Death and taxes

The saying goes nothing is certain but death and taxes though it appears the Labour party in the UK intends to make (another) attempt to screw your family over once you've gone...
Telegraph.

Labour has resurrected plans for a 15 per cent “death tax” to pay for people’s care in old age.
Andy Burnham, the shadow health secretary, said he wants Labour to “embrace” a system where social care is funded by imposing a tax on estates when people die.
Labour abandoned plans for a 10 per cent levy on estates to pay for social care before the 2010 general election following a wave of criticism.
However, at the Fabians Summer Conference in June, Mr Burnham said he was personally in favour of a new tax on estates.

Labour as ever thinking that the solution for anything is a tax grab. The never think cost savings, they never think ridding themselves of inessential services though to be honest their idea of inessential is not the same as anyone else's, they see cuts in bin collections and streetlighting as positives, rather than translation services and aid to minorities/gender/sexual preference groups.
But if Labour are bad, what the Tories are up too is even worse...
Mail.

HMRC was accused yesterday of taking ‘a smash and grab’ approach with its demand for new powers to seize money directly from people’s bank accounts.
Britain’s leading tax experts warned the taxman risks being ‘unconstitutional’ with the controversial plans, which could come into force within months.
The proposed new powers - which were published in the Budget and subject to a public consultation which closed yesterday - have triggered an outcry among tax experts.
If HMRC believes anyone owes money to them, they will be able to take the cash directly from current accounts, joint accounts or tax-free Isas to settle an unpaid tax bill.
Around 17,000 people a year will have money seized under the proposed new powers, known as the ‘direct recovery of debts’. Each will typically owe £5,800.

Note the key word 'believe' you may well be innocent, there may be a mistake, but if HMRC 'believe' you owe them over £1,000 then they have the option to raid your account, possibly impoverish you, perhaps get you crucified by bank charges and walk away in their mask and striped jersey laughing at your misfortune and knowing that the person who authorised it will not pay the consequences if there is a mistake.
Welcome to modern Britain...

The Tesco tax

In ever desperate attempts to avoid cutting Council Tax in order to keep their executives and non essential services high on the hog (whilst being perfectly prepared to get rid of weekly bin collections, street lights, sports fields etc.) Derby council and others in England have proposed a Tesco tax to fill their coffers using the excuse that they'll filter the proceeds back into the local community.
BBC.

A group of local councils in England is formally asking the government for new powers to tax large supermarkets.
BBC News has learned that Derby City Council has called for the right to bring in a levy as a "modest" effort to ensure supermarket spending "re-circulates" in local communities.
Some 19 other local authorities back a so-called "Tesco tax" on big retailers, which could raise up to £400m a year.
The government said additional taxes on supermarkets would push up food prices.
A similar tax already operates in Northern Ireland and Scotland.

Derby City Council is of course a Labour run council and probably haven't run across a tax they didn't like.
Others hinting that they'd like the tax are Oxford (minority Labour run), Brighton and Hove (Watermelon  Green run), Preston (Labour run), Southwark (Labour run)and Sefton (Labour run) councils. Basically it's all socialist driven and sounds good till you realise just who will suffer and trust me it won't be the likes of Tesco, it will be those who shop there. As with other taxes proposed by socialists, expect the money as ever to go into a bottomless pit to pay for things that they think the public want such as translation services, diversity officers, out of pocket expenses, community support (so long as you aren't white and working) and of course attempts to prevent anyone enjoying themselves in an unapproved manner.
Expect calls for such taxes to grow, particularly as the government are looking at just what it is Councils actually are spending money on (and telling them to stop it)
Labour Councils are notorious spendthrifts on unessential services such as translation and equality services, they'd rather keep them going rather than collect the rubbish on the streets.
Let's hope the government has more sense than to give way on this.

The result of the dead hand of the state

Governments never seem to learn, they repeat the mistakes of the past almost without fail and woe betide the end result of government meddling with price fixing and attempts to social engineer via market forces. If you use taxation to artificially raise the price on a product the public want, or even outright ban it then the results are inevitable, criminal organisations move in to give the public what they want...
Mail.

Buy a bottle of Smirnoff and you will expect to get a high-quality vodka. But what’s in the bottle could cost you your life.
Britain’s shops are awash with counterfeit spirits made from lethal chemicals including chloroform and methylated spirits, an investigation has found.
The concoction is putting thousands of drinkers at risk of blindness, organ failure and even death.
And the trade is the tip of a counterfeit iceberg that includes rip-off designer handbags and clothing, and counterfeit cigarettes.

This is the consequence of government meddling and high prices in the retail world, they've more por less made it easy for criminals to set up with a license to print money for themselves and believe me the gangs don't give a damn about quality control or health and safety, just profits. yet even today MP's are still giving voice to price fixing alcohol with a minimum figure. What the reporter found was what the USA found when it imposed prohibition, if a price is too high or (like drugs) it's banned then if the public want it, some enterprising soul will find a way to provide it, invariably criminal gangs move in and you have market forces in action. The state loses revenue through duty and taxation and the public get shoddy products (occasionally).
Unfortunately politicians never learn to mind their own business, one of the hardest things to do is to actually do nothing and leave things alone and let the people sort themselves out. They meddle, initiate tax grabs and listen to minority pressure groups and this is the end result, utter failure on their part and driving ordinary folk into the hands of criminals.
They never learn.

Never met a tax they didn't like

There are those out there who are determined to force us into doing something they think is good for us. They've tried persuasion, they've tried restrictions, their current favourite is price controls and that's something which as ever gives our ever avaricious politicians ideas...
BBC.

A campaign group has called on the UK government to introduce a "sugar tax" to help curb childhood obesity.
Action on Sugar has produced a seven-point plan to discourage children from consuming foods and soft drinks with high levels of added sugar.
The group wants measures brought in to cut added sugar in food by 40% by 2020, to cut fat in foods and to ban sports sponsorship by "junk food" companies.
The Department of Health has said it will consider the recommendations.
Action on Sugar is a group of specialists concerned with sugar and its effects on health. It says one in five 10-11 year olds in the UK are now obese, while one in three are overweight.
The group has produced an action plan for the government following a request for its views from Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt.

Almost perfect, you can just feel the emotive phrase 'it's for the children' rising like a turd in a cesspool on any justification for the tax which will price many foodstuffs away from those on lower incomes.
Now I will be honest and admit that there do appear to be far more overweight kids around than when I was young, though we never seemed to have a problem with getting hold of sugary sweets of various kinds. What we did have was a far more active lifestyle, limited tv, no computer games, no social media. So we walked, ran, cycled and generally behaved like little savages in our inter tribal gang warfare.
So, the problem isn't that kids are eating too much sugar, it's that kids live a far more sedentary lifestyle, what with few schools offering sports (voluntary or not) and the paranoia from parents about letting their kids play in the street due to traffic/paedo's etc.
What we are being lined up for is a tax grab by unscrupulous politicians similar to that of green taxation and the oft proposed but never implemented alcohol tax forbidden by the EU.
Prodnose pressure groups like this for all they may have some well meaning members are never a good idea for the general public as they rarely contain members of the general public. Their focus is often too narrow and they rarely see the big picture which is why I suspect politicians like them so much. Any group proposing a tax hike is likely to get the attention of a politician particularly if they think they can sell it back to the public and a for the children meme is no doubt a winner in their minds.
Expect a raft of such measures in the near future as the global warming scam finally comes off the rails...

Guilty until proven innocent

Her Majesties Revenue & Customs don't seem to like the idea that people for a variety of legal reasons (some admittedly obscure) do not pay the tax that they believe they should and so have come up with another wizard wheeze to get their hands on cash they believe is theirs...
Telegraph.

Taxpayers will be treated as “guilty until proven innocent” as HM Revenue & Customs gets the power to force them to pay up front if officials suspect them of tax avoidance.
Under plans announced in the Queen’s Speech, people using tax avoidance schemes will be made to make “accelerated payments” as part of plans to raise around £2 billion.
Treasury figures suggest that 65,000 people could be affected by the new powers. HMRC could raise a more than £2bn in all.
The most controversial aspect of the new plans is for the new rules to apply to a “legacy stock” of pre-existing cases, where people invested money in contentious schemes several years ago.
George Osborne earlier this year announced a major Government crackdown on tax avoiders following a series of high-profile cases involving celebrities including Gary Barlow, the Take That singer.
Experts have warned that it will lead to tens of thousands of potentially innocent British citizens being forced to pay their taxes before they are even due.
The all-party Treasury Select Committee last month expressed concerns about the plans for up-front payments to HMRC.
Neal Todd, corporate tax partner at Berwin Leighton Paisner, warned that the HMRC are acting as “judge and jury”.

Yep, they decide you owe them and force you to hand it over and they hold onto it until you prove it's not theirs. It's a bit like a shop grabbing your wallet before you go in and deciding how much you're going to spend.
HMRC of course have form for getting it wrong and being extremely slow to put things right, it appears once they have our cash in their hands they're very reluctant to actually let go of it again under any circumstances whether its a mistake or incompetence on their part. And what we have with this proposed legislation is the equivalent of letting a fox into the chicken coop with instructions to go after specific chickens, you know it's going to be messy and mistakes are going to be made.
No doubt the leftards out there who bleat about avoidance as if it's a crime will be pleased that companies and individuals will be targeted, yet avoidance isn't a crime, evasion is and it needs to be proven, not simply suspected before you paid up or paid back.
Well you'd hope...

Sounds like socialist thinking...

Some days I feel the left, or socialists come from a different planet to the rest of us, a bit like teenagers I suppose. Other days I'm quite sure and unlike teenagers, they never seem to grow up or gain the wisdom that only age can bring (growing old disgracefully doesn't count, at least we know better) So it came as no surprise that Labours favourite think tank came up with this...
Mail.

Labour’s favourite think-tank (the Institute for Public Policy Research) has declared a new war on the motorist with draconian Big Brother pay-as-you-drive tax plans to force middle class drivers to pay more per mile to drive their cars than poorer ones.
Spy-in-the-cab black box technology would be used to track each car’s mileage by GPS satellite and to calculate the tax charge every time the driver fills up at the garage to encourage ‘behaviour change.’
It says the Government’s Driver and Vehicle Licencing Agency (DVLA) should be linked to HM Revenue and Customs records so that drivers could be charged automatically according to their income level – with wealthier motorists paying more.

Where the hell do you start? Talk about a target rich environment...
First they assume that a spy in the cab will actually be popular, which it only would be if it reduced the cost of motoring (anyone want to take a bet on that?) rather than keep the revenue stream to the Inland revenue going.
Secondly the assumption that anyone on a higher income actually has spare cash floating around, some do, some don't yet they'd trust the taxman's data to presume that  some people should pay extra.
'Encourage behaviour change' has echoes of the old Soviet tactic of sticking you in a gulag for twenty or so years in order to encourage you to respect the state a little more. Essentially I suspect that means they want to force you out of your car (whether you need it or not) and onto public transport whether it goes to your destination or not.
Truly this stems from the politics of envy where those who have worked hard to get a good job are being penalised to provide for everyone else simply because they are doing well. Oddly enough it was Labour who introduced a graduated road tax which oddly enough penalised the less well off who drive older less efficient cars, now they are going after the better off and somehow believe they'll take the rest of us with them...
Oh the Tories took the lead for the first time in an opinion poll yesterday... can't think why.

No moral obligation

There are certain idiots out there who don't understand how taxation works, particularly with regards to the terms tax evasion and tax avoidance. The first is illegal, you have to pay the tax you legally owe, the second is perfectly legal and is pretty much what most successful companies do in structuring their businesses to run as efficiently as possible.
Mail.

Amazon paid just £4.2million in corporation tax last year despite record UK sales of £4.3billion – meaning it paid a nominal rate of just 0.1 per cent.
Margaret Hodge, Labour chairman of the Commons Public Accounts Committee branded the figures an ‘outrage’, and called on shoppers to boycott the firm.
She said: ‘Amazon should pay their fair share of tax. I no longer shop at Amazon, people should shop elsewhere.’
Mrs Hodge recalled a boycott of Starbucks two years ago, after it emerged the company paid just £8.6million in corporation tax in 14 years of trading in Britain.
The action prompted the coffee chain to offer to pay the taxman £20million over two years – a move that has not yet been repeated by Amazon.
But Mrs Hodge suggested the firm could be pushed into reviewing its tax bill, saying: ‘What we demonstrated with Starbucks is the power of the consumer voice.’

Amazon are being sensible here and following the rules, they are not really worried about a boycott that the idiot hodge is proposing because unlike Starbucks they don't cater to a small elite of customers. What Hodge is suggesting is that Amazon should hand its cash over and above what it legally owes to the government for the government to spend on what the government wants which is pretty much a byword for waste and inefficiency. Nor will changing the law on taxation work, the way Amazon do it is within EU rules, not UK ones and unless we leave the EU... but few politicians are suggesting that (mores the pity)
To my mind Amazon have a moral obligation (as do the rest of us) to minimise every penny we give to the government, they do not have a moral obligation to give them a penny more than absolutely necessary nor does bitching about it in the MSM make a difference to my mind. Yes they only pay 0.1% tax, I wish I could, but I'm not jealous or greedy, that's simply good business on their part and they are following the rules, rules that the government and the previous government of which Hodge was a part of agreed too.
Hodge should also consider the problem to the workers Amazon does employ in the UK if a boycott begins and Amazon goes under...

Sticky fingers

Seems that our MP's are a tad worried by the fact that the taxman or HMRC has gained additional powers in the budget to go raiding our bank accounts without our permission or the permission of a judge too.
I have to admit it bothers me that anyone can touch my money without my permission, I have enough problems with the bank asking me questions when I make a large withdrawal, it really is none of their business what I do with it and I'm unhappy enough with the government via the taxman ripping me off by grabbing so much in income tax and national insurance not to mention VAT and the other sales taxes they bandy about.
Telegraph.

Innocent people face having money taken straight out of their bank accounts under draconian powers to be used by the taxman, MPs warn on Friday.
A Treasury plan to allow HM Revenue and Customs to remove cash from bank accounts without a court order is “very concerning” because of its history of mistakes, a Commons committee said.
In a consultation document this week, HMRC said the "direct recovery" powers could be used to take money from joint accounts.
The tax authorities admitted this week that about 17,000 people a year would be targeted under the new measures, set out in the Budget and designed for use against people who owe them money.
But today the Commons Treasury committee says that taxpayers could suffer “serious detriment” if officials are able, either by mistake or through an “abuse” of power, to take money from people who have done no wrong.

Yes, it's not like the inland revenue are infallible, nor are they known for their patience, I can imagine a scenario where they grab the cash and hold onto it whilst an appeal or other proceedings are occurring. Nor would I expect them to simply target their victim announced debtor, the funds in the account may actually be a partners, their children or others held in trust and if they simply grab it without a judge hearing an explanation others could suffer (and probably will)
Giving HMRC this sort of power is akin to letting a kiddy loose in a sweet shop without supervision, they'll simply not be able to help themselves. Seems that putting your cash in the banks (of the UK) is a big mistake, I can see a day coming where overseas banks may become the choice of many, at least the taxman won't be able to get at them quite so easily (so long as they aren't in the EU)

So why do we pay road tax?

One of the biggest grouses drivers have is that the amount they pay in road tax is not the amount spent on roads and road improvements. Yes I know all tax simply goes into a giant pot and is doled out as needed (or often enough unneeded) by the government to support itself in the manner it wants to. So when select committees come out with stuff like telling the country that they need toll roads to help pay for infrastructue payments then I get irritated...
Express.

A Transport Select Committee report said investment needs to increase “substantially” during the next decade.
Traffic levels on motorways and A roads are predicted to rise 46 per cent by 2040.
MPs warned that revenue from fuel duty and vehicle excise duty is likely to drop, meaning road expenditure will “require new funding streams”.
One option would be continental-style toll charges on new roads or the use of tracking devices to charge vehicles for every mile they travel.

Actually the tracker thing is more down to the EU and trying desperately to find a way to pay for and use its costly and useless Galileo gps wannabe satelite system as the American one is in place and works better. As any tracking system used would most likely be the Galileo one by EU directive, guess why MP's are keen on road tracking as an option.
Thing is though with road toll's no one trusts the government to come up with a fair system, they proved that on the M25 Thames crossing at Dartford where the tolls were only supposed to be in place until the bridge was paid off. Naturally this was reneged upon and the tolls are still in place along with odd excuses that somehow or other the choke point caused by the toll booths was a traffic calming measure or that the funds raised would go into road improvements for the local county (they didn't) Currently they're busy removing the toll booths and fitting registration cameras for a pay by phone system, so, so much for the traffic calming measure...
Essentially the government won't use the revenue they raise from motorists to pay for new road infrastructure and improvements, they'd much prefer to grab more from motorists to directly fund them whilst pocketing the other cash they currently get for other things.
Then they wonder why we don't trust them with money.

This is insane

What is it with public services that they now feel the need to share out our personal data, even with the proviso that it will be anonymous? You'd think they'd know that trust in them is at an all time low because of the low standards that they have maintained in recent years. Also there's the fear that with many things they do that this is the thin end of the wedge.
BBC.

Taxpayers' personal data could be shared with private firms under plans drawn up by Revenue & Customs (HMRC).
If given the go-ahead it would allow HMRC to release anonymous tax data to third parties including companies, researchers and public bodies.
But former Conservative minister David Davis told the Guardian the plans were "borderline insane".
An HMRC spokesman said "no final decisions" had been taken, and it was committed to "confidentiality".
The newspaper reported that "charging options" were being examined by officials, suggesting that firms could pay to access the data.
But concern has been raised over the plans in the wake of the Care.data initiative - a proposed anonymous sharing of NHS medical records - which is currently suspended after fears were raised as to exactly what information would remain anonymous.

I don't think that whoever came up with this insane scheme realises what can be done and extrapolated in an electronic environment and I rather suspect that it's money making on the part of those seeking such data rather than statistical analysis. I also believe that somehow or other the headline that actual names and addresses have been  'accidentally' released will crop up sooner or later.
Simply put, whenever I see a headline that some public body wants to release private data to interested parties I want to opt out straight away, same as I did with my doctor and the 'Care Data' fiasco. What's mine is mine and whilst I have allowed those public bodies to hold it, they have no right to offer it to anyone else, simply because I can't trust them or know just exactly what it is they are selling and whether they are going to change the rules and assume consent once its given to be a permanent thing.
The answer is and always must be no!

You what?

Now this might be a joke in poor taste, but as this is a politician we're talking about, it seems a little unlikely and if so shows a grasp of reality that's seriously skewed...
Mail.

George Osborne was accused of ‘insulting’ middle-class voters last night after claiming that making them pay higher tax rates is ‘good for them’ because it makes them feel successful – and more likely to back the Tories.
Conservative MPs were stunned when the Chancellor made the explosive remark at a secret meeting at his Downing Street office, the contents of which have been leaked to The Mail on Sunday.
The disclosure came as Mr Osborne is poised to announce a Budget boost for the low-paid by raising the threshold for income tax to £10,500, while rejecting pleas to stop more middle earners being dragged into the 40p tax band.
MPs at the meeting reacted with horror when he told them: ‘Let’s not forget there are advantages in more people paying tax at 40p.
‘It means they feel they are a success and joining the aspirational classes.
'That means they are more likely to think like Conservatives and vote Conservative.
'If they are paying 40p tax they have a greater interest in cutting Government spending because they are paying for it. All the polling evidence suggests I am right.’

Now I suppose there could be some idiots out there who might regard reaching the 40% of your earnings stolen margin out there a sign of success, I meant it does mean you're getting past £40K+ .
But only a politician would think along the lines of those people welcoming having 40% of their earnings being grabbed by the government and pissed up the wall on various projects.
People might very well have an interest in cutting government spending, but only if they see the direct results of this and those results are not yet forthcoming, particularly as what they gain in the proposed tax relief is pitiful. Nor whilst those on minimum wage still pay tax are those tax cuts going to be enough.
Also a politicians idea on cutting government spending is never going to match my or others ideas on cutting government spending. I'd get rid of foreign aid, quango's fake charities, gut the NHS and others of middle managers and cape the rate at which town halls can pay an executive at that of the prime minister.
But no politician will do that in the mainstream parties, they just joke about people being glad to reach a higher tax bracket...

Tax, it's their solution to everything

Tax is the blunt instrument politicians bring to every problem, real or imagined. Tobacco, fizzy drinks, cars, party funding, you name it, sooner or later they'll want to tax it... for our own good of course...
BBC.

A sugar tax may have to be introduced to curb obesity rates, the chief medical officer for England has said.
Dame Sally Davies told a committee of MPs that unless the government was strong with food and drink manufacturers, it was unlikely they would reformulate their products.
She said she believed "research will find sugar is addictive", and that "we may need to introduce a sugar tax".
The food industry said it was working on reducing sugar in products.
Speaking to the health select committee, Dame Sally said: "We have a generation of children who, because they're overweight and their lack of activity, may well not live as long as my generation.
"They will be the first generation that live less, and that is of great concern."

Translation, we may have a problem with the slaves not living as long, answer tax their favourite foods, it won't work but it'll mean more cash for fact finding trips to the Bahamas's.
It really ought to be none of the governments business what we eat save only in hygiene regulations making sure it's safe to eat and not poisonous. Unfortunately the government is paying taxpayers cash to fake charities like Sustain (advises the government on the food and farming industry) to tell it to do something it wants to control and make it look like its impartial advice.
If the government wants to do something about health, it could drop the ridiculous amount of unnecessary courses on the national curriculum, religion, race studies, sexual studies etc and make the kids run around the non-existent sports fields they all sold off.
Exercise will do far more for kids than diet, at that stage in their lives as they can burn off all the sugar. Good diet is only really important for adults, particularly those who aren't of a sporting bent.
Still as far as the government is concerned an advisor is telling them to tax more. That's all they want to hear.

Not our problem

I had planned on blogging about Westminster wasting its time debating why holidays in school holiday periods are so high, but I figure most of you know about supply and demand even if the morons who put their name to the petition don't. What grabbed my attention though was the governments position on what happened in the Ukraine, an area that really is none of our business.
Mail.

George Osborne offered the Ukraine a blank cheque last night to turn the ravaged country around.
The Chancellor said the UK is willing to pour millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money to prop up the new government.
Speaking at a meeting of G20 finance ministers in Australia, Mr Osborne said: ‘We are here ready to help just as soon as there is someone at the end of the telephone.
'We should be there with a chequebook to help the people of Ukraine rebuild their country.’
Last night it was unclear how much cash might be provided but Britain is likely to contribute to stability funds being put together by the European Union and the International Monetary Fund.
Since the uprising on Saturday ousted the Russian-backed President Viktor Yanukovych, Ukraine no longer has access to a £9billion handout from Moscow.
Ukraine may need a bailout since it has a dire ‘CCC’ credit rating, but British taxpayers may not take kindly to assisting a country with huge natural resources including oil, whose former president spent millions on a vulgar palace while his people suffered.

The Ukraine is simply not our problem and interfering between the EU and Russia haas turned the place into a very nasty troublespot just waiting to happen. The EU has thoroughly antagonised Russia by backing the rebels when it should have kept its nose out and the ever fragrant Catherine Ashton, High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and Vice President of the Commission was clearly as ever out of her depth representing the EU in negotiations.
As it is, writing a blank cheque to what is essentially a kleptocracy led by a corrupt cabal (and yes that's what the rebel leaders are) seem like just handing money over to another set of crooks as opposed to the Russian backed crooks.
There are historical reasons for the Ukraine being split on its east/west ethnic lines with memories of the Soviet Unions abysmal record still deep in peoples minds, however the counterbalanced fascistic tendencies that grew out of this when the Soviets collapsed are not exactly a welcome addition to the EU's influence.
In short we should let them sort out their own problems and not just offer them a blank cheque.
Sadly no one seems willing to listen to common sense in the political classes, after all, it's only money isn't it?

Put your hands in your own pockets first

One of the richest landowners in the UK holding several palaces, shopping centres and other assorted properties in it's portfolio demanded that taxpayers shell out on making sure that people do not go hungry. Yes, the Church of England and its well paid bishops in their palaces are telling those of us who are less well off that we have a duty to make sure that those 'suffering' under benefits cuts do not go hungry.
BBC.

Forty-three Christian leaders, including 27 Anglican bishops, have signed a letter urging David Cameron to ensure people get enough to eat.
They argue that "cutbacks and failures" in the benefits system are forcing thousands of people to use food banks.
The End Hunger Fast campaign called the situation "truly shocking". It wants a national day of fasting on 4 April.
But the government said it wanted to help people "stand on their own two feet" by cutting welfare dependency.
The letter comes after Archbishop of Westminster Vincent Nichols, the leader of the Roman Catholic Church in England and Wales, warned last weekend that welfare reform was leaving people in "destitution" and labelled it a "disgrace".

These people are clearly big fans of the magic money tree theory of socialist thinking where they seem to be under the impression that the government can just magic up money and make sure that it gets to their favoured cause. They seem to forget that someone has to pay for this and that person is the taxpayer who are often enough struggling to make ends meet themselves without getting their rent/mortgage paid for by the state as well as health benefits. Perhaps the church ought to take a good look at their founder and copy his words to his disciples and actually get out there and heal the sick and feed the poor rather than sitting on their multi-million pound empire and telling the rest of us we have to pay for someone else's food?
Perhaps if they lived their lives in that manner it might actually be worth listening to what they say if they tell us there's a problem?

Let's see if he actually does.

One of the biggest costs to the country today is translation services both at local and national level. It literally costs millions more to print pamphlets in various languages other than English (Yes there's a case for Welsh in Wales and Scot's Gael in Scotland) There's also the cost of providing state funded translators to those who use the benefits and health systems too.
Oddly enough if you tried this in France you'd have to deal with everything in French, no exceptions, so Cameron is looking at the problem here...
Mail.

David Cameron plans to strip welfare handouts from immigrants who cannot speak English.
In a radical bid to slash Britain’s benefits bill, the Prime Minister intends to stop printing welfare paperwork in foreign languages and prevent claimants using taxpayer-funded translators at benefits offices.
The move – which would also hit British residents who cannot speak English – was due to be announced tomorrow, but has been delayed following a row with Nick Clegg.
Tories hope that axeing foreign-language versions of documents explaining how to claim benefits would make it harder for immigrants such as newly arrived Romanians and Bulgarians to cash in on the UK’s benefits system, encourage others already here to learn English – and save money spent on translators.
Referring to the controversial Channel 4 programme, one Conservative aide said: ‘The Benefits Street culture must end. Period.’

OK, it's been announced, let's see if he can carry it through, it does seem unlikely considering the Lib Dem part of the coagulation will probably oppose it along with the leftard drones of the Labour Party. After all, they see benefits for all as a right for all, not as a safety net for those who either were born here or have contributed via taxation to the system.
It should never have been the responsibility of the taxpayer to fund translators and translations, that should have been the job of those trying to use the system, you either spoke English or brought someone along (paid by yourself) to translate for you. It would also have been an incentive to learn the language of the country you were living in as well.
Anyway, this might be a start to saving millions, I have my doubts that it's anything but a media headline grab, but at least they are thinking along the right lines.

Why the government cannot be trusted with our money

No, not about expenses, but accountability, the way that many so called high level administrators and executives in public services funded by the government either at local or national level are getting way more than it would appear the job requires. Currently more than 800 Whitehall mandarins and associated Quango bosses are on over £100,000 a year, some up to £300,000, all coming from the public purse.
However that pales into insignificance when it comes to the boss of Motability a not for profit organisation funded by the taxpayer.
Mail.

The chief executive of a taxpayer-funded scheme that leases cars and scooters to the disabled earned about £850,000 in pay and perks last year.
Mike Betts, 51, received the money as boss of Motability Operations, a not-for-profit company funded by the state.
Four other senior directors at the firm also earned large sums, taking home more than £2million in total in 2012.
Motability Operations, which received £18.3million in government grants last year to cover its running costs, leases various types of vehicle to around 600,000 disabled people.
It receives their mobility allowances direct from the Department for Work and Pensions.

Yet strangely enough the people who gave taxpayers cash to Motability when the guy was appointed in 2003 are often far more critical of bankers bonuses over the years, despite most banks being private institutions and the bonuses they pay being no business of the government or anyone else but their shareholders for that matter. Now Motability is owned and ran by a private consortium of banks and as such is not publicly owned. However as its only source of income is from the taxpayer I'd say that we had the right to ask just what the hell justifies anyone with a salary in the region of £850,000 including bonuses and perks? Particularly as we're the daft sods paying for these leeches. Same with any public servant or executive whose pay depends on the taxpayer.
Personally I'm of the opinion that no organisation in receipt of public funds should be allowed to have anyone on the payroll on who earns more than the Prime Minister. After all, he runs the country (in theory, though not in practice) and therefore his pay ought to set the level of any senior position funded by the taxpayer.
No, what happened was that the political classes saw that they could help themselves to the public purse to boost their incomes to disgusting levels and were aided and abetted by politicians, civil servants and the unions. We're seeing the direct result of that avarice and it's still ongoing. The next politician to go on about corporate greed needs to be reminded of the robbing of the public purse by those supposed to be servants and representatives of the people.
This is why you should never vote for the big three, they are complicit in the system to rob us blind and give our cash to the totally undeserving.
One day, I truly believe we'll hang them all, problem is that the money they've taken will never be recouped...

Charity? More like pickpocketing!

Charity is supposed to be voluntary giving, where you choose a cause and give some of your cash towards it. At least that used to be the definition of charity in the old days before the government decided which causes your cash was going towards...
Telegraph.

A mandatory “charity” plastic bag charge which comes into force next year will rake in millions of pounds in tax for the Treasury, Telegraph discloses
Nick Clegg, the Deputy Prime Minister, unveiled Government plans to charge 5p for plastic bags from October 2015 at September’s party conference.
He justified the new plastic bag charge next year by saying it will raise money for charity and stop damage to the environment.
However ministers have now admitted that the charge will raise millions of pounds a year in VAT for the Treasury.
Dan Rogerson, the environment minister, told MPs on the Environmental Audit Committee that he expected the charge to raise £95million a year, only £70million of which will go to “charitable causes”.

Now I suspect that many people might just start taking their own bags to supermarkets, although there will be times when it isn't possible. That said giving the government £25 million in VAT because the boy Clegg wants to be a poster boy for the environment strikes me as a step too far in the usual ill thought out government scheme. Nor do I like the idea that the government deciding where the rest is to go on 'charitable' causes, mostly because their idea of a charitable cause isn't mine. They are quite likely to spunk it away to enviroloon causes and global warming prevention rather than somewhere where it might actually do some good.
Essentially we are in the realms of fake charities here where groups suckle at the governments teats for funding, some of it to do with lobbying the government to do what the government wants to do anyway, but making it appear like its a popular decision by 'the people.' You can normally spot them by the name, although some long established so called charities have gone down this route too where they are doing very well (paid directorships etc) from supposedly doing good, although a quick check of the accounts will tell you the majority of the funding goes on wages and lobbying, rather than charitable works.
This in essence is why charitable giving by many members of the public is tailing off simply because the bloody government is giving away our taxes direct from out pockets and deciding who gets our cash, rather than us deciding who if what gets it.
Unfortunately whilst we have morons like our current crop of politicians who believe they know best who should get their ill gotten gains, this will continue... at least until we hang them all.

More or less

I live in the Medway area of Kent which has a staunchly Tory run council and oddly enough some of the lowest council tax rates in the country. Granted there are some things they could do better (why the hell do we need translation services, this is England and we speak English) but by and large they are good value for money... for given values of value for money.
It however does not surprise me that some councils in the North east and Midlands are up in arms about government spending cuts...
BBC.

Councils in the North of England and the Midlands face being hardest hit by government funding cuts, a group representing local authorities says.
The Special Interest Group of Municipal Authorities says councils in the North East will lose £665 per person an average between 2010 and 2018 compared to a loss in the South East of £305.
Its estimates take into account the impact of welfare changes.
Ministers say funding is "fair" and the report was a "crude lobbying exercise".
In December, the government will tell councils in England how much money they will get next year.
SIGOMA, which has 45 members, represents many of the big urban councils in England, the vast majority Labour run.

The clue is of course in the last sentence, the councils bitching about the cuts are of course overspending Labour Councils who seem to have a real problem when it comes to giving value for money along with spending like there was no tomorrow on various things that people don't really need.
As ever expect vital services to be cut ahead of non vital to try and force a government to tip up more. Expect to see dustbin men paid off whilst diversity co-ordinators and five a day nutrition specialists remain. Schools will close, but payments to minority groups will remain despite the fact that the money isd wasted frivolously on keeping their relatives employed.
No, socialist Labour run councils have proven time and time again that they are utter spendthrifts when it comes to taxpayer and ratepayer funds and often have the highest levels of council tax in the country. If there are savings to be made, that's where they will be found, not in efficiently run low council tax boroughs.

And when they simply leave?

A lot of people like me dislike taxation, particularly taxation that ends up being spent on what we consider frivolities, translation services, quango's, fake charities, community groups, particularly those groups which benefit no one other than an insular community, politicians expenses etc. I'm not opposed to all taxes, however I'm a great believer that we should only be paying the government the bare minimum required to keep the country going, defence, infrastructure, law enforcement etc.
Unfortunately the political classes and the various faux leftards and libtards who infest them disagree with this philosophy and have the oddest set of criteria for grabbing cash from people...
Telegraph.

Nick Clegg says he wants the “super wealthy” to pay an extra £1 billion in tax to fund a cut in income tax for lower-paid workers.
The Deputy Prime Minister said he wanted the Coalition to increase the starting threshold for income tax above £10,000, cutting taxes for basic-rate workers.
His call comes as senior Conservatives debate increasing the threshold before the next election to appeal to lower-paid voters.
Mr Clegg said the tax cut would cost around £1 billion, money he said could be raised by imposing new taxes on the better-off, perhaps a “mansion tax” on expensive homes.
The Coalition has already set out plans to increase the threshold to £10,000, a policy ministers say will cut tax for more than 20 million workers.

Classic smash and grab socialism, looks brilliant to those who seem to believe that the super rich will actually hang around long enough to be taxed. As ever though the problem is that if you start penalising a group with the wherewithal to up and move, guess what they'll do? Instead of looking for ways to cut government spending, the boy Clegg (and other politicians) always reaches for the option of tax more and as ever tries to justify a tax increase by specifically targeting a group that he knows some people out there would love to see hit.
The best way to reduce taxation for all in this country, would be to take a chainsaw to government spending both national and local. Get rid of frivolous spending and remove funding for anything unnecessary to the actual running of the country, this includes removing whole swaths of middle management in the NHS, simply let nurses and doctors treat the sick and set their own priorities including getting people in to keep the wards clean. Destroy the race/discrimination industry, everyone is equal, we have laws to ensure that so stop funding 'special groups'
Make the benefits system a safety net for the unemployed, a comfort for the old and sick and a bloody uncomfortable place to be for anyone capable of working who believes that having more than three kids is a lifestyle choice if they can't pay for them.
We start by hanging the politicians and the lawyers who say we can't do this...

You don't say?

Once again the government seems to have (rather like the previous government) a flawed grasp of good housekeeping where it comes to budgetting. It like Labour appears to believe that the best and most efficient way to do anything is to tax us all to the hilt and then distribute what's left of the proceeds to various groups deemed 'worthy' by them.
Telegraph.

A scheme to “bribe” new mothers to breastfeed with shopping vouchers is flawed because there is no way to check the recipients are breastfeeding their babies, an MP has warned.
Researchers said the trial scheme is an attempt to tackle “stubbornly low” rates of breastfeeding in parts of the UK. From this week, new mothers living in parts of Yorkshire and Derbyshire will be offered £120 in vouchers for high-street chain stores such as Argos, Debenhams and Poundstretcher and supermarkets Tesco, Asda and Morrisons, if they sign forms declaring that they have breast-fed their child for six weeks, with a further £80 at six months. Researchers admitted there is nothing to stop the women who enrol in the scheme from using the vouchers to buy cigarettes or alcohol.

Gosh, researchers have found that people will behave like people when given vouchers or cash and spend them on stuff they want, rather than what the health fascists believe they should spend it on.
Bribing a woman to breast feed is probably a waste of time anyway, they'll either do it because they want to or simply not, but if you throw in a taxpayer bribe, well hey, they'll agree to breastfeed whether they actually do or not and simply pocket the cash. It's exactly this sort of government profligacy that irritates the hell out of taxpayers because it's simply not necessary, same with green taxation and family tax credits.
Just lower the bloody taxes and stop funding enviroloonies, quango's health Nazis, fake charities and give us all a break from those who hector us from the public purse!
You know it makes sense.