Dear Tory’s… Don’t you trust us with all the facts about tax?

Something that really pissed me off on an episode of BBC’s Question Time was opposition to the 50% tax rate, because when national insurance contributions are added this means that a person would be paying 52% tax, which might apparently be a hindrance to an individual’s aspiration to try to earn a salary over £150,000.

Well most people don’t pay 2% national insurance contributions they pay 12%; only people earning over £797 per week pay 2% and people earning under it pay 12%. £797 per week equals 41,444 per year. However as the 40% tax band kicks in at £31,886 per year, this means that when 40% income tax plus 12% national insurance are added, people are paying 52% tax on all earnings between £31,886 and £41,444 per year already.

This also means that people earning between £41,444.01 and £150,000 are paying 42% on earning’s in this range and people earning over £150,000 are at present paying 47% tax on earnings over £150,000.

And I always thought that a progressive tax system was where richer people paid more not less because they could afford it, but as we see here people earning over £41,444 are paying a lower rate than people earning less than £41,444. The only thing which is even more stupid than this is that the people who reduced the 50% tax rate down to 45% didn't think we’d notice this.

This proves where the typical Tory’s priorities lie; making middle earners pay more to give a tax cut to their millionaire mates…

Well I have an idea; instead of increasing the 45% tax rate back to 50%, increase tax on the rich by replacing the regressive national insurance bands with a flat rate of 10%, then people earning between £31,996 and £41,444 won’t be paying a higher rate than the minority earning a six figure salary; thus nullifying in the process the argument that high taxes on the rich are bad for business because thousands of smaller business owners will have been given a slight tax cut in the process. The tax difference may be small, 2% opposed to 5% but it would positively impact far more people so there’s a much better chance of someone being able to do some good with it, and the reduction would (at least partly) be cancelled out by the fact that people who were once paying 2% would now be paying 10%. 

I support Ed: the 'Daily Wail' had no right slagging his dad off

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/mail-defends-ralph-miliband-article-235155608.html#gQXyeDZ

I’m gunna be blunt: this pi**ed me off.

I think I’ve criticised every party leader in some way or another after seeing them on telly or reading something about them or what they’ve done/said, but 1 thing I will not do is treat someone as though members of their family are fair game to slag off because I don’t like them.

I am me: I am not my dad. Frankly my dad is an abusive arsehole. That does not mean that I am. It doesn’t mean that I can be expected to inherit being disliked, I didn’t pick my dad I got the one nature gave me, not my fault.

Fortunately for Ed Miliband he actually has a father worth defending, and despite their differences I’m glad that the other party leaders have stood by him in condemning the Daily Mail for claiming Ed’s father ‘hated Britain’ in order to tarnish Ed’s reputation.

Firstly I think Ed is a much better judge of his father’s politics than a newspaper can be, as they are after all family.

Secondly I think Ed should be judged on what Ed says and does, not his father’s beliefs; especially as clearly Ed’s father didn’t hate Britain because he defended this country in the 2^nd world war. Yes, I’ve criticised Ed myself once or twice; but who his father is does not reflect in my view his ability to run this country.

In fact it would be just as stupid as asking the current Daily Mail staff to inherit being disliked because of the fact that between 1934 and 1939 the Mail was pro-Hitler (we don’t hold it against you; but don’t think we’ve forgotten).

In conclusion I would like to say a big thanks to the Daily Mail: I already said I’m glad his opponents in government stood by Ed in this in giving you the middle finger - but if they didn’t they could probably have really used this to damage him and the fact that they stood up for him, and criticised you fear-mongering guys and girls has left me that little bit less cynical of British politics than I was yesterday. It proves that they are guided by a sense of right and wrong and not just self-interest. Not the outcome you were hoping for was it?

Seriously we’re paying them even more now:

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/sep/12/mps-expenses-rise-record-high?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

Apparently the amount of cash that the MP’s we elected to run our country are even higher now that before the expenses scandal. Oh dear.

I utterly fail to see how the MP’s can take more from a country full of broke people when more and more people are having to rely on food banks to feed themselves when it already blew up in their faces once before, and when in the past year we have had to listen to the justifications of why MP’s should be given a pay rise I for one think this is freaking ridiculous.

Frankly a new policy needs to be introduced that not only says what MP’s can and cannot claim for and sets an upper limit but also says that if any other public sector worker wouldn’t be given expenses in those circumstances, just don’t ask for it.

 

E.U. or not to E.U.

I’m probably about to say something that is going to alienate a lot of my fellow Britain’s: I’m pro-Europe.

In fact I’m not only pro-Europe I’m openly proud of my European citizenship: Almost as proud of my European Citizenship as my British Citizenship (I did say almost). I don’t support further integration of the E.U. and in a lot of ways I think it’s doing a bad job: I think if it becomes too integrated, i.e. into a United States of Europe then a lot of the advantages that it can bring will be nullified, for example if we have a social problem that needs solving one thing which can be done is to look at other countries which have had similar problems and think ‘who’s idea worked best’, which if were so integrated we all have to do the same thing cannot be done.

But when it comes down to it we need the E.U. Look what happened a short time ago when the British government announced a referendum after the next election: business leaders for British business were on the case condemning it immediately. Although my political viewpoint is leftist I do recognise the necessity of being pro-business, especially when the economy is in such a mess – so I cannot take the populist position of the E.U. as a good for nothing institution of money grabbers.

It does seem ironic, that someone who’s views are often referred to as ‘soft core euro-scepticism’ seems so adamant that we be in the E.U., I may not like the E.U. I do not but we do need a E.U., even if it isn’t this one. But yes the E.U. does have a redeeming virtue, and this is one of the things I’m so proud of my European Citizenship for: up until the 1940’s saying the nations of Europe didn’t get on was an understatement: in the last century Europe was the focal point for the only 2 world wars in human history and for centuries before that we sailed the oceans shooting from ship to ship – we hated each other. And in only a few decades we put aside centuries of hate and are now one of the world’s leading emerging superpowers, a leader in trying to stamp out disease and war and hunger throughout the globe, which is definitely something to be proud of.

So when the pro-Europe arguments from Britain’s political parties start should the referendum go forward please listen with an open mind to the pro-E.U. arguments before turning up to vote.

I agree with Ste

http://www.stephenfry.com/2013/08/07/an-open-letter-to-david-cameron-and-the-ioc/#

I totally agree with what Stephen Fry has written here, Russia over the past few months has become so militant against the LGBT community that I simply don’t think that they should be allowed to host any international event which could allow them to reflect themselves in good light. A message of solidarity on behalf of the LGBT community from the other governments of the world should most definitely take place in the form of saying stop by taking the Olympics elsewhere.

UKIP at it again

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/ukip-bongo-land-mep-unrepentant-082840253.html#tpCJQH8

Perhaps this guy should go back to school. That’s where I learned what overseas aid is used for: A few decades ago we as a species did something we had never done before and have never done again since: we eradicated smallpox. We are only a few years away from sending polio the same way with a global vaccination programme. Should we cut that programme or keep it going? Bearing in mind before you answer that dear readers that polio is so contagious and the time difference between infection and the presentation of symptoms is so great that 1 case is enough to declare an epidemic. As long as 1 person has polio in the world everybody who hasn’t been vaccinated is at risk.

It genuinely frightens me how much support UKIP are getting right now, they’ve had so much bad press for not vetting there members properly and every so often someone really crosses the mark and the party has to disavow themselves of him- the other 3 parties might be out of touch in the UK but idiots like this are by no means the solution.