefits of a western society without making any contribution to the costs. our average growth and employment were FAR better under the post-war consensus years of 45-75 than they were from 75 to now. we have had more recessions, lower growth and huge inequality ever since neo-liberal economics starting taking over. do any of you believe this stuff or are you just paid to produce it?
I am guessing you don’t run a corner shop, garage or any other business small or large. Taxation is not ‘good’ as an end in itself and you might believe that the government knows how to spend your and my money better than you or I. I would disagree. The NHS isn’t there for the benefit of the staff, HMR&C is not there for the benefit of HMR&C staff and schools aren’t there for the benefit of teachers although you might be forgiven for considering otherwise.
You are right the state is not their for the benefit for their staff and to say otherwise is silly, however the state has a moral obligation to provide a good wage and work life balance to employees unless you advocate the idea of us all living in mud huts and being paid a pound per hour in which case I hope you lead by example.
If the state is looking after employees better then the private sector where CEO paid has increased alot more then employee pay, one should look at ways to improve employees quality of life.
I except is it not easy running a SME, and there should be more support for them, but on the flip side if you believe in pure capatalism, then it is a risk and the reward is profit in which case there should be no support.
Strewth! You are pointing your pontification in my general direction!
Whilst I thank you for placing ideas I have never put forward as supposition to what I am thinking you are entirely wrong.
Your writing conveys a concept of innate deservedness to workers. It doesn’t seem to be connected with productivity, value, teamwork, responsibility, loyalty, commitment or even success; Just whether the CEO has had a pay rise and if that’s the case so should they.
Doesn’t sound like the private sector. Good luck with that if you move jobs.
It should be a partnership between the two, like the europeam model, trouble seems to be that some, not all employers treat staff as liabilities rather then assets, as soon as their is a recession instead of using the oppurtunity to say recruit, improve staff skills etc so when the next boom comes be ahead of the comptetion, the general consensus is to cut the number of staff for the next quarterly bonus.
We are reaping what we sow now with several companies showing record breaking profits from lay offs, yet when the next boom comes these companies will have to go out and find staff, and train them up, which would cost morwe then retaining staff now.
I agree about the partnership between the two. I was going to reply (again) anyway because my post did not do you justice. There are problems with executive remuneration which need addressing immediately as they are unfair both to workers and shareholders alike. They are:-
o Directors sitting on each other’s remuneration boards and scratching each other’s backs
o Directors being able to turn stock options into cash as soon as a juicy takeover bid is agreed
o The proportion of shareholders required to block executive decisions.
Address these and perhaps directors will act in the companies interests rather than their own. I applaud the Barclays shareholders who stood up to the board over executive pay.
Government knows nothing about business and everything about corruption, lobbying and interfering. This isn’t new; They amply demonstrate this by employing Vince Cable to arrest employment law deregulation and so keep throttling SME’s with bureaucracy and workers rights. Vince is the cable to the handbrake of the economy. He should be released.
Employment regulation is the sea anchor dragging on on our economy. Removing employment flexibility either bankrupts businesses or makes sure they will do just about anything rather than take on the risk of new staff.
Not all structural changes are equal, and the solution to a blocked toilet is not to smash a hole into the ground somewhere else to use as a privy.
End mass immigration of third world unskilled destroyers, and leave the EU. Those two steps would simplify Britain’s tax system immediately, by removing two massive drains on resources and about fourteen or fifteen bureacracies. Bureaucracy can never benefit its host; it is a parasite without conscience or end.
Interesting read, it is right that some reforms are made and the tax system simplified, but to abolish national insurence which pays for NHS and state pension would be a bad idea, certain taxes and spending should be ring fenced to allow more accountability of spending.
Also the idea that reducing taxes will encourage economic growth will not work, unless it is for the bottom end of society only, the goverment is increasing the income before tax to £10,000 over this parliament, but comapnies have billions in funds they can use to invest and their reward is higher profits.
@google-180b14cf294270c1953530bc00f27b51:disqus immigrants are the only people who do any work in this country – we need more of them! However, I agree with tax simplification
So if all of us silly lefties are only opposing tax cuts because we’re jealous of how much sex rich people are having (p.91), why do we care about things like the availability of contraception? I mean, we clearly don’t need it…
“And it is still true today: even in an age of working women, sexual continence and gender equality, the man with the most money still gets more sexual opportunities than the man with the least money. Ask them.
So no wonder we dislike inequality. No wonder we want tax to take that money
off a Vanderbilt before he grabs all the best women. In the end, it is not necessarily because we think he stole it, though there are still a plenty of zero-sum Marxists out there, and it’s not because we think the government is better at spending it, though there are still plenty of demand-managing Keynesians out there; and it’s not even because we think tax is a decent redistribution system – who can really think that when confronted with all the middle-class benefits that flow from the taxpayer? No, it’s at least partly plain old sexual jealousy at the root.”This says more about you than you’ll ever hope to understand. Thank you
So you’ll be getting an extra 50% in tax from pensioners and early retirees who gain nothing from NI abolition.
Nice little scam… you did know about that didn’t you?….
Matthew Sinclair explains how the proposals would affect savers and pensioners here:
The changes made to other taxes mean they’ll still be better off, even if they don’t pay full NICs.