Monday morning on the biased BBC and Osborne meets Naughtie. The BIG point that the BBC want to hear Conservatives repeating is that they will force “the rich” to pay even more in taxes than they already do. I suppose Osborne is triangulating a bit when he says that he WILL make them pay more insofar as this can be achieved by reducing the top rate of tax a bit and thus encouraging people to reduce their efforts to avoid hanging over the fruits of their endeavours to Government but from a BBC perspective, it is clear they salivate over the very concept of soaking the rich. Maybe they should send some of their world class reporters across the channel to France to see how Hollande is getting on with his plan to achieve a similar result? Or, to save us money, just ask Estate Agents in London?
SOAK THE RICH
Bookmark the permalink.
What Osborne should have said is that he will close some of the tax loopholes used by the overpaid BBC “stars” to reduce thair tax bills. It would have been nice to hear what Naughtie had to day about that idea.
This is where we miss Craig!
I wish that someone would get an audiometer and compare Jims two voices for interview.
The one he uses for Labour is his sofa or telephone on-chilled out entertainer…indeed that is normal Laird of Labour Heartlands pitch…very Val Doonican.
But the one he used on George today was his “wee Scottish terrier”-nippy, high pitched and scaccato splutterings worthy of the wee dog the Lady keeps to chase off Laird McNasties carriage from the lodge on the edge of the estate.
Quite a difference-although both are as coherent and as challenging as Wee Scottie forever blunting his nose on the parked bus.
Desperate-can`t imagine any of bothering to tell Feedback of the clear bias..unlike Labour when Evan went for Miliband Minor.
And Osborne said nothing about the BBC not paying their proper taxes either did he?…not only desperate but useless too!
The problem that is never talked about is debt.
Namely, why the government has so much debt hidden off the books?
State pension for example isn’t on the books. Assets zero, liabilities – around the 2,500 bn mark.
They can’t pay that on taxes of 570 bn. You can’t raise taxes from the 6,000 earning a million to get that money.
So its clear what’s going to happen. The state will default on that debt. Think about it. You won’t get your state pension, even through you have paid in.
You won’t get welfare either. State pension / welfare is just a label on money the state hands out. If it can’t afford it, it can’t hand it out.
That’s a fraud on a massive scale.
So why blame those at the BBC for not handing money over to a fraudster?
Because a) the BBC has consistently over decades demanded that more and more money be spent by government and support Labour who spend money like water on all sorts of pointless and useless policies, and b) because they take the public’s money and therefore should pay their full whack of tax like most of the rest of us.
Naughtie pressed him vigorously on this point, barely able to conceal the obvious distaste he felt at having to be in the presence of a Tory minister at all. Then he dragged in Robinson to put the most negative spin he could on what the Chancellor had just been saying. But then, what should we expect from a bunch of socialists living their fat cat lifestyle on a guaranteed £4bn p.a. budget funded by the public purse?
To those of us who understand the country has been living the life of a rock star on the wages of window cleaner for far too long, all of what Osborne said made sense. However, yet again he missed the opportunity to skewer Labour and the debt they left us with – especially the £50bn a year it costs us in interest alone.
As for ‘the end of boom and bust’, the Brown mantra that helped build the biggest private debt mountain the country has ever seen (120% mortgage from Northern Rock anyone?) – that seemed to disappear down the Memory Hole yonks ago.
(120% mortgage from Northern Rock anyone?)
Not to forget the 10x income mortgages that went to some ‘self-certifiers’. Or the FT journo (on a journo’s salary) who was offered cash by his bank to buy 9 yes 9 buy-to-lets. And the poor clown who heads up the BoE doesn’t believe we had a boom.
A but you see when it comes to balancing the books a country is not like a household apparently because… because… well I’m not sure actually. Perhaps Andy Wake Up To Manny, Ellie Old Droid, Dopey Dez, Dim Jandy, or Len McCluskey (sp?) could come on here and enlighten me.
Forget about tones of voice, it would be nice to hear occasionally a BBC interviewer ask a politician how s/he justifies not hitting the benefiterati more and the taxpayers – including the “rich” – less. At least it might get the politician in question on the back foot. After all, it’s not as if the questions posed to Osborne this morning came as a surprise to Osborne, let alone the listening public.
The BBC worldview (which, by no coincidence whatsoever, mirrors that of Labour/LibDems) informing its analysis and reportage in respect of the non-“cuts”, the budget deficit and growing government borrowing is that it is self-evidently “fair” – and effective – to penalise those in private sector jobs and/or with savings and/or hard-earned private sector pensions and “unfair” to ask those in the public sector and the benefiterati, who live off the sweat of those in the private sector, to surrender some of the freebies. Accordingly, Osborne felt required to justify not imposing a “mansion” or more wide-ranging wealth tax while – in the incessant drumbeat concerning the undeserving “rich” – another apparent tax “dodge” was given publicity elsewhere on Radio 4 (the funding of treasure seeking being allowed against tax) just to keep sticking it to the “rich” and the Conservatives.
‘Rich’ person earning whose top rate taxable earnings are £100,000 @ 50% = £50,000
Very ‘rich’ person whose top rate taxable earning are £500,000 taxable @ 50% = £500,000.
Same rate very different amount. How can anyone claim they are not paying ‘more’ ?
Sorry £500,000 taxable at £50% = £250,000 !!!!
( I altered the amount from £1,000,000.)Should have checked what I typed before posting
Socialism isn’t founded on maths or facts. It is an adolescent unresolved visceral hatred of anyone who has a bigger piece of pie than you, its soooo unfair.
I’ve got a good bloody solution to helping cut the deficit real quick: cease ALL foreign aid handouts immediately – I AM SICK TO DEATH with our useless politicians giving away OUR MONEY!; cut the disgusting Westminster expenses gravy train where our scum politicians are syphoning obscene amounts of OUR MONEY from us; STOP ALL IMMIGRATION immediately and DEPORT all NHS and benefits cheats back to where they came from; DEPORT every single terrorist/terrorist-sympathizer/extremist out of this country immediately; deport every single illegal immigrant immediately; bring back the death penalty; cut the number of useless MPs by a third; leave the EU tyranny immediately… Need I go on?
Gosh…. and I thought I was having a bad morning!
All of the above, minus the death penalty. Would you want those expense stealing muppets having that decision? On their past record the EUSSR would be giving it the big ‘thumb down’ from the balcony.
You`ll not be surprised to know that the BBC quote a Nick Clegg interview from two weeks ago to give us all the impression that there`s a pillowfight within the Coalition.
Don`t remember either Liberals or Labour getting that automatic gainsaying live before Osborne has even sat down.
Funnily enough, Martha Kearney has a grumpy Liberal on the phone from Bristol to do the Beebs mouthoffing for them.
Aren`t the BBC supposed to have some rules about impartiality or balance….or am I merely to “Imagine” that one?
And in case the BBCs toadies on this site think I`m being silly-maybe they`ll tell me why Martin Jacques( Marxism Today, Hobsbawms deathbed chum…and all round Chinese apologist) gets to tell me how China is doing and its relevance to me in the 21st Century.
Why no Emily Lau or Martin Lee-who actually ARE Chinese, as opposed to recycled Marxists with a sweetheart deal with some Shanghai bankers or the like?
But what would I know?
Given that the top 1% of all earners in this country contribute around 24% of the total of Inland Revenue income tax receipts and the top 10% actually contribute over 53%, while the bottom 50% only contribute just under 12%, me’thinks that the wealthy already pay their fair share.
Unfortunately left wing politics with it’s prejudice and bigotry clearly overrides any sound financial coherence, otherwise they would recognise the contribution the wealthy actually make. Sadly left wing dogma with it’s twisted and left leaning doctrine will never be haunted by any form of financial logic.