Tax burden cut

Tax burden for wealthiest cut, while the working class taxes are highest ever hunt said he could not cut taxes when he got the job now he can for his own party who want inheritance cut

Income tax paid by the top 1% as a percentage of the total income tax paid.
Year 2000. 21.4%
Year 2020. 29.0%

Tax paid by the lowest 50%
Year 2000. 11.6%
Year 2020. 9.5%

Inheritance tax does need reform. The very wealthy have too many options to avoid it whilst the ones whose main asset is their house, which they bought out of already taxed income, pay full whack.

For the 2021/2022 tax year, it is possible for a married couple, or couple in a civil partnership, to pass on up to £1 million in inheritance without paying inheritance tax. Therefore, IHT is only really of concern to the relatively wealthy. However, it is precisely these relatively wealthy people that pay the lion’s share of the IHT collected by the government each year.
HMRC statistics show that those with estates worth between £2 million and £3 million paid an average of 20% inheritance tax in 2015-2016. Over the same year, those with estates worth in excess of £10 million paid an average of just 10%.
Then there are the cases of the mega-rich managing to avoid IHT completely. For example, when the sixth Duke of Westminster died a few years back, he handed on £8.3 billion in inheritance to his heir, without paying IHT. How did he do it? Through a trust.

typical tory isnt he . making the sick & disabled pay for his rich friends with his tax cuts & inheritance tax cuts . despicable arnt they . and with esther mcvile back on board who put thousands on disabled on the dole when she shut remploy down . it stinks to high heaven .

For him, the move has seemed inevitable since the day, four years ago, when he visited Remploy's Birkenhead textile factory, which eventually closed last year.

"For a variety of reasons, they had lost their contracts, and there were 30 or 40 people sitting there doing absolutely nothing," Matthews recalls. "They had no work to do and had not had any work for some time.

"Later, I went down the road to the Birkenhead branch of Remploy Employment Services (Res), which had not been open very long, and learned that they had placed more than 40 people in work in six months. That was quite a contrast: 40 people sitting around doing nothing in our factory against 40 people in productive jobs in the local economy. Which was the right model for supporting disabled people in the 21st century?"

Critics accuse Matthews and Remploy's senior management of having done little to win new business for the factories, which numbered 83 as recently as 2007. Twenty-nine of those were closed the following year under the Labour government – something for which Peter Hain, who was work and pensions secretary and the MP for Neath, in south Wales, continues to be vilified in some quarters.

In 2008, Matthews, a former leading NHS executive, was recruited to try to make a go of the remaining 54 factories, while developing Res, under a modernisation plan that was given £555m of government funding over five years. But the economic recession hit that same year and the rapid move to outsourcing of public-sector services meant that councils, the health service and other government bodies were placing fewer contracts with Remploy – despite exhortations by ministers, notably then prime minister Gordon Brown who was a strong supporter of the organisation.

Matthews thinks it might have been possible to save a core group of factories if he had been allowed to make further closures and refocus product lines. But the issue had become too hot a potato for Labour, which was by then dogged by vociferous protests by Remploy workers .

The coalition government commissioned a report on the future of disability employment and training from a review team led by Liz Sayce, chief executive of disability charity Radar (now Disability Rights UK) and a known critic of sheltered factories. The report recommended winding down support for segregated employment, saying that each of the 2,800 Remploy factory workers was subsidised by an average £25,000 a year that could be better spent.

Extract from here,

Remploy

and so they shud be subsidised gaffer . they are disabled & cant get other decent employment . tell us gaffer how much are the rich being "subsidised" when they get their tax cuts or inheritance tax lowered . typical tory smoke & mirrors reply . that is you to a "t" gaffer .

and i notice that you never put on your joke reply ANYTHING about mcvile throwing the disabled on the scrap heap while mcvile privitised it & the american owned company made millions on it .

When the coalition government decided to accept the Sayce report and close what was left of Remploy in 2012 (40 factories had been closed previously, the majority under a Labour government.) the responsible minister was Maria Miller. At that time Esther McVey was an ordinary MP and was yet to achieve ministerial rank.
My recollection is that most of the Remploy factories closed, a few, like Wigan, continued with Local Authority support. Three were sold to Arlington Industries, a Wythenshawe company which was American owned.Three other factories were sold as going concerns.

Whupsy

I remember being on a low wage and being stuffed with income tax at 33 pence in the pound plus national insurance, yoo on the other hand, would not have even looked at what you were paid on top, because you would still have taken home a decent amount

TTS
Remember when a third
Of your wages was taken off you,it ment you had one week's wages taken off you every month

Inheritance tax
The academic thinking around Inheritance tax is that money = power or political influence and if you keep just moving money from one family generation to the other the power will stay in the same hands..... so that is why a tax is good for the wealthy !!! and that why the wealthy are against .....

yes but it was mcvile who shut down the remploy & privitised it & the american company who bought it made millions . why have you not mentioned that gaffer ? .

read this if you can gaffer .disabled worker
A disabled worker at Remploy Bookbinding, Newcastle-under-Lyme. Photograph: Don Mcphee for the Guardian
The cuts get personal
Disability
This article is more than 11 years old
Remploy closures: an act of callous cost-cutting dressed up as progressive
This article is more than 11 years old
Les Woodward
Closing Remploy factories will not save disabled workers from 'Victorian-era segregation'. It will wreck lives
Fri 9 Mar 2012 17.30 GMT

206

The announcement of the closure of 36 Remploy factories and the privatisation/closure of a further 18 in the near future has left Remploy workers bitter and angry. Angry at the fact that whole consultation farce was a sham, and bitter because a vast swath of the disability lobby has allowed itself to be used by the government to add some sort of justification for an act that is quite patently unjustifiable.

The disability lobby says that the state-owned Remploy, which offers employment in their factories for people with disabilities, is outdated and disabled people do not want to work in such "segregated employment". Yet with the unemployment figures growing almost daily, over a million youth unemployed and 13 jobs being lost in the public sector to every one made in the private sector, the stark truth is that most working-class people with disabilities would love a chance for employment, either in a Remploy factory or anywhere else for that matter.

Remploy workers are also angry at Iain Duncan Smith, who states that there is no justification for the government subsidising "Victorian-era segregated employment". Mr Smith is about as far removed from the reality of working in Remploy in the 21st century as the very workhouse masters he refers to. The factory where I work has modern woodworking equipment, we produce high-quality furniture for the education, care home, secure unit and healthcare sectors. Our colleagues, who are all disabled and some have complex support needs, can set and operate sophisticated machinery that will machine wood and timber products to accuracies of a hundredth of a millimetre.

We cannot understand the logic of the government's arguments for closing Remploy. We wholeheartedly support the idea of integrated workplaces for people with disabilities and we have done for many years. We also, however, recognise that for some disabled people, and for many reasons, supported-employment sites like Remploy are more suitable and provide the best employment opportunities.

We also recognise that the individual is best placed to decide for themselves what employment options are best for them. People without disabilities have that choice; to close and privatise Remploy factories is depriving disabled people of that employment choice.

Disability charities, and some groups in the disability arena, see a very selfish opportunity to share in the cake of funding that the government has ringfenced to employ disabled people. They see a massive opportunity to take up some very lucrative business from the government/Department for Work and Pensions in the wake of Cameron's "big society" agenda, where the volunteer sector takes over where public services left off.

It is clear that the government is using ill-founded opinions to try and justify the unjustifiable action of closing 36 Remploy factories down quickly, and closing or privatising the remaining 18 within the next year. It is also clear to us, despite assurances by the DWP to the contrary, that the closure of Remploy factories is linked in to the cuts and austerity measures imposed on the working class to pay for the greed of the bankers and financial institutions, who got the world into this mess in the first place.

The closure of Remploy factories will mean misery, hardship and a future of worsening health and early graves for some disabled workers who will be affected. Cuts in healthcare, benefits, and a wholesale rolling back of the welfare state will have the most devastating effect on some of the most vulnerable members of society. During the last closure of Remploy factories, some union reps had the harrowing experience of having to deal with threatened suicides by those people who felt that their world had ended and life was no longer worth living.

Easy come: Easy go.

Overall cost of the United Kingdom's job retention scheme (furlow etc) £70 Billion

£37 Billion given to Dido Harding (not the NHS) for totally ineffective Test & Trace endeavour with no transparency concerning where the money went.

£4 Billion spent on useless PPE that had to be disposed of unused: purchased via contacts of politicians, and outside usual mechanism of supply.

£6 Billion lost in PPE payments over the market price.

(All figs taken from House of Commons library)

The first item , we are told that paying for the cost of this is one of the burdens that now we must bear. But the cost of misappropriations are not far behind.

Rishi Sunak, who was, then, Chancellor of Exchequer said he thought it not worth pursuing the fraudulent payments made from taxpayers' funds.

Of course not: if you need more dosh, surely it is far easier to wring even more out of the UK taxpayer, than attempt any such thing.

i believe the cut in taxes is only to keep his right wing of his party happy

and the rich more rich .

"and the rich more rich"

Hey up,,,, wiv getten Robin Hood on here now

better being like robin hood than the sheriff of nottingham eh 1stroke .

Election times a coming

Talk is of "rewarding the workers" by raising the NI threshold.

Be interesting to see what the next headline stunt will be

What do you have to say about these cunning stunts, Reverend?