Kejar ptp

Showing posts with label tax. Show all posts

Osbourne's petrol U-turn

Incredible as it my seem, the Mighty Milipede's mouthpieces are accusing chancellor George Osbourne of doing a U-turn on petrol duty!

Their bleet relates to the Consevative promise to introduce a fuel price stabiliser mechanism in their election manifesto. They accuse the government of going back on this promise.

The price of petrol has hit £1.35 a litre due to the price of crude and the increases in VAT to 20% so Osbourne - as far as I can see in an effort to keep his promise - is considering reversing Alistair Darling's increase of 1p per litre due to come in in April.

It will come as no surprise to you to know that the Milipede is not anxious to describe this 1p change as a U-turn!

The scrapping of Labour's post dated tax rise is seem as an opportunity to be shown willing to find a working system and to allow time for the mechanics of that system to be ironed out. Business Secretary Vince Cable told reporters at Westminster that while a fuel stabiliser ‘could be made to work’ it would be difficult, ‘because what is the price around which you set the ups and downs (of the oil price)?’ He added: ‘There are real technical difficulties in operating such a system.’

Mr Osborne is determined to use his Budget on March 23 to respond to public disquiet about petrol prices.

For Labour, shadow transport secretary Maria Eagle said: "The Conservative-led government is all over the place on fuel prices. Each week ministers raise expectations of action but they've still done nothing. Warm words from George Osborne about a 1p change on fuel duty are all well and good, but families are paying 3p a litre more at the pump because of the VAT rise he chose to bring in."

Here at least is one senior Labour figure who fails to remember that it is Labour's 1p it is proposed to scrap and that Labour intended to raise VAT to 19%.

People who live in glass houses, really shouldn't throw stones...

Why petrol prices are so high (2)

Nothing like a bit of scaremongering to sell newspapers...

I was horrified the other day in the supermarket to see this headline on the front page of the Daily Mail : "£70 to fill up with petrol: Families hit by yet another stealth tax and soaring oil prices."

Apparently this is due to the escalating price of oil (True - it hit a 27 month high of $98 a barrel this week) and George Osbourne's forthcoming budget increases.

This latter is patently untrue. Nobody, except perhaps the government's innermost circle, knows what's going to be in the budget. But this doesn't stop the Daily Mail. Oh, no! "Petrol retailers have written to George Osborne urging the Chancellor to abandon the next automatic ‘escalator’ rise in fuel duty in his Budget, which will see up to 5p a litre added to the cost of fuel."

At this point I would like to point out that the Fuel Price Escalator in question was actually abandoned in 1999. It is true to say that increases have been applied in sucessive budgets, but it is patently untrue to say that it is 'automatic'.

And the claim of 'up to 5p added'? Well, I take that with the same pinch of salt that I take when I look at adverts offering 'up to 50% off' because, let's be honest, bugger all is 'up to' whatever figure you want to highlight!

But this doesn't seem to matter to the Mail. "The cost of filling a saloon with a 50-litre tank will soar to about £70" Frankly, I don't think that will worry anyone who can afford a car with a 50 litre tank. I filled both my cars this week and neither of them took more than 36 litres. Still, it makes a nice soundbite.

But the thing that irritated me most about this piece of scaremongering non-news is the headline that describes this as a "stealth tax". I find it hard to understand how something that hasn't happened - much less been proposed - can be described as stealth, especially when it is trumpetted two months in advance on the front page of a national newspaper.

My conclusion must therefore be : If you want real news, then don't buy the Daily Mail on a slow news day...

"Vat's the way to do it.."

I have become very angry over the last 24 hours listening to the absolute bollocks that has been peddled by TV news (ITV and BBC for a change) about yesterday's increase in VAT.

Let's look at some of the quotes that have been shown in interviews with politicians and on the street vox pops :

"My business will suffer because the increase in VAT will leave people with less disposable income" - absolute bollocks. It will have no effect whatsoever on disposable income as it is a tax on spending not income. Nice scaremongering though.

"I'm worried about the increase in food prices." This from a student. As there is no VAT on food, the only reason I can think of for believing this - apart from the fact that he may possibly be a brian washed leftie that believes Milipede propaganda - is that a student's version of food comes across the bar or in takeaway wrappers. That's not real food, mate, so it doesn't count. Learn to cook!

"We're no going to be able to go out down the pub with our mates or eat out when we want. It's not fair!" I think that just about sums up the out of touch with reality element in this country.

"A family on £25,000 a year is going to be £396 a year worse off." Now what the fuck do you base that on? Needless to say the calculation is not explained. As VAT is on spending not income, exactly how are we able to make this comparison? Lies, damn lies and statistics...

"It hits the poorest families more than the rich." More bollocks. It's nonsensical to look at the effect on earnings as it is a tax on spending. If I earn a million quid a year and spend sod all, then there is no VAT. Ditto if I earn fifteen grand. More accurately, you should look at the effect on spending power and not income. When you do this, it actually hits the richest worst.

"Comsumer groups warn that businesses will put up prices by between 5 and 8 per cent not just the 2.5% VAT element." Well for a start the actual increase is less than 2.5% because it's on the NET figure not the figure that already includes tax. Furthermore, if this is the case, it is called PROFITEERING and that is fuck all to do with the VAT increase - it's just opportunistic greed!

Miliband says it is the wrong tax at the wrong time. He refuses at all junctures to answer the question "What would you do instead?" This is because the only viable alternative is National Insurance - and that really does hit the poorest worst because it hits their wage packets and employers' wages bills.

He also conveniently forgets that the last Labour government tried to raise VAT twice but the move was blocked by Gordon Brown. And the perpetrator of the idea was - er - Ed Miliband.

One word of common sense came from a pensioner : "We've all got to pull our horns in 'cos we've got no money. Labour spent it all. Anyway, we've managed before and we'll do it again"

That last one was on the local news. I'll bet it doesn't make the nationals...

How to solve bankers' bonuses

OK - let's cut through the bullshit...

Here's the problem : how do we solve the problem of bankers paying themselves fucking great bonuses whilst at the same time allowing them to carry on paying themselves fucking great bonuses?

Simples, init? This is how we do it :

The income tax rate at £100,000 plus is 50%

Employer's NHI contributions run at 12.8%

Corporation tax is payable on profits at 28% - which incidentally is too low!

What we do is this - we make bankers bonuses non-deductible when calculating corporation tax and subject to employers' NI whether they are paid in cash or not. This means all bonuses over £100,000 will return 90.8% to the country.

Frankly, we could put large company corporation tax back to 40% (which is where it was under Gordon), and leave small companies paying 20%. Then the taxpayer would get 102.8% - which is much more like it! So a £1m bonus would mean the recipent still gets £372,000 but the exchequer gets £1,028,000 in tax and NI.

Also this takes CT from big companies that can afford it and gives incentives to smaller companies who are stifled by it. So a boost for the economy and job creation as well...

So there you go Vince and George! Problem solved!

Got the balls to go for it?

Get real, Rowan...

Will no-one rid us of this turbulent priest?

I am well known for my views on organised religion and the Catholic Church in particular, but when I reviewed the patronising and out of touch remarks made the Archpisspot of Cunterbury in his Christmas sermon, then the words of Henry II just seemed to come echoing back to me!

So, in the interests of evening things up with the Kafliks, lets take a look at what the man in the teacloth had to say for himself :

"Faced with the hardship that quite clearly lies ahead for so many in the wake of financial crisis and public spending cuts, how far are we able to sustain a living sense of loyalty to each other, a real willingness to bear the load together?" Do what, Rowan? Exactly how much are you and your church contributing?

"We can and will as a society bear hardship if we are confident that it is being fairly shared." OK, Rowan, I'll give that one, but then you go on to say "...no interest group or pressure group is able to opt out" - well. apart from the Church of England that is.

"God, it seems, knows that whatever limitation and humiliation our human freedom lays on him, we cannot live without him; and he accepts everything for the sake of our well-being." So exactly what exactly is He doing for us - and incidentally Rowan I notice that on your website you have demoted the Allmighty to lower case 'he' which I would have thought was a little disrespectful? He is accepting what and doing what for us exactly? Please do tell, because I see no sign of it.

And please don't lecture me about how the rich need to contribute more than the poor. I have always maintained that incremental taxation already achieves this. If I earn £30,000 I pay 20% tax on it so why should I pay 40% if I earn £60,000? Why should I pay four times as much for earning twice as much. It is already grossly unfair and I don't need some guy who has a grace and favour palace in Lambeth and pays next to fuck all tax to lecture me on this subject!

And what about overseas, Rowan? Well "I remind you of our Zimbabwean friends, still suffering harassment, beatings and arrests, legal pressures and lockouts from their churches." Er, excuse me but I see you used the word 'legal' there. It's not up to you to tell other countries - or indeed our country - to go against what is legal.

And then to make it worse, you continue "Our prayers continue for Asia Bibi in Pakistan and others from minority groups who suffer from the abuse of the law." Seems you don't like the law very much do you?

How about Iraq? "It is a great grace that both Christians and Muslims in this country have joined in expressing their solidarity with this beleaguered minority." What you should be doing, Rowan, is keeping your nose out of other peoples' countries.

Henry II dealt harsely with a former Archbishop when he stuck his unwelcome nose into politics. I sincerely suggest that you need to stick to things spiritual and when I comes to politics, remember that it is not your place to comment...

Blair - The ultimate hypocrisy

I shamelessly nicked this diagram from a 2009 article in the guardian which you can read by clicking this link

In the ultimate irony, as the fat hypocrit, Lord Prescott, warns that the Labour Party is going bust, the same cannot be said of it's ex leader Blair. Believe it or not, the bugger is actually opening his own BANK.

The Financial Services Authority (FSA) has last week registered Blair's new Mayfair-based investment bank, Firerush, which could act as dealmaker in investments for the super-rich. It will contribute to his considerable fortune, which is already reported to be in excess of £20 million. Coincidentally, that's the same amount Prescott says that Labour owes. Spooky, or what?

20 bloody million... and after all the scheming hypocritical sod said about bankers and rich people avoiding tax through complex tax avoidance schemes. Pass the bloody bottle... and a large glass!

Now I'm not for a minute suggesting that Blair is doing anything illegal, but my God his moral compass is pointing in a very odd direction indeed.

Still, now he's a Catholic, I expect he'll be meeting the Pope next month - and he'll give him absolution...

The death of the speed camera

Speed cameras are dying all over the country!

Love 'em or hate 'em? There are camps who claim they are an indisputable aid to road safety; there are camps who claim they are nothing more than revenue raisers. But now they are going. Why?

Well, you can thank Gordon Brown. He saw an opportunity to put the costs of running the system on the local authorities whilst at the same time ensuring that the fines collected went straight to the exchequer. It's the same trick he worked with parking fines.

So now that budgets are being squeezed by the new government, local authorities can no longer afford to maintain the cameras. This is scandalous as nobody wins except speeding motorists.

It is not reasonable to expect council tax payers to subsidise revenue raising 'safety' machinery where there is no benefit to them. Equally, central government will not get any revenue, and so will have a hole in its finances.

It seems the great revenue raiser has become a revenue loser. R.I.P.

Bring back the Traffic Wardens

I don't know about where you live, but the parking situation in my town is beyond a joke!

We have two types of traffic enforcement here. Firstly, we have the Parking Attendants who are employed by the Borough Council. They look after the Council operated car parks and the street area designated for residents' parking only.

Secondly, we have the Police. They are responsible for parking on the public highway in restricted waiting areas, on yellow lines and the like.

So what's the problem? Well, the Parking Attendants walk between their designated areas totally unconcerned by all the cars they walk past on the way that are illegally parked. Not their responsibility. Nothing to do with them...

Meanwhile, the police are busy out doing Policey type things - you know, like patrolling their beats or doing community stuff or even, God forbid, catching crooks. So they don't have time to spend issuing parking tickets. Indeed, in my view, nor should they have!

So the result is that people here don't waste money on things like car parks when they know they can park anywhere on a yellow line and have a 99% chance of getting away with it. And if they do get the odd ticket, then it's still cheaper than paying for all those days using the car park.

I know one guy who parked in a one hour restricted parking bay for three months, often without moving his car for a long as three days at a time. Honest. Eventually a Police purge on that area resulted in a ticket. But parking a car for three months for the price of a single ticket still looks to be a good deal...

All this mind numbing nonsense has come about in order to promote yet another of New LieBore's stealth taxes. By criminalising on street parking, they made it the responsibility of the police rather than the council - and by doing this the money raised in parking fines goes to the Exchequer rather than the Council. Nice one Gordon! Drop Joe Public in the crap - it's alright as long as you get the money to squander.

To sort this out, the new Government needs to decriminalise parking, reinstigate Traffic Wardens and let the Council use the parking fines to cover the cost of the wardens. This will also release Police to do what they are supposed to be doing, penalise persistent offenders who are clogging up our towns, and make a contribution to local government funding.

So go on, Cleggeron, add this to your bonfire of LieBore laws at the earliest opportunity.

Carbon offsetting is nonsense!

I'm off on holiday again in September and I've just got the invoice through for the trip.

On it, there is an optional "Carbon Offset Charge" of £2.83 per person. So let me see if I understand this - if I pay £2.83 then the plane engines will suddenly become more efficient and will belch less environmentally damaging crap into the atmosphere?

I don't get it. Surely the engines will belch the crap out regardless, and I don't get how paying yet another tax will help.

Well, it seems I am missing the point.

Apparently, by paying this money I will be helping to fund an environmentally friendly project such as planting a tree, building a wind farm, sticking a cork up a cows arse, or the like.

Or, to put it another way, the government will take my money and piss it up the wall just like they always do. It's just yet another left over old LieBour stealth tax...

... and I ain't paying it.

VAT - what next?

VAT will go up in tomorrow's emergency budget.

Let's look at the history :

VAT was introduced in the early 1970's, replacing various sales taxes that had existed until then.
Rates were increased in Geoffrey Howe's first budget, paying for income tax reductions and attempts at budget deficit reductions (sic).

Rates were increased again in 1991 to pay for John Major's cuts in the the poll tax.

The VAT tax base was also extended in 1984 to hot take away food, and building improvements. A particularly controversial extension to domestic fuel spending was made in 1994.

Initially, the basic rate of VAT was set at 8% with a higher rate of 12.5% on luxuries, but this didn't last long and in 1979 a single rate of 15% was introduced. The current rate of 17.5% was introduced in 1991 where it has pretty much remained ever since.

I reported recently on the problems in Greece where the rates have gone from 8%/18% to 10%/21% in the last few months. Also, current EU law stipulates that the basic rate cannot be less than 15% and the lower rate not less than 5%, so we aren't much over those minima at the current rates.

Denmark, Hungary and Sweden lead the table with 25%. Only Cyprus and Luxembourg (15%) and Spain (16%) have lower rates than the UK and I wouldn't bet on Spain staying that low. In general then, most European rates are higher than ours.

My bet is on a new rate of 20% and I wouldn't bet against reintroducing the luxuries rate of 25% again either - as long as the luxuries they cover don't include the everyday basics of life.

Whatever happens, let's at least look the public straight in the face and tell them how it is. We had enough of stealth taxes from the last prat...

CGT - What's all the fuss about?

What's all this bloudy nonsense about Capital Gains Tax reform?

I'm an ex-accountant (is there such a thing?) and I have a long memory.

Before the 13 years of LieBore misrule, it was nice and easy.

You calculate your chargeable gain after taking off all your allowances and reliefs, add it to your taxable income and then work out the tax as if it was all income tax.

It's known as "top slicing". So if your top tax rate is 40%, that's the rate you pay. If you are a basic rate taxpayer and the gains tip you into the 40% band, you pay part at basic and part at higher rate. Just like you do with income tax.

It isn't difficult. It's how we used to do it. It's fair and proportionate.

So if a divvy like me can work this out, why can't George bloudy Osbourne??

NHS - The death throes of a sacred cow

"Old Sawbones" is an established consultant
surgeon with many years experience working both
inside the NHS and private practice who cares
passionately about his vocation

An insider's view by "Old Sawbones" - our man in the know inside the NHS

I admit to being an anti-establishment critic. I have written about 100 letters to broadsheets and medical journals over the past 10 years, but there has been little public reaction.

Off the record, many apparently agree with what I write, but they daren't put their head above the parapet for medico-political reasons such as conflict with their work on committees or private practice. Basically, the motivations are money, power and prestige -the self interest factor.

In it's present form, our NHS was unsustainable even before the credit crunch, but as a country in collective denial and with politicians of all shades terrified to say the unsayable, we muddle along. Cancer cure rates and other indicators of success in medical treatment are already near the bottom of the European league.

No other country has a Healthcare system funded purely from taxation alone. Our NHS is not free, and there are financial restrictions on what care we receive. Whilst emergency care remains free, dental care certainly does not, and many people still pay for prescriptions. There is a post code lottery, and "NICE" admits that it's recommendations over cancer drugs have to be influenced by the cost. Thus we don't necessarily receive the life prolonging treatments available in some other European countries.

We have been graded as low as 18th by the OECD in the European league, and while health care systems throughout Europe (and indeed the world) struggle to contain costs, the most successful ones had mixed funding. Sources include "top up" patient's private medical insurance (in some cases compulsory), "Social Insurance" paid by the employer as in France and Germany, and voluntary contributions. So, with rising costs from expensive new treatments for an ageing population, I see no alternative to some form of direct payment such as charging to see a GP - as in Eire.

Perhaps we should turn a blind eye to the European Working Time Directive, as already happens in many, mainly Southern, European countries which don't slavishly follow it in every detail. This may be politically unacceptable, but there is no reason why today's doctors cannot work a reasonable amount out of hours, as still is the case in many parts of the world.

How can doctors bear to simply shut up shop at the end of the day?

There is some truth in the aphorism that from being a vocation or profession, medicine is now just a job. It is no longer a way of life, and a privilege to practice. I fail to see why today's GPs cannot work out of hours on a reasonable rota or with acceptable cover. With regret, I suspect it may simply be that they haven't got the resilience, stamina and staying power to do so. The "new" GP contract must be rescinded. If motivation were a patient, it would surely be on its last legs!

Another controversial measure would be to allow direct patient referral to specialists as occurs in many countries world wide. Patients know or can find out with help from the internet what specialist they need to see. But the GP as the gatekeeper to secondary care has to validate this. Often this is a waste of GP time and, of course, money. Unfortunately, there are too many vested establishment interests at heart here and the BMA trade union exists to preserve them.

And then of course there is immigration with its attendant costs to the NHS, the myriads of managers and jobsworths, "health and safety", and the compensation culture to consider...

I don't see our health service surviving in the long run, it's time expired, but the public and politicians have a blind spot - and our devious deluded dissembling PM wants to "protect" it!

At last! A policy all the parties agree on...

The three main parties leaders issued a joint statement today having agreed to introduce a new 'Gravity Offset Levy" in the next Parliament

The leaders shake hands on their historic agreement
while demonstrating first hand the effects of their policy

A Bill will be introduced in the next Parliament which will prove that the UK leads the world in tackling environmental problems.

The statement said "We have complete cross party agreement to introduce a new Gravity Offset Levy which will enable the UK to reduce its gravity by 10% in real terms. Reducing our gravity in this way will have the following immediate beneficial effects :

Vehicle pollution will be reduced as everyone knows that lighter vehicles use less fuel. This will also apply to aircraft and diesel railway engines.
Lower fuel consumption also addresses the growing unrest over petrol prices
Wind turbines will spin faster as the blades will weigh less, thus improving their generating efficiency
Everyone will be fitter as less effort will be required to walk, run and lift things
Our newborn children will be less obese, as they will grow taller and thinner
Our cricket team will win more matches as they will be able to hit the ball further
Productivity will improve as everyday tasks will require less effort

And all this can be achieved with a modest per house levy of only £5,000 per annum which will be automatically added to Council Tax bills. It will enable us to half the National Debt within the lifetime of the next Parliament without us having to make any cuts in public spending."

Gordon Brown commented, "This is such an obvious new tax that I cannot believe I never thought of it before" whilst David Cameron added, "It's a fair tax as it effects everyone equally and everyone gets the same benefit."

For the Liberal Democrats, Nick Clegg added "It's not a new idea. We proposed it in our last manifesto but we are pleased the other main parties have finally adopted it."

Of course, not everyone is happy. The Green Party dismissed it as just another stealth tax masquerading as environmentalism, and Weight Watchers complained it would ruin their business.

Why petrol prices are so high

Today, petrol prices at the pump hit £1.20 a litre with a warning that it might hit £1.50 this summer.

Much has been said about the reasons for this, but here is the truth behind the main ones :

(1) Exchange rates : "The pound used to be as high as $2, but now its only $1.50" - True in it's own way, but not so long ago it was down to $1.15, so if the rate has improved, why have prices still gone up?

(2) The price of crude oil : "Brent crude is at a high of $86 a barrel" - Also true, but it used to be over $150 a barrel and prices weren't this high.

Strangely enough, one of the main contributing factors never seems to get mentioned : Tax.

In the last twelve months, Alistair Darling has added 6p a litre to your petrol bill - and that's without the extra 2p he's had to postpone until later this year in case it loses votes.

And, of course, let's not forget that there is VAT on top of those increases - so that's another penny....

A personal message from Alastair Darling

Hello everybody. My name is Alastair Darling and I just wanted to take this opportunity to talk to you about the reasoning behind my latest budget.

As you all know, there is a General election coming shortly, so naturally I cannot say anything in my Budget speech that would jeopardise the chances of Ed Balls becoming Chancellor in Gordon's next cabinet. Equally, of course, I must give Ed every opportunity to start with a clean slate by being able to use me as a scapegoat.

Unfortunately, public finances are in such a poor state that I have found myself unable to buy the numbers of your votes that I would like, but I have done my best by concentrating on the following key areas :

(1) Fuel tax

In my last budget, I announced that fuel tax would increase by 3p, When I announced this, I hoped that by the time it came into effect, you would all have forgotten the announcement and you would not notice.

Now I have decided that in order to make it look as if I am actually cutting fuel tax, I will phase in the increase more slowly, leaving most of it until after the election.

(2) Alcohol taxes

You were all expecting increases in alcohol duties, so I felt I could get away with this. In addition, I have decided that I will dramatically increase duty on cider as it has been pointed out to me that most people who drink cider are too young to vote.

(3) Inheritance tax

I was forced to do something about inheritance tax for a number of reasons :

the Tories have said they will reduce it, so naturally I have to do the opposite,
most Labour supporters do not earn enough - with the exception of Civil Servants and union leaders, obviously - to pay inheritance tax,
there is little sympathy amongst our core vote for people with lots of money, and
most importantly, dead people can't protest and don't vote

(4) More lending by banks

I have taken measures to ensure that an extra 1 million people have access to bank accounts. This means that there will be and extra 1 million customers for our banks to refuse to lend money to and that money laundering will become much easier. I believe this will be of particular benefit to those of you wishing to divert funds to our party.

(5) Income tax

I have left headline tax rates the same, but have effectively introduced a 60% rate for people earning just over £100,000. Again this only applies in the vast majority of cases to Tory voters with mansions and duck houses.

It is true that I have increased National Insurance, but this really only effects those of you who have jobs. Therefore, I have effectively taken 3 million people out of the National Insurance net altogether. We are the only party that can claim to have done that!

(6) Cost savings

I have to say that this has been an area where I really have to dig deep to find anything good to say. Naturally, any cuts to public spending will lead to large numbers of people not voting for us, so I am going to leave these for Ed's first budget after the election.

Bearing in mind we have bought large numbers of votes by employing lots of extra civil servants since we came to power and have ensured these votes were retained by awarding larger than average wage increases, you will understand that it is difficult to know what else I can do.

But I do believe I have come up with a vote winner! We will relocate 15,000 civil servants out of London, and rest assured you all will be given generous relocation allowances and will all be able to afford to buy much nicer houses. Indeed, if you follow your MPs' examples, you can even avoid paying stamp duty altogether by flipping your purchase to your partner if he/she is a first time buyer.

The only stipulation is that you must be prepared to live in marginal constituencies.

I am sure you will appreciate why these steps are essential to ensure our party's - sorry, I mean our country's - future prosperity.

Bankers of the World Unite !

So what's all this fuss about banker's bonuses? - that's what I want to know!

When the Labour government came to power in 1997, it brought to an end the 13 years of Tory misrule where Thatcherism ruled and decreed that the people of this country should be empowered to go all out to achieve their ambitions in a spirit of entrepreneurial extravagence and innovation. The party that gave us the big bang and dot com boom had gone. Boom and bust economics would be no more. Things could only get better...

So what went wrong?

Well basically we fell for the marketing hype that so predominates the 21st century. Indeed it could be argued that "New Labour" was the driving force behind the new age of packaging and presentation. Certainly spin doctors like Alastair Campbell must take at least some responsibility for this phenomenom. Unfortunately, when you look carefully beneath the appealing image of the New Labour red rose, we see that underneath the fresh red petals there are just another stemful of pricks.

Despite its protestations of equal opportunity for all, Labour has actually done nothing to stem the culture of celebrity and greed that pervades our rotten society. Indeed, it has been reported that since Tony Blair left office, he has made over 6 million quid - mainly as far as I can see simply for being Tony Blair.

From personal experience, I have seen Gordon Brown as Chancellor expend vast amounts of time and energy in introducing penal new taxes for anyone self employed in this country whilst at the same time pronouncing that he wants to encourage new business and individual initiative. Labour has a pathological hatred of anyone self employed as it sees such people as being outside of the PAYE system and therefore avoiding tax. Perhaps we should remind him that the avoidance of tax is legal, whereas it is the evation of tax that is illegal. These definitions should perhaps be bourne in mind when looking at the thorny subject of MPs expenses?

The people not hated and pursued by Labour would however seem to fall into groups that are of benefit to them. Celebrities that support their party for example. Who can forget the memorable bad taste shown by Mr Blair at his Number Ten receptions in the early days of his government? Anyone recognisable who was prepared to be seen at these events was welcomed with open arms in the hope that our new PM would be seen as inclusive, hip and happening. Some of these notable celebrities have done very well in the honours lists - you know who you are...

More worrying in my opinion was the view of one such celeb who, after attending a dinner with the PM, commented that he expected the sharpest chisel in the toolbox to be his host and was rather concerned that that didn't seem to be the case. Bet he never got a gong in the New Year's honours list!

Also noticable is the growth of the Civil Service, now the home of many former self employed consultants and contractors forced out of business by Mr Brown's taxes into the haven of so called 'proper' jobs. Local Government has also grown noticably, especially in the Labour heartlands and marginal constituencies. To be fair, many of these areas were also those neglected by the Tories, presumably for the same reason - you put the public money into the areas where people vote for your party, and to hell with the rest!

So what about the bankers then I hear you say? Well, look at it this way : they all have proper jobs and are therefore caught by the PAYE system, so no escape there then. I suspect if they were self employed, it would be a different story - but they are not. Also, if the banks didn't pay these bonuses, their profits would go up and then they would spend loads of money on lawyers and tax specialists in order to avoid paying Corporation Tax. Anyone who thinks this doesn't go on should remember the fiasco of Enron not so many years ago. I think we all accept that this money is better going to the Revenue than to fat cat accountants.

I say let them carry on with their bonuses - as long as what they get up to is closely monitored - then take it all off them again with punitive tax rates. Those of you with long memories might remember the Investment Income Surcharge introduced by another Labour Chancellor called Dennis Healey to 'squeeze the rich until the pips squeek'. Now they are resurrecting this as a 'bonus tax'. Works for me!